CA Foundation Exam > CA Foundation Questions > A mother owes Rs. 10,000 to her daughter. But...
Start Learning for Free
A mother owes Rs. 10,000 to her daughter. But this debt has become barred by the Limitation Act. The mother signs a written promise to pay Rs. 3,000 on account of the debt. In such a case which one is correct :
- a)There is no contract as the debt is already barred by Limitation and so it cannot be revived by as subsequent promise
- b)There is no contract because the mother has promised to give only a part of time debt
- c)This is enforceable against the mother because such a promise is valid and binding under the Indian Contract Act.
- d)None
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
| FREE This question is part of | Download PDF Attempt this Test |
Most Upvoted Answer
A mother owes Rs. 10,000 to her daughter. But this debt has become bar...
Validity of a Promise to Pay a Time-Barred Debt
Legal Background: Limitation Act and Indian Contract Act
• The Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a time limit within which a person can file a suit to recover a debt or enforce a right.
• The Indian Contract Act, 1872 governs the law of contracts in India and sets out the rules for creating, executing, and enforcing contracts.
Scenario: Mother's Debt to Daughter
• A mother owes Rs. 10,000 to her daughter, but the debt has become barred by the Limitation Act.
• The mother signs a written promise to pay Rs. 3,000 on account of the debt.
Legal Analysis: Enforceability of the Promise
• Option (a) is correct insofar as the Limitation Act bars the recovery of the entire debt, which means that the daughter cannot sue her mother for the full amount of Rs. 10,000.
• However, the Limitation Act does not prevent the parties from entering into a new contract that modifies the terms of the original debt.
• Option (b) is not entirely accurate, as a debtor can make a partial payment towards a time-barred debt, and such payment can be legally valid.
• Option (c) is also partially correct, as a promise to pay a time-barred debt can be valid and binding under certain circumstances.
• The Indian Contract Act provides that a promise to pay a time-barred debt is enforceable if it is made in writing and signed by the debtor or his agent.
• However, such a promise must be supported by fresh consideration, which means that the debtor must receive something of value in exchange for the promise.
• In this case, the mother's promise to pay Rs. 3,000 on account of the debt is legally valid only if the daughter provides some new consideration in return, such as releasing the mother from liability for the remainder of the debt.
Conclusion: Answer Choice
• The correct answer is (c), with the caveat that the promise is enforceable only if it is supported by fresh consideration.
• Therefore, the daughter should ensure that she receives something of value in exchange for accepting the mother's promise to pay Rs. 3,000, and should document the agreement in writing.
Legal Background: Limitation Act and Indian Contract Act
• The Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a time limit within which a person can file a suit to recover a debt or enforce a right.
• The Indian Contract Act, 1872 governs the law of contracts in India and sets out the rules for creating, executing, and enforcing contracts.
Scenario: Mother's Debt to Daughter
• A mother owes Rs. 10,000 to her daughter, but the debt has become barred by the Limitation Act.
• The mother signs a written promise to pay Rs. 3,000 on account of the debt.
Legal Analysis: Enforceability of the Promise
• Option (a) is correct insofar as the Limitation Act bars the recovery of the entire debt, which means that the daughter cannot sue her mother for the full amount of Rs. 10,000.
• However, the Limitation Act does not prevent the parties from entering into a new contract that modifies the terms of the original debt.
• Option (b) is not entirely accurate, as a debtor can make a partial payment towards a time-barred debt, and such payment can be legally valid.
• Option (c) is also partially correct, as a promise to pay a time-barred debt can be valid and binding under certain circumstances.
• The Indian Contract Act provides that a promise to pay a time-barred debt is enforceable if it is made in writing and signed by the debtor or his agent.
• However, such a promise must be supported by fresh consideration, which means that the debtor must receive something of value in exchange for the promise.
• In this case, the mother's promise to pay Rs. 3,000 on account of the debt is legally valid only if the daughter provides some new consideration in return, such as releasing the mother from liability for the remainder of the debt.
Conclusion: Answer Choice
• The correct answer is (c), with the caveat that the promise is enforceable only if it is supported by fresh consideration.
• Therefore, the daughter should ensure that she receives something of value in exchange for accepting the mother's promise to pay Rs. 3,000, and should document the agreement in writing.
Free Test
FREE
| Start Free Test |
Community Answer
A mother owes Rs. 10,000 to her daughter. But this debt has become bar...
Promise to pay the time barred debt is valid provided the agreement must be in written and signed , it may be to pay full or partial amount . so it is valid and enforceable by Indian contract act .
Attention CA Foundation Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CA Foundation study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CA Foundation.
|
Explore Courses for CA Foundation exam
|
|
Similar CA Foundation Doubts
Top Courses for CA FoundationView all
A mother owes Rs. 10,000 to her daughter. But this debt has become barred by the Limitation Act. The mother signs a written promise to pay Rs. 3,000 on account of the debt. In such a case which one is correct :a)There is no contract as the debt is already barred by Limitation and so it cannot be revived by as subsequent promiseb)There is no contract because the mother has promised to give only a part of time debtc)This is enforceable against the mother because such a promise is valid and binding under the Indian Contract Act.d)NoneCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
A mother owes Rs. 10,000 to her daughter. But this debt has become barred by the Limitation Act. The mother signs a written promise to pay Rs. 3,000 on account of the debt. In such a case which one is correct :a)There is no contract as the debt is already barred by Limitation and so it cannot be revived by as subsequent promiseb)There is no contract because the mother has promised to give only a part of time debtc)This is enforceable against the mother because such a promise is valid and binding under the Indian Contract Act.d)NoneCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CA Foundation 2024 is part of CA Foundation preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CA Foundation exam syllabus. Information about A mother owes Rs. 10,000 to her daughter. But this debt has become barred by the Limitation Act. The mother signs a written promise to pay Rs. 3,000 on account of the debt. In such a case which one is correct :a)There is no contract as the debt is already barred by Limitation and so it cannot be revived by as subsequent promiseb)There is no contract because the mother has promised to give only a part of time debtc)This is enforceable against the mother because such a promise is valid and binding under the Indian Contract Act.d)NoneCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CA Foundation 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for A mother owes Rs. 10,000 to her daughter. But this debt has become barred by the Limitation Act. The mother signs a written promise to pay Rs. 3,000 on account of the debt. In such a case which one is correct :a)There is no contract as the debt is already barred by Limitation and so it cannot be revived by as subsequent promiseb)There is no contract because the mother has promised to give only a part of time debtc)This is enforceable against the mother because such a promise is valid and binding under the Indian Contract Act.d)NoneCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
A mother owes Rs. 10,000 to her daughter. But this debt has become barred by the Limitation Act. The mother signs a written promise to pay Rs. 3,000 on account of the debt. In such a case which one is correct :a)There is no contract as the debt is already barred by Limitation and so it cannot be revived by as subsequent promiseb)There is no contract because the mother has promised to give only a part of time debtc)This is enforceable against the mother because such a promise is valid and binding under the Indian Contract Act.d)NoneCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CA Foundation 2024 is part of CA Foundation preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CA Foundation exam syllabus. Information about A mother owes Rs. 10,000 to her daughter. But this debt has become barred by the Limitation Act. The mother signs a written promise to pay Rs. 3,000 on account of the debt. In such a case which one is correct :a)There is no contract as the debt is already barred by Limitation and so it cannot be revived by as subsequent promiseb)There is no contract because the mother has promised to give only a part of time debtc)This is enforceable against the mother because such a promise is valid and binding under the Indian Contract Act.d)NoneCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CA Foundation 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for A mother owes Rs. 10,000 to her daughter. But this debt has become barred by the Limitation Act. The mother signs a written promise to pay Rs. 3,000 on account of the debt. In such a case which one is correct :a)There is no contract as the debt is already barred by Limitation and so it cannot be revived by as subsequent promiseb)There is no contract because the mother has promised to give only a part of time debtc)This is enforceable against the mother because such a promise is valid and binding under the Indian Contract Act.d)NoneCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for A mother owes Rs. 10,000 to her daughter. But this debt has become barred by the Limitation Act. The mother signs a written promise to pay Rs. 3,000 on account of the debt. In such a case which one is correct :a)There is no contract as the debt is already barred by Limitation and so it cannot be revived by as subsequent promiseb)There is no contract because the mother has promised to give only a part of time debtc)This is enforceable against the mother because such a promise is valid and binding under the Indian Contract Act.d)NoneCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CA Foundation.
Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CA Foundation Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of A mother owes Rs. 10,000 to her daughter. But this debt has become barred by the Limitation Act. The mother signs a written promise to pay Rs. 3,000 on account of the debt. In such a case which one is correct :a)There is no contract as the debt is already barred by Limitation and so it cannot be revived by as subsequent promiseb)There is no contract because the mother has promised to give only a part of time debtc)This is enforceable against the mother because such a promise is valid and binding under the Indian Contract Act.d)NoneCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of
A mother owes Rs. 10,000 to her daughter. But this debt has become barred by the Limitation Act. The mother signs a written promise to pay Rs. 3,000 on account of the debt. In such a case which one is correct :a)There is no contract as the debt is already barred by Limitation and so it cannot be revived by as subsequent promiseb)There is no contract because the mother has promised to give only a part of time debtc)This is enforceable against the mother because such a promise is valid and binding under the Indian Contract Act.d)NoneCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for A mother owes Rs. 10,000 to her daughter. But this debt has become barred by the Limitation Act. The mother signs a written promise to pay Rs. 3,000 on account of the debt. In such a case which one is correct :a)There is no contract as the debt is already barred by Limitation and so it cannot be revived by as subsequent promiseb)There is no contract because the mother has promised to give only a part of time debtc)This is enforceable against the mother because such a promise is valid and binding under the Indian Contract Act.d)NoneCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of A mother owes Rs. 10,000 to her daughter. But this debt has become barred by the Limitation Act. The mother signs a written promise to pay Rs. 3,000 on account of the debt. In such a case which one is correct :a)There is no contract as the debt is already barred by Limitation and so it cannot be revived by as subsequent promiseb)There is no contract because the mother has promised to give only a part of time debtc)This is enforceable against the mother because such a promise is valid and binding under the Indian Contract Act.d)NoneCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an
ample number of questions to practice A mother owes Rs. 10,000 to her daughter. But this debt has become barred by the Limitation Act. The mother signs a written promise to pay Rs. 3,000 on account of the debt. In such a case which one is correct :a)There is no contract as the debt is already barred by Limitation and so it cannot be revived by as subsequent promiseb)There is no contract because the mother has promised to give only a part of time debtc)This is enforceable against the mother because such a promise is valid and binding under the Indian Contract Act.d)NoneCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CA Foundation tests.
|
|
Explore Courses for CA Foundation exam
|
|
Suggested Free Tests
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
|
© EduRev
|
Education Revolution
|
|
Signup to see your scores
go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup