चार्टर्ड एकाउन्टेन्सी (CA, ACCA)

CA / ACCA: प्रश्न र उत्तर

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

सही: ० / ०

3371. 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।

3372. 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।

3373. 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।

3374. Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a contract whose consent was obtained by coercion is:

      कValid and fully enforceable खIllegal गVoid from the beginning घVoidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused
      💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

      छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

      पठाउनुहोस्

      टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

3375. Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a wagering agreement is:

      कIllegal and punishable as a crime in every case खVoid गValid and enforceable घVoidable at the option of the loser
      💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

      छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

      पठाउनुहोस्

      टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

3376. Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a person who supplies necessaries suited to the condition in life of a minor is entitled to:

      कNothing, as agreements with minors are void खSue the minor personally for the full price गRecover from the minor's parents in every case घBe reimbursed from the minor's property
      💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

      छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

      पठाउनुहोस्

      टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

3377. In Lalman Shukla v Gauri Dutt (1913), the servant who traced the missing boy without knowing of the reward could not claim it because:

      कRewards are never legally enforceable खHe was a minor गThe offer had lapsed by time घThere can be no acceptance without knowledge of the offer
      💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

      छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

      पठाउनुहोस्

      टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

3378. Under Indian contract law, as illustrated by Chinnaya v Ramayya, consideration:

      कMay move from the promisee or any other person खMust always move from the promisee गMust always be in money घMust be adequate to the promise
      💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

      छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

      पठाउनुहोस्

      टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

3379. Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) illustrates the doctrine of:

      कUndue influence खFrustration गPromissory estoppel घPrivity of contract
      💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

      छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

      पठाउनुहोस्

      टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

3380. Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd (1947) is the leading English case on:

      कPrivity of contract खRemoteness of damage गFrustration of contract घPromissory estoppel
      💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

      छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

      पठाउनुहोस्

      टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।