A, a ship-owner, contracts with B to convey him from Calcutta to Sydney in A's ship, sailing on the first of January, and B pays to A, by way deposit, one-half of his passage money. The ship does not sail on the first of January and B, after being, in consequence, detained in Calcutta for some time, and thereby put to some expense, proceeds to Sydney in another vessel, and, in consequence, arriving too late in Sydney, loses a sum of money.
A. A is liable to repay to B his deposit, with interest and the expense to which he is put by his detention in Calcutta, and the excess, if any, of the passagemoney paid for the second ship over that agreed upon the first
B. A is liable to repay to B his deposit, with interest and the expense to which he is put by his detention in Calcutta, and the excess, if any, of the sum of money which B lost by arriving in Sydney too late
C. A is liable to repay to B his deposit, with interest and the excess, if any, of the passage-money paid for the second ship over that agreed upon the first, but not the sum of money which B lost by arriving in Sydney too late
D. None of these
Answer: Option A
Indian Contract Act:- Gods displayed in showcase of a shop with price tag is -
A. Invitation to offer
B. Counteroffer
C. Communication
D. None of these
A. Is available to Y's representatives alone
B. Is available to Z alone
C. Is available to Y's representatives & Z both
D. Is available to Y's representatives & after the death of Z, his representatives
Moses v. Macferlan (1555-1774) is a case relating to
A. Theory of unjust enrichment
B. The right of lien
C. Test of agency
D. Doctrine of frustration
A. The active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact
B. A promise made without any intention of performing it
C. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is true, by one who does believe it to be true
D. None above
Join The Discussion