Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made.
Facts: 'A‘ sent a letter making a proposal to 'B‘ to purchase the house of B.
पर्याय
The communication of the proposal is complete when A sent the letter.
The communication of the proposal is complete when B‘s wife received it.
The communication of the proposal is complete when B‘s wife handed over the letter to B.
The communication of the proposal is complete when B reads the letter.
Advertisements
उत्तर १
The communication of the proposal is complete when B reads the letter.
Explanation:
According to Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act, The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made. The communication of an acceptance is complete.
As against the proposer, when it is put in a course of transmission to him so as to be out of the power of the acceptor;
As against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer. The reasonable conclusion is that in the present problem that the communication of the proposal is complete when B reads the letter is the correct answer.
उत्तर २
The communication of the proposal is complete when B reads the letter.
Explanation:
The communication of the proposal is complete only when B reads the paper. This is evident from the principle which states “The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made.” It means only after B reads the letter, it comes to his knowledge.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: An agreement with a boy below the age of eighteen years is not enforceable by law.
Facts: A man entered into an agreement with a girl of seventeen years of age.
Principle: A person, who is usually mad, but occasionally not mad, may make a contract when he is not mad.
Facts: 'A‘ generally remains in the state of madness and rarely becomes capable of understanding anything.
Agreement to murder a person
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by factual situations. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer.
A sent a letter to B stating that he was willing to sell to B, 10 bags of rice at ₹20/- each. B wrote a letter to A accepting the offer and posted it.
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer.
Principle: A contract without consideration is void. When at the desire of one party the other party does something, the consideration is said to flow from the latter to the former.
Facts: A's house was .on fire and a child was trapped inside the house. Everyone was shouting for help. A brave onlooker, hearing the shrieks of a child, went inside the house and brought him out. The father of the child promised to pay the rescuer Rs.10,000. Subsequently, he backtracked his promise. The rescuer sued the promise for the breach.
The question consists of legal propositions/principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principles may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true. In other words, in answering the following question, you must not rely on any principles except the principle that is given herein below for the question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest in the study of law, research aptitude, and problem-solving ability.
Principle: When an offer is accepted by a person to whom it is made, it becomes a promise. But this promise will become legally binding only when the acceptance of the offer is unconditional.
Facts: Ram makes an offer to sell his house to Shyam for ₹50 lacs. Shyam accepts this offer but wants to pay the price of the house in five quarterly installments. Ram does not agree with it. Thereafter Shyam agrees to pay the price of the house in the way as originally desired by Ram. But Ram does not reply to it. Can Shyam compel Ram to sell his house to him?
Principle: A gift comprising both existing and the future property is void as to the latter.
Facts: 'X' has a house that is owned by him. He contracted to purchase a plot of land adjacent to the said house, but the sale (of the plot of land) in his favour is yet to be completed. He makes a gift of both the properties (house and land) to 'Y'
Under the aforementioned circumstances, which of the following derivations is correct?
The following questions consist of two statements, one labelled as. 'Assertion' and the other as 'Reason'. Read both the statements carefully and answer using the codes given below.
Assertion (A): A person claims compensation for his non-gratuitous act.
Reason (R): A person who enjoys benefit from lawful, non-gratuitous acts of another must compensate him even though there is no contract.
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principle: Contract is an agreement freely entered into between the parties. But when consent to an agreement is obtained to undue influence, the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.
Factual Situation: The Pragya had been worked for a businessman Anurag since the age of 18, working for a range of Anurag's businesses. In 2000, (aged 21) Pragya purchased a flat. In 2005, Mr. Anurag's business was facing financial difficulties, and he asked Pragya to offer up her flat as a financial security against an overdraft facility for the business. In July of that year, the bank's solicitors wrote to Pragya, advising that she should take Independent legal advice before putting her property up as a security for the debt. The bank also notified Pragya that the guarantee was unlimited in both time and financial amount. Having discussed the arrangement with Anurag, Pragya was unaware of the extent of the borrowing but was assured that her mortgage would not be called upon and that his own properties which were also used as security would be looked at first. A charge was executed over the Pragya's property in August 2005. In 2009, Mr. Anurag's business went into liquidation and the bank formally demanded ` 60,24,912 from Pragya. Pragya raised the defense of undue influence – stating that Mr. Anurag had induced her to enter into the agreement, and the bank had full knowledge/notice of this undue influence which should set aside the bank's right to enforce the debt recovery against Pragya. The bank is contending that there is no undue influence.
Whether the consent to offer the flat as financial security obtained through undue influence?
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principle: Employers/Principles are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees/agents in the course of an employment agency. A servant/agent may be defined as any person employed by another to do work for him on the terms that he, the servant/agent, is to be subject to the control and directions of his employer/principal in respect of the manner in which his work is to be done.
Factual Situation: A motor car was owned by and registered and insured in the name of A (wife) but was regarded by her and her husband (B) as "our car." B used it to go to work and A for shopping at the weekends. B told A that if ever he was drunk and unfit to drive through, he would get a sober friend to drive him or else telephone her to come and fetch him. On the day in question, the husband telephoned the wife after work and told her that he was going out with friends. He visited a number of public houses and had drinks. At some stage, he realized that he was unable to drive safely and asked a friend, C, to drive. C drove them to other public houses. After the last had been visited C offered the three friends (X, Y, and Z) a lift and they got in, together with B who was in a soporific condition. C then proceeded, at his own suggestion, to drive in a direction away from the B's home to have a meal, On the way, due to C's negligent driving, an accident occurred in which both B and C were killed and the other friends got injured. X, Y, and Z brought an action against the wife both in her personal capacity and as administratrix of the husband's estate. Decide whether A is liable.
Decision:
