चार्टर्ड एकाउन्टेन्सी CA (CAP I, II, III) र ACCA तयारी
चार्टर्ड एकाउन्टेन्सी – CA (CAP I, II, III) र ACCA
ICAN / ICAI CA & ACCA · Chartered Accountancy (ICAN, ICAI, ACCA)
३,८०२ प्रश्न उपलब्ध। मोड छान्नुहोस्:
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
-
The rule in Pinnel's Case (1602) states that:
सही उत्तर: ग) Payment of a smaller sum on the due date does not discharge a larger debt
A creditor can still claim the balance unless something new is provided, such as earlier payment at the creditor's request or a different item. Promissory estoppel may sometimes limit this rule.
💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)
-
Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd (1990) held that a promise to pay more for the same work can be enforced where the promisor obtains:
सही उत्तर: क) A practical benefit and there is no economic duress
The main contractor gained practical benefits, such as avoiding a penalty clause, from the subcontractor completing the work. This refined Stilk v Myrick for promises to pay more, but not for promises to accept less.
💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)
-
In Stilk v Myrick (1809), sailors were promised extra wages for working the ship home after two crew members deserted. The promise was unenforceable because:
सही उत्तर: क) Performing an existing contractual duty is not good consideration
The sailors had only done what they were already bound to do under their contracts. Hartley v Ponsonby differed because the sailors there went beyond their existing duty.
💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)
-
Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd (1960), in which chocolate wrappers formed part of the consideration, shows that consideration:
सही उत्तर: ख) Must be sufficient but need not be adequate
The courts will not assess whether a bargain is a good one. Something of some value in law, even worthless wrappers, can be sufficient consideration.
💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)
-
Re McArdle (1951) is authority for the rule that:
सही उत्तर: ग) Past consideration is not good consideration
Work was done on a house before the promise to pay for it, so the promise was not supported by consideration. Lampleigh v Braithwait is the main exception, where the act was done at the promisor's request.
💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)
-
The classic definition of consideration as 'some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other' comes from:
सही उत्तर: ग) Currie v Misa (1875)
Currie v Misa gave this benefit and detriment definition. Chappell v Nestle concerns the adequacy and sufficiency of consideration, not its definition.
💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)
-
Balfour v Balfour (1919) is authority for the presumption that:
सही उत्तर: ग) Domestic agreements between spouses are not intended to create legal relations
The husband's promise of a monthly allowance to his wife was a domestic arrangement without intention to create legal relations. In commercial agreements the presumption is the opposite.
💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)
-
An offeror promises to keep an offer open for 7 days but no consideration is given for that promise. Following Routledge v Grant (1828), the offeror:
सही उत्तर: ख) May revoke the offer at any time before acceptance
A promise to keep an offer open is not binding unless supported by consideration, which would create an option contract. Revocation must still be communicated before acceptance.
💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)
-
In Dickinson v Dodds (1876), it was held that an offer may be revoked:
सही उत्तर: ग) By communication through a reliable third party
The offeree learned from a reliable third party that the property had been sold to someone else. This was effective notice of revocation, so his later acceptance was too late.
💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)
-
Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation (1955) held that, for instantaneous communications such as telex, acceptance is complete:
सही उत्तर: घ) When it is received by the offeror
The postal rule does not apply to instantaneous methods; acceptance must reach the offeror. The contract is therefore formed where the acceptance is received.
💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)
यी अभ्यास प्रश्न हुन्, आधिकारिक प्रश्न होइनन्। पाठ्यक्रम, विज्ञापन र नतिजाका लागि सम्बन्धित निकायको आधिकारिक वेबसाइट हेर्नुहोस्। उत्तरमा गल्ती भेटे प्रश्नमुनिको "टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट" मा लेख्नुहोस्।
नमस्ते! पाठ्यक्रम, सामान्य ज्ञान, भाषा परीक्षा वा कुनै प्रश्नको उत्तर बुझ्न सोध्नुहोस्।
AI ले गल्ती गर्न सक्छ। महत्वपूर्ण कुरा आधिकारिक स्रोतमा जाँच्नुहोस्।