CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Contract Law
Ravi, an agent of Seema for selling goods, induces Tanuj to buy by making a misrepresentation that Seema had not authorised him to make. What is the effect as between Seema and Tanuj?
The contract is voidable at Tanuj's option. A misrepresentation made by an agent in the course of his business for the principal has the same effect as if the principal had made it, so the misled buyer may avoid the contract.
- AContract voidable at Tanuj's optionCorrect
- BContract valid and binding on Tanuj
- CContract void against everyone
- DContract voidable at Seema's option
Explanation
The Act's illustration on agent misrepresentation states that where an agent, selling goods, induces a buyer by a misrepresentation not authorised by the principal, the contract is voidable as between principal and buyer at the buyer's option. Tanuj, the misled party, holds the option.
Did you get it right without looking?
One question tells you little. A timed set on Contract Law shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.
More Contract Law questions
- Meera agrees to sell her white horse to Karan "for Rs 500 or Rs 1,000". Nothing indicates which price was to be paid. Which statement is cor…
- Vikram agrees to sell his car, worth Rs. 4,00,000, to Neha for Rs. 40,000. Vikram later claims the price was inadequate and that he is not b…
- Dinesh and Esha agree that Dinesh will build a house for Esha at a fixed price, with no express term on the order of performance. Which stat…
- Seema, a money-lender's debtor, owes Prakash and undertakes to repay him by delivering 10 maunds of grain on a fixed date, stipulating that …
- Sunil enters a contract with Anita believing wrongly that a statute disqualifying persons of his category from contracting had been repealed…
- Kavita owes Rohan Rs. 10,000, but the debt is now barred by the law of limitation. Which of the following by Kavita would make a fresh promi…