The liability of partners of a firm is unlimited

Generally the liability of a member of a company is limited but it can be unlimited

The liability of partner of firm is same as a member of any company

All of these

revocation of authority by the agent

renunciation of agency by the principal

both (1) and (2)

neither of (1) or (2)

A particular person

A particular group or body of persons

The public at large i.e. the whole world

All of the above

the whole transaction can be ratified

ratification must be communicated to the party who is sought to be bound by the act done by the agent

ratification can be of the acts which the principal had the power to do

all of the above

bill of lading

dock-warrant

stamped acknowledgement for receipt of goods

warehouse keeper's certificate

both the parties must be under the same mistake

the mistake must be as to some fact

the fact must be essential to the agreement

all of the above

express contracts

implied contracts

quasi contracts

all of the above

open a bank account on behalf of the firm in his own name

compromise or relinquish any claim or portion of a claim by the firm against an outsider

both of the above

none of the above

where the buyer altogether waives the performance of the condition

where the buyer elects to treat the breach of condition as one of a warranty

in both of the above situations

in some other situations, but not in the above situations

dissolution by the adjudication of all the partners or of all the partners but one as insolvent

dissolution by the business of the firm becoming unlawful

both (1) and (2)

none of the above

under English law past consideration is no consideration whereas under Indian law past consideration is good consideration

under English law consideration must move from the promisee only and no other person whereas under Indian law consideration may move from the promisee or any other person

under English law formal contracts i.e. one which is one in writing do not require any consideration whereas under Indian law all contracts are required to be supported by consideration.

all of the above

The above statement is correct.

The above statement is partly correct.

The above statement is incorrect.

The above statement is irrelevant.

Yes, as he is the beneficiary of trust.

Yes but the same can only be done jointly with A.

No as C did not pay the consideration.

A and only A can enforce the agreement.

property in goods does not pass to the buyer

risk in the goods does not pass to the buyer

both (1) and (2)

none of the above

agreements entered under mistake of fact

agreements by way of wager

agreements made without consideration

all of the above

property in goods passes to the bailee at the time of contract

property in goods passes to the bailee upon the payment of the last installment

property in goods can pass to the bailee at any time after the contract

none of these

right to share of the property and profits of the firm as may be agreed upon

right to have access to and inspect and copy of the account of the firm

right to cast his vote on the question of appointment of the managing partner

(1) & (2) but not (3)

intimates to the seller that he had accepted the goods

does any act to the goods, which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller

retains the goods after the lapse of a reasonable time, without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them

either (1) or (2) or (3)

liability of a partner in a partnership firm is unlimited

liability of a member of a HUF is unlimited

both (1) and (2)

none of these

special offer

accepted offer

general offer

standing offer

implies an agreement to share losses

does not necessarily mean an agreement to share losses

must be coupled with an agreement to share losses

is same as agreement to share losses

impossible

possible through an agreement to sell

illegal

a myth

contingent contract

quasi-contract

guarantee

bailment

partially different

partially same

entirely different

same

the buyer may take delivery of them

the buyer would, under contract, be bound to take delivery of them

the seller is in a position to deliver them

all of these

C is an agent of A

C is a sub-agent of A

C is an agent of B

C is neither an agent of A nor of B

coercion

undue influence

fraud

misrepresentation

16

10

17

20

a contingent contract

a wagering contract

illegal

void

a wagering contract

a contingent contract

both (1) and (2)

not a contract at all

cannot revoke his acceptance

may revoke his acceptance at any time before the letter communicating the acceptance reaches X but not afterwards

may revoke his acceptance at any time after the letter communicating the acceptance reaches X

can revoke only after the prior approval of X

invitation to treat an offer

mere communication of information in the course of negotiation

statement of intention

offer

in case of sale

in case of bailment

in both the above cases

in no case

cross offer

general offer

standing offer

unlimited offer

which are agreed upon between the parties at the time of the contract

which are presumed by law to be present in the contract

both (1) and (2)

none of these

actually mean the same right

are actually similar rights

are consequential or sequential in nature, i.e. the end of right of lien is the starting point of the right of stoppage in transit

are rights available to any seller of goods

the property of the firm

the property of the firm, subject to a contract between the partners to this effect

the property of the firm, irrespective of a contract between the partners to this effect

the property of the firm, subject to order of the High Court to this effect

is liable for all the liabilities of the firm in person

is liable for all the liabilities of the firm through his properties

is never liable for any of the liabilities of the firm

is liable in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 30 of the Indian partnership act, 1932

Sanju is well protected because she relied on Manju in all good faith.

Sanju is well protected because Manju never specifically asked here about the above issues and so she remained silent.

Sanju has a duty to speak and disclose the above issues.

Sanju has no duty to speak and disclose the above issues. It is the duty of DDICCA and its representatives to ask whatever is required.

C is liable for the price to D, only if the element of fraudulent intention is present

C is liable for the price to D, irrespective of the fact, whether the element of fraudulent intention is present or not

C is not liable for the price to D

C is liable to D because he had not issued any public notice of his retirement from the partnership firm