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: Option D
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