चार्टर्ड एकाउन्टेन्सी CA (CAP I, II, III) र ACCA तयारी

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

691. Under the common law rule in Pinnel's case (affirmed in Foakes v Beer), payment of a smaller sum on the due date in satisfaction of a larger debt:

     कAlways discharges the whole debt खDischarges the debt only if paid in cash गDoes not discharge the whole debt घMakes the creditor liable for damages
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

692. In Stilk v Myrick, sailors were promised extra wages for working a ship home after two crew members deserted. The promise was unenforceable because:

     कThe captain lacked capacity खThe promise was made under coercion by the sailors गPerforming an existing contractual duty is not good consideration घThe voyage became impossible
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

693. The rule in Tweddle v Atkinson, that a person who is not a party to a contract cannot sue on it, is known as the doctrine of:

     कPromissory estoppel खFrustration गQuantum meruit घPrivity of contract
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

694. A sells his car worth Rs 15 lakh to B for Rs 2 lakh with free consent. Regarding consideration, the agreement is:

     कVoid for inadequate consideration खVoidable at A's option गIllegal घValid, because consideration need not be adequate
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

695. In Balfour v Balfour, a husband's promise to pay his wife a monthly allowance was not enforceable because:

     कDomestic agreements are presumed not to be intended to create legal relations खThe wife was a minor गThere was no written agreement घThe amount was not fixed
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

696. In Lalman Shukla v Gauri Dutt, a servant who found a missing boy without knowing of the reward announced for finding him was held:

     कEntitled to the reward as he performed the act खEntitled to half the reward गEntitled to sue for quantum meruit घNot entitled to the reward, because there can be no acceptance without knowledge of the offer
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

697. An offeror promises to keep an offer open for six weeks but receives nothing in return for this promise. Following Routledge v Grant, the offeror:

     कMust keep it open for the full six weeks खIs liable in damages if he revokes it गCan revoke it only with court permission घMay revoke the offer at any time before acceptance
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

698. In Dickinson v Dodds, the offeree learned from a reliable third party that the property had been sold to someone else. The court held that:

     कRevocation is valid only if made personally by the offeror खThe offer was effectively revoked, because the offeree knew of the withdrawal गThe offeree could still accept and sue घAn offer can never be revoked once made
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

699. For acceptances by instantaneous communication such as telex or telephone, Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation held that the contract is made:

     कWhere and when the acceptance is received by the offeror खWhere the acceptance is sent गOnly when written confirmation follows घWhen the offeree decides to accept
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

700. Under the postal rule laid down in Adams v Lindsell, an acceptance sent by post is generally complete when:

     कThe offeror reads the letter खThe letter reaches the offeror's address गThe letter of acceptance is properly posted घThe offeror replies confirming receipt
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।