व्यावसायिक कानुन – Business & Corporate Law MCQ

व्यावसायिक कानुन: प्रश्न र उत्तर

सही लागेको विकल्पमा थिच्नुहोस्। सही भए हरियो, गलत भए रातो देखिन्छ; ३ सेकेन्डपछि सही उत्तर र व्याख्या देखिन्छ।

सही: ० / ०

371. Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham UDC (1956) established that a contract is NOT frustrated merely because:

     कPerformance has become illegal खPerformance has become more expensive or difficult than expected गA party essential to personal performance has died घThe subject matter has been destroyed
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

372. In Krell v Henry (1903), a room was hired to view a coronation procession that was then cancelled. The contract was:

     कVoidable for misrepresentation खValid, and the full rent was payable गFrustrated because its foundation had failed घVoid for mistake
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

373. Taylor v Caldwell (1863), where a music hall was destroyed by fire before the concerts, is an example of:

     कCommon mistake खFrustration due to destruction of the subject matter गMisrepresentation घAnticipatory breach
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

374. In Phillips v Brooks (1919), a rogue posing as Sir George Bullough bought a ring face to face. The contract was held to be:

     कVoid for mistake as to identity खValid and not open to challenge गVoidable for fraud, not void for mistake घFrustrated
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

375. Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864), involving two ships named 'Peerless', is an example of:

     कMutual mistake, so there was no agreement (no consensus ad idem) खAnticipatory breach गFraudulent misrepresentation घFrustration
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

376. In Couturier v Hastie (1856), the cargo of corn had already been sold and disposed of before the contract was made. The contract was:

     कVoid for common mistake as to the existence of the subject matter खValid, and the buyer had to pay गVoidable for misrepresentation घFrustrated
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

377. In which type of contract is there a positive duty to disclose all material facts (uberrimae fidei)?

     कInsurance contract खContract of employment गContract for hire of a car घSale of goods contract
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

378. In Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885), a false statement of the purpose for which money was being borrowed was held to be:

     कA misrepresentation of fact, because a person's state of mind is a fact खA mere puff गAn opinion and therefore not actionable घA statement of future intention that can never be misrepresentation
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

379. Bisset v Wilkinson (1927) held that a statement about how many sheep a farm could carry, made by a seller with no experience of sheep farming, was:

     कA fraudulent misrepresentation खA statement of opinion and not a misrepresentation गA negligent misstatement घA term of the contract
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

380. In Derry v Peek (1889), fraud was defined as a false statement made:

     कKnowingly, without belief in its truth, or recklessly whether it is true or false खOnly in writing गInnocently but carelessly घOnly by a company director
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।