Contract Of Law - 4 Free MCQ Practice Test with Solutions

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 1

Principle: If a party consent has been obtained by misrepresentation, the party to whom the misrepresentation has been made may reject the contract

Facts: J is in need of a house for immediate occupation and hence approaches S, the owner of a house. The house is in a visibly precarious condition and requires a few repairs in order to make it habitable. However, S tells J that the house is good for lodging and J signs the leases agreement with S. J then finds out the actual state of the house and seeks to reject the contract

A.
J will not succeed because it is his lookout to ensure that he is not entering into a contract that is disadvantageous for him
B.
J will succeed because S knowing that the house was required for immediate occupation, ought to have informed J as the state of the house
C.
J will succeed because J would never have signed the lease if S had mentioned that the house was inhabitable
D.
None of them

Detailed Solution for Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 1

The correct option is B.
It is clear from the principle. There was misrepresentation of facts.

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 2

Principle: A contract is an agreement enforceable by law.
Facts: X invited Y to her house for dinner. Y accepted the invitation but later did not go. On Y's failure to attend, X filed a suit against Y for the price of non-consumed food. Can this agreement be enforced by law?

A.
This agreement can be enforced as X can recover the price of non-consumed food.
B.
This agreement cannot be enforced as it is just a social agreement
C.
This agreement cannot be enforced as Y did not accept the invitation in writing.
D.
This agreement can be enforced since once accepted Y should have turned up for dinner

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 3

Principle: when one party to the contract is in such relation with the other party as to be able to dominate his/her will, and uses this superior position to obtain the other party consent to a contract, she is said to have exercise undue influence

Facts: A’s grandfather has 3 sons one of them being A’s father. A’s grandfather gifts his best properties to A. A’s two uncles sue their father i.e. A’s grandfather stating that his consent to the gift has been obtained through the exercise of undue influence.

A.
The gift is invalid because the grandson is in a position to exercise his domination based on the natural love and affection with his grandfather regards him
B.
The gift is valid because no such relation, domination or undue influence can be shown in the facts
C.
The gift is invalid because the grandfather is obliged to distribute all his properties equally between all offspring
D.
The gift valid because the grandfather has the freedom to do as he pleases with his properties

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 4

Principle: Agreement by way of wager is void and no suit lies for recovering anything won by such wager

Facts: Mr. X and Mrs. Y enter into a contract with R who is an expert in betting on horse racing. Both pay a sum of Rs. 2000 to R to bet on a particular horse. R followed the instructions and he won a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs

A.
R has to par Rs. 20 lakhs to Mr. X and Mrs. Y
B.
R can divide Rs. 20 lakhs into three parts and share it equally with Mr. X and Mrs. Y
C.
R can keep Rs. 15 lakhs and give 5 lakhs to Mr. X and Mrs. Y
D.
R need not give anything to Mr. X and Mrs. Y as this agreement is not enforceable

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 5

Principle: For a contract an offer has to be made that is accepted and there is consensus ad idem

Facts: A goes to a shop and asks the shopkeeper to deliver rice at his residence in their previous dealings of about 12 years; he had always ordered the Basmati variety of rice. The shopkeeper stores five varieties of rice. He delivers krishnakali variety. A had wanted basmati. Shopkeeper wants to enforce the contract

A.
There was offer. There was acceptance. Therefore the contract is enforceable
B.
A contract is based on the offer considerations under Section 26 of the act, one such consideration is previous dealings according to which previous dealings would form an implied understanding as to the subject
C.
There was no consensus ad idem. Therefore the contract is void
D.
Both the parties understood rice to be the subject matter of the agreement. Therefore there was consensus ad idem

Detailed Solution for Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 5

The correct answer must be C as A contract is based on the offer considerations under Section 26 of the act, one such consideration is previous dealings according to which previous dealings would form an implied understanding as to the subject, and it is clear that A has been A has been purchasing the same rice from the same shopkeeper for the past 12 years. which makes it an implied understanding which variety of rice he was talking about

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 6

Principle: Any person who has received any unjust benefit, he/she must return it to the right/owner

Facts: A and B had similar sounding names. The postman delivered a parcel meant for B at A’s residence, by mistake

A.
A can retain the parcel without informing B
B.
A can retain the parcel since it was the postman’s fault
C.
A cannot receive any unjust benefit and should return the parcel
D.
A can inform B and not return it

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 7

When the consent to an agreement is obtained by undue influence, the agreement is at the option of

A.
either of the parties to the agreement
B.
a party whose consent is obtained
C.
a party who obtained the consent
D.
none of them

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 8

Mere silence is no fraud unless

A.
the silence is deceptive
B.
there is a change in the circumstances to be brought to the notice of other party
C.
there is a duty to speak
D.
all of the above

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 9

The mother owes Rs. 10000 to her daughter. By this debt has become barred by the limitation act. The mother signs a written promise to par Rs. 3000 on account of the debt. In this case which one of the following is correct

A.
there is no contract because as the debt already barred by the limitation and so it cannot be revived by a subsequent promise
B.
there is no contract because the mother has promised to give only a part of time-barred debt
C.
this is enforceable against the mother because such a promise is valid and binding under the act
D.
none of the above

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 10

A minor estate is liable for the ………….supplied to him

A.
luxuries
B.
Necessities
C.
Necessaries
D.
all the things

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 11

Principle 1: A minor is a person who is below the age of eighteen. However, where a guardian administers the minor’s property the age of majority is twenty one.

Principle 2: A minor is not permitted by law to enter into a contract. Hence, where a minor enters into a contract with a major person, the contract is not enforceable. This effectively means that neither the minor nor the other party can make any claim on the basis of the contract.

Principle 3: In a contract with a minor, if the other party hands over any money or confers any other benefit on the minor, the same shall not be recoverable from the minor unless the other party was deceived by the minor to hand over money or any other benefit. The other party will have to show that the minor misrepresented her age, he was ignorant about the age of the minor and that he handed over the benefit on the basis of such representation.

Facts
Ajay convinces Bandita, a girl aged 18 that she would sell her land to him. Bandita’s mother Chaaru is her guardian. Nonetheless Bandita, without the permission of Chaaru, sells the land to Ajay for a total sum of rupees fifty lakh, paid in full and final settlement of the price. Chaaru challenges this transaction claiming the Bandita is a minor and hence the possession of the land shall not be given to Ajay. Thus Ajay is in a difficult situation and has no idea how to recover his money from Bandita.

Q.

Chaaru is justified in challenging the sale transaction because:

A.
Bandita is of unsound mind and is not in a position to make rational decisions.
B.
Though Bandita is eighteen year old, she will be treated as a minor, as Chaaru is her guardian.
C.
Though Bandita is eighteen year old, she cannot sell the land without the permission of her mother.
D.
Though Bandita is eighteen year old she should not be treated like a person who has attained the ageof majority.

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 12

Principle 1: A minor is a person who is below the age of eighteen. However, where a guardian administers the minor’s property the age of majority is twenty one.

Principle 2: A minor is not permitted by law to enter into a contract. Hence, where a minor enters into a contract with a major person, the contract is not enforceable. This effectively means that neither the minor nor the other party can make any claim on the basis of the contract.

Principle 3: In a contract with a minor, if the other party hands over any money or confers any other benefit on the minor, the same shall not be recoverable from the minor unless the other party was deceived by the minor to hand over money or any other benefit. The other party will have to show that the minor misrepresented her age, he was ignorant about the age of the minor and that he handed over the benefit on the basis of such representation.

Facts
Ajay convinces Bandita, a girl aged 18 that she would sell her land to him. Bandita’s mother Chaaru is her guardian. Nonetheless Bandita, without the permission of Chaaru, sells the land to Ajay for a total sum of rupees fifty lakh, paid in full and final settlement of the price. Chaaru challenges this transaction claiming the Bandita is a minor and hence the possession of the land shall not be given to Ajay. Thus Ajay is in a difficult situation and has no idea how to recover his money from Bandita.

Q.

Ajay can be allowed to recover the money only if he can show that:

A.
He was deceived by Bandita who misrepresented her age.
B.
He honestly believed that Bandita was empowered under the law to sell the land.
C.
He was an honest person who had paid the full price of the land to Bandita.
D.
Both

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 13

Principle 1: A minor is a person who is below the age of eighteen. However, where a guardian administers the minor’s property the age of majority is twenty one.

Principle 2: A minor is not permitted by law to enter into a contract. Hence, where a minor enters into a contract with a major person, the contract is not enforceable. This effectively means that neither the minor nor the other party can make any claim on the basis of the contract.

Principle 3: In a contract with a minor, if the other party hands over any money or confers any other benefit on the minor, the same shall not be recoverable from the minor unless the other party was deceived by the minor to hand over money or any other benefit. The other party will have to show that the minor misrepresented her age, he was ignorant about the age of the minor and that he handed over the benefit on the basis of such representation.

Facts
Ajay convinces Bandita, a girl aged 18 that she would sell her land to him. Bandita’s mother Chaaru is her guardian. Nonetheless Bandita, without the permission of Chaaru, sells the land to Ajay for a total sum of rupees fifty lakh, paid in full and final settlement of the price. Chaaru challenges this transaction claiming the Bandita is a minor and hence the possession of the land shall not be given to Ajay. Thus Ajay is in a difficult situation and has no idea how to recover his money from Bandita.

Q.

In order to defend the sale, Bandita will need to show that

A.
Bandita has attained the age of majority.
B.
Bandita is mature enough to make rational decisions regarding her own affairs.
C.
The sale transaction was beneficial to her interest and will enhance her financial status.
D.
None of the above.

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 14

Principle 1: A minor is a person who is below the age of eighteen. However, where a guardian administers the minor’s property the age of majority is twenty one.

Principle 2: A minor is not permitted by law to enter into a contract. Hence, where a minor enters into a contract with a major person, the contract is not enforceable. This effectively means that neither the minor nor the other party can make any claim on the basis of the contract.

Principle 3: In a contract with a minor, if the other party hands over any money or confers any other benefit on the minor, the same shall not be recoverable from the minor unless the other party was deceived by the minor to hand over money or any other benefit. The other party will have to show that the minor misrepresented her age, he was ignorant about the age of the minor and that he handed over the benefit on the basis of such representation.

Facts
Ajay convinces Bandita, a girl aged 18 that she would sell her land to him. Bandita’s mother Chaaru is her guardian. Nonetheless Bandita, without the permission of Chaaru, sells the land to Ajay for a total sum of rupees fifty lakh, paid in full and final settlement of the price. Chaaru challenges this transaction claiming the Bandita is a minor and hence the possession of the land shall not be given to Ajay. Thus Ajay is in a difficult situation and has no idea how to recover his money from Bandita.

Which of the following is correct?

A.
Ajay should be allowed to recover the money because even though there is no contract, Bandita and Chaaru should not be allowed to unjustly benefit from Ajay’s money.
B.
Ajay should not be allowed to recover because he induced Bandita, a minor, to sell the land.
C.
Ajay should be allowed the possession of the land because Chaaru can always decide to approve the transaction between Ajay and Bandita.
D.
None of the above.

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 15

Principle 1: A minor is a person who is below the age of eighteen. However, where a guardian administers the minor’s property the age of majority is twenty one.

Principle 2: A minor is not permitted by law to enter into a contract. Hence, where a minor enters into a contract with a major person, the contract is not enforceable. This effectively means that neither the minor nor the other party can make any claim on the basis of the contract.

Principle 3: In a contract with a minor, if the other party hands over any money or confers any other benefit on the minor, the same shall not be recoverable from the minor unless the other party was deceived by the minor to hand over money or any other benefit. The other party will have to show that the minor misrepresented her age, he was ignorant about the age of the minor and that he handed over the benefit on the basis of such representation.

Facts
Ajay convinces Bandita, a girl aged 18 that she would sell her land to him. Bandita’s mother Chaaru is her guardian. Nonetheless Bandita, without the permission of Chaaru, sells the land to Ajay for a total sum of rupees fifty lakh, paid in full and final settlement of the price. Chaaru challenges this transaction claiming the Bandita is a minor and hence the possession of the land shall not be given to Ajay. Thus Ajay is in a difficult situation and has no idea how to recover his money from Bandita.

Q.

Which of the following is correct?

A.
If Ajay is allowed to recover, Chaaru will benefit from both the money and the land.
B.
If Ajay is not allowed to recover that will cause him injustice as he has not paid off the entire sale price.
C.
If Ajay is allowed to recover the money, that will defeat the law framed for protecting the minors against fraudulent persons
D.
None of the above

Detailed Solution for Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 15

The correct option is C.

Direct from the principles.

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 16

Principle: A contract obtained by misrepresentation is voidable at the option of the buyer.

Facts: Anand wants to sell his house. Anupama approaches him with an offer to buy the house and Anand shows her the house. The house is not in a very good condition and visibly requires repairs, without which it is uninhabitable. Anand does not tell anything regarding the required repairs to be livable. Anupama purchases the house for a huge consideration. Later on when she wants to move in her things into the house to start living she realizes the heavy repairs that the house requires urgently.

A.
Anupama will succeed because she would never have purchased the house in case if she was told about the status of the house
B.
Anupama will succeed because Anand knowingly sold the house and he should have informed – Anupama about the condition of the house.
C.
Anupama will not succeed because she has to be careful about what he is purchasing in all circumstances, unless the defects are concealed and cannot be seen or has been hidden
D.
A buyer always has the option to refuse performance of his part of the contract.

Detailed Solution for Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 16

The correct option is C.

Because while purchasing the house it was clear that the house is not in a very good condition and visibly requires repairs, without which it is uninhabitable.

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 17

Legal Principle: Performance of a legal duty cannot be a consideration for a promise
Factual Situation: ‘A’s wallet is stolen by a thief. ‘A’ lodges a complaint in the police station. ‘A’ promises
to pay a sum of Rs. 500 to the person who is able to apprehend the thief and get back his wallet. The policeman’s servant ‘X’ apprehends the thief and gets back the wallet. ‘A’ refuses to pay ‘X’ the promised Rs. 500.

Q.

Choose the correct option:
I. The servant is entitled to the reward
II. The policeman would have been entitled to the reward had he been the person to apprehend the thief
III. The policeman would be entitled to the reward even if he had not apprehended the thief
IV. The servant would not be entitled to the reward

A.
I and III
B.
I only
C.
I, II and IV
D.
III only

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 18

Legal Principle: Performance of a legal duty cannot be a consideration for a promise
Factual Situation: ‘A’s wallet is stolen by a thief. ‘A’ lodges a complaint in the police station. ‘A’ promises
to pay a sum of Rs. 500 to the person who is able to apprehend the thief and get back his wallet. The
policeman’s servant ‘X’ apprehends the thief and gets back the wallet. ‘A’ refuses to pay ‘X’ the promised
Rs.500.

Q

A voidable contract is one which is:

A.
Not enforceable by either of the parties thereto
B.
Enforceable by either of the parties thereto
C.
Enforceable only with the permission of the court of law
D.
Enforceable at the option of one of the parties thereto

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 19

“A” promise to give money or money’s worth upon the determination or ascertainment of an uncertain event is called

A.
Lottery
B.
wager
C.
Chit
D.
bet

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 20

“A” offers to sell his car to “B” for Rs. 50,000/-. “B” agrees to buy the car offering Rs. 45,000/-. The reply of “B” amounts to:

A.
Offer
B.
Counter offer
C.
Invitation to an Offer
D.
Standing Offer

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 21

When goods are displayed in a show – window bearing price tags, it indicates:

A.
Offer to sell goods at price mentioned on the price tags
B.
An invitation to make an offer
C.
An advertisement
D.
An announcement

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 22

PRINCIPLE: Time is the essence of a contract.

FACTS: Ghoshwal Woolens Ltd. is an apparel store in the small town of Bajipur. More than half the people in the town buy clothes from this shop, since it is well known for its quality and reliability. In the month of October, Mr. Ghoshwal, proprietor of Ghoshwal Woolens Ltd., entered into a contract with Mr. Basu, who agreed to supply a thousand pieces of woolen apparel, including sweaters, caps, mufflers and gloves, to the apparel store by November end. He was given half the amount as advance. However, Mr. Basu failed to supply the woolens within the given period and instead supplied it in the month of February. Mr. Ghoshwal accepted the stock, however since he couldn’t sell any of it, he asked Mr. Basu for reimbursement for the losses suffered by him.

Q.

Is Mr. Ghoshwal entitled to compensation by Mr. Basu?

A.
Yes, since he no longer has use of the woolens, and has incurred huge losses
B.
No, Mr. Basu did supply the stock. He will not be made to pay damages
C.
Yes, since Ghoshwal’s rivals did better business than him
D.
No, Mr. Ghoshwal should have known that Mr. Basu could have defaulted and should have made alternate arrangements

Detailed Solution for Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 22

Straightway applying the principle that time is the essence of contract - Mr. Basu should have delivered the goods by November end as it was mentioned in the contract but, he was unable to do so and delivered it after winters in the month of February. From his actions Ghoshwal woolens Ltd. Suffered huge losses because they will not be able sell a good amount of woolens in the month of February so Mr. Basu have to compensate Mr. Ghoshwal.

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 23

PRINCIPLE: Express or implied consent should be given for extension of time period, by the party likely to suffer loss by the extension.

Facts: Applying the above principle to the facts of the previous question, will Mr.

Q. Basu be liable to pay compensation to Mr. Ghoshal?

A.
Yes, since Mr. Basu defaulted in his delivery of woolens
B.
No, since Mr. Ghoshwal could not sell the stock since he was a bad salesman
C.
No, since Mr. Ghoshwal had accepted the stock
D.
None of the above

Detailed Solution for Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 23

He has accepted the stock therefore he will not be liable for the compensation.

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 24

PRINCIPLE: A proposal made by one party and its acceptance by another, with the intention of establishing legal relations, is an agreement.

FACTS: Sahil goes to ‘The Great Indian Bargain’, an exhibition held in the Gymkhana grounds of Mumbai, where the producers sell their products at great discounts. Here, he comes across the window of a shop where a beautiful painting is placed along with a board which says ‘Paintings for Rs. 500’. Knowing the real value of the painting to be much more than Rs. 500, Sahil rushes inside and asks the seller to sell him the painting immediately. The seller refuses to sell him the painting. Sahil sues the seller, claiming that he had breached the contract.

Q. Which of the following is true?

A.
Sahil will succeed since the marked price of the painting was Rs. 500
B.
Sahil won’t succeed since the marked price was merely an invitation to offer
C.
Sahil will succeed since the marked price was an offer, and by agreeing to buy it, he had given his acceptance
D.
Sahil won’t succeed since he knew that the true value of the painting was worth much more

Detailed Solution for Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 24

B is the correct option. Sahil can't sue the seller since the marked price was merely an invitation to offer which is not a contract. The invitation to treat is simply a solicitation and does not qualify to be an offer as the party making it does not wish to enter into a legally binding contract without further negotiations.

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 25

Principle: When one of the parties to a contract is in such a relation with the other party as to be able to dominate his will, and uses this superior position to obtain the other party’s consent to a contract, he is said to be exercised undue influence. Such a contract is not valid.

FACTS: Vijay Jain has three sons- Amar, Bharat and Chaitanya. Only Amar and Bharat are married. Bharat has two sons and one daughter, and Amar has one son, Diwakar. On the occasion of Vijay Jain’s 75th birthday, he gifts some of his lands to his sons, and he gifts his largest piece of land, and all his farms and orchards to Diwakar. Bharat and Chaitanya sue Vijay Jain, claiming that his consent has been obtained by undue influence and hence, the transfer of property to Diwakar is void. Decide.

A.
The gift is valid since there was no undue influence
B.
The gift is void since Diwakar coerced his grandfather into giving him the lands and orchards
C.
The gift is void since all the three sons of Vijay Jain should have received an equal share
D.
Bharat’s sons and Amar’s son should receive an equal share of the property

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 26

PRINCIPLE 1: An agent has the right to hold his master’s goods in lien until his previous debts are satisfied.

PRINCIPLE 2: A lien is a right to hold chattels of a debtor as security against the debtor.

PRINCIPLE 3: When a transaction is going on, the goods should be transferred before the payment can be made.

FACTS: Inamdar is a sales agent and he specializes in paintings and other works of art. He finds out who is selling paintings and other artifacts at the lowest prices and sources them to the buyer, thus enabling the buyer to make a good deal. In this deal, he makes a profit equivalent to 5% of the sales proceeds. Mr. Vallya is interested in an ancient painting of Raja Rammohun Roy and Inamdar is aware of the same. After a few months, he informs Vallya that the said painting is available, and can be procured for a price of 15,000 pounds. Mr. Vallya agrees to the conditions and hands over the money to Inamdar. For the deal, Inamdar’s fees would be 1,000 pounds. When he demands his payment from his client, Vallya, the latter refuses to pay until the painting is handed over to him.

Q. Can Inamdar hold the painting with him till the payment is made?

A.
Yes, he is entitled to her fees and can hold the goods in lien.
B.
No, he cannot hold the item whose value is so much more than his service charges.
C.
No, he cannot hold these items because Vallya may legally demand his goods be handed over to him before paying Inamdar the service fees.
D.
None of the above.

Detailed Solution for Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 26

The correct option is C.
From the given principles it is clear.

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 27

PRINCIPLE 1: An agreement entered into with a minor is void ab initio. Any agreement entered into with a major is valid.

PRINCIPLE 2: A minor is anyone who is below 15 years of age.

PRINCIPLE 3: A contract is incomplete without consideration.

FACTS: Rebecca was born in 1997 in a small town in Karnataka. She is from an affluent family, but her parents are very strict and don’t give her enough pocket money to meet her expenses. Hence, she has to manage her income in other ways. On one occasion, she enters into an agreement with Uncle Mario, her father’s friend, to sell her old cell phone, which is perfect working condition. Mario hands over Rs. 2000 in advance as consideration for the deal.

Q. Is the contract entered into between the two valid?

A.
No, because an advance payment is not sufficient consideration
B.
Yes, because all the elements of a valid contract are present
C.
No, because Rebecca is below 18 years of age
D.
Insufficient information

Detailed Solution for Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 27

B is the correct option. The contract between the parties is perfectly valid because all the essentials of a valid contract are there. Moreover, it is not as such given that she is a minor, so, it is to be assumed that she is major.

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 28

PRINCIPLE: A partner is liable for the debts incurred by the other partners in the course of partnership.

FACTS: Aditya, Ravi and Suraj enter into a partnership to open a restaurant, Golden Harvest in Mumbai. Initially the restaurant does good business, but after a year, owing to staff shortage, the quality of food starts deteriorating. People start criticizing the restaurant and their business reduces significantly. There comes a day when they are forced to shut down their restaurant, and end their partnership. Following this, Ravi goes to Seth Karodimal to borrow some money on the pretext of re-opening his restaurant. However, he runs away with the money. Seth Karodimal sues Aditya and Suraj for the money. Decide.

A.
Aditya and Suraj are not under any obligation to pay the Seth
B.
Aditya and Suraj are not liable to pay because it was not their fault that Ravi ran off
C.
Aditya and Suraj are liable to pay the Seth since they were Ravi’s partners
D.
None of the above

Detailed Solution for Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 28

The act of borrowing money and then running away with the money did not occur in the course of partnership. Hence, Ravi is liable alone.

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 29

PRINCIPLE: Any agreement in absolute restraint of the marriage of any person is void.

FACTS: Zoya and Benazir are both married to Azhar. He dies in October 2012, reducing them both to the status of co-widows. When Azhar’s will is read out, they discover a clause which states that if either of the co-widows remarry, they would be deemed to have forfeited their claim to any property or maintenance. However, Benazir gets married in February, 2013 and claims her share of maintenance and property, from Azhar’s lawyer, claiming that any clause in restraint of marriage is void. Hence, she should be entitled to maintenance. Decide.

A.
The clause in the will is valid and Benazir is not entitled to any maintenance
B.
The clause is void, by virtue of being in restraint of marriage
C.
Zoya should be given the authority to decide whether Benazir can claim maintenance or not
D.
None of the above

Detailed Solution for Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 29

As now Benazir is married and she is not entitled to claim anything from her previous husband or maintainance from his will.

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 30

PRINCIPLE: The finder of a chattel does not acquire an absolute property right over it, but only has the title superior to everyone else, except the rightful owner.

FACTS: Varun was dining in a restaurant with his family, and when he was about to leave, he came across an envelope, full of money, lying on the floor of the restaurant. Being an honest man, he immediately handed over the envelope to the Manager of the restaurant, Tarun, so that he could return it to the rightful owner, if he came looking for it. When Varun visited the same restaurant after two months, he remembered the envelope and asked the Manager about it. Tarun said that no one had come looking for the envelope. On hearing this, Varun asked him to hand over the envelope to him, and Tarun refused. Decide, using the above principle strictly.

A.
Varun can’t claim the envelope since it is now with Tarun
B.
Varun has a rightful claim since he is the finder
C.
Tarun and Varun should split the money equally between themselves
D.
The envelope belongs to the owner of the restaurant since it was found on his property

Detailed Solution for Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - Question 30

varun is the finder of the envelope, no matter on whose property it was found. Tarun has absolutely no right over the money.

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - CLAT MCQ

30 Questions MCQ Test - Test: Contract Of Law - 4

Principle: A contract is an agreement enforceable by law.
Facts: X invited Y to her house for dinner. Y accepted the invitation but later did not go. On Y's failure to attend, X filed a suit against Y for the price of non-consumed food. Can this agreement be enforced by law?

Top Courses for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

Schools

Competitive Examinations

Quick Access Links

Technical Exams

Important Questions for Contract Of Law - 4

Contract Of Law - 4 MCQs with Answers

Online Tests for Contract Of Law - 4

Test: Contract Of Law - 4 - CLAT MCQ

30 Questions MCQ Test - Test: Contract Of Law - 4

Principle: A contract is an agreement enforceable by law. Facts: X invited Y to her house for dinner. Y accepted the invitation but later did not go. On Y's failure to attend, X filed a suit against Y for the price of non-consumed food. Can this agreement be enforced by law?

Top Courses for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

Important Questions for Contract Of Law - 4

Contract Of Law - 4 MCQs with Answers

Online Tests for Contract Of Law - 4

Principle: A contract is an agreement enforceable by law.
Facts: X invited Y to her house for dinner. Y accepted the invitation but later did not go. On Y's failure to attend, X filed a suit against Y for the price of non-consumed food. Can this agreement be enforced by law?