T' coaches 'M', a minor, who is a student of Secondary School in Mathematics. Though there was no talk between the father of 'M' and 'T' with respect to any remuneration to be paid to 'T' yet the father of 'M' had knowledge of the coaching imparted by 'T'. After 'M' succeeded in his examination. 'T' demanded remuneration from father of 'M'. Which legal principle would govern the case at hand?
A. M' being minor, 'T' would have no claim against any service imparted to 'M'
B. Since the father of 'M' never entered into any any contract with 'T', 'T' will not have any actionable claim
C. T' would be entitled to recover from father of 'M' since father of 'M' has enjoyed the benefit of non-gratuitous act of 'T' that being coaching 'M'
D. The premise would not be covered by any legal principle under the Indian laws
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