The plaintiff sees defendant's son falling in a pond. He saves the child. Later on, the defendant promises to pay the plaintiff Rs. 1000 as reward. In this context, which one of the following propositions is correct?
A. The defendant's liability to pay Rs. 1000 arises under the theory of quasi-contract.
B. The defendant is not liable to pay Rs. 1000 as promised to the plaintiff
C. The defendant is liable to pay Rs. 1000 to the plaintiff as the case come under section 25 of the Contract Act
D. The defendant is liable to pay because the agreement is not "nudum pactum"
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