The mother owes Rs. 10,000 to her daughter. But the Limitation Act has barred this debt. The mother signs a written promise to pay Rs. 3,000 on account of the debt. In this case which one of the following is correct?

A) There is no contract as the debt is already barred by 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 the debt C) This is a contract because there is a natural love and affection relation and the promise is in writing and signed D) This is enforceable against the mother because such a promise is valid and binding under the Indian Contract Act

Answer & Solution

Correct Answer: Option D

Let's discuss the solution. Join the discussion

Question posted by Examveda

Community

Join the Discussion

Join the discussion

No comments yet Be the first to discuss this question.

Keep Learning

The mother owes Rs 10 000 to her daughter But the...

The mother owes Rs. 10,000 to her daughter. But the Limitation Act has barred this debt. The mother signs a written promise to pay Rs. 3,000 on account of the debt. In this case which one of the following is correct?

Join the Discussion

Related Questions on Indian Contract Act