J, a usual customer of B, orders certain goods on the day on which B transfers his business to the plaintiff. The plaintiff accepts the order and supplies the goods. Thereupon, J refuses to pay alleging that he has intended to contract only with B since he is having a set off against him. J
A. Has no liability to pay the price because he has never intended to contract with the plaintiff
B. Is liable to pay as he has already been supplied in response to his order
C. Is liable to pay because the plaintiff has supplied the goods as the agent of B
D. Is liable to pay because he can claim reimbursement from B
Answer: Option C
This Question Belongs to Law >> Indian Contract Act
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