An authority given by two or more principals can be terminated
A. By notice of revocation or renunciation given by or to all the principals
B. By notice of revocation or renunciation given by or to anyone of the principals
C. By notice of revocation or renunciation given by or to both the principals if there are only two principals
D. None of the above
Answer: Option A
Solution (By Examveda Team)
First, let's define the key term: Authority, in the context of the Indian Contract Act, refers to the power or right granted by a principal to an agent to act on their behalf. This authority can be given by one or more principals.The question pertains to the termination of an authority granted by *two or more* principals. This is a joint authority.
Correct Answer: Option A
An authority given by two or more principals can only be terminated by the notice of revocation or renunciation given by or to *all* the principals. This is because the authority is jointly granted, and therefore requires the unanimous consent of all grantors (principals) for its termination. A single principal cannot unilaterally revoke the authority.
Why other options are incorrect:
Option B: This is incorrect because, as explained above, a joint authority requires the consent of all principals for termination. One principal’s action cannot terminate the authority.
Option C: This option is too restrictive. While it might apply to a scenario with only two principals, it doesn't cover situations with three or more principals. The principle of unanimous consent must hold regardless of the number of principals.
Option D: This is clearly incorrect as Option A provides the correct answer.
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