Match List-I with List-II List-I - (Case)List-II - (Law) (A) Hadley v. Baxendale (I) Undue Influence…
Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) laid down the rule of remoteness governing the quantum of damages now reflected in Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act (A-III); Henkel v. Pape…
Choose your answer
Match List-I with List-II
| List-I - (Case) | List-II - (Law) |
|---|---|
| (A) Hadley v. Baxendale | (I) Undue Influence |
| (B) Henkel v. Pape | (II) Coercion |
| (C) Manu Singh v. Umadat Pandey | (III) Quantum of Damages |
| (D) Chikkam Amiraju v. Seshamma | (IV) Mistake |
Answer and explanation
Correct answer D
Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) laid down the rule of remoteness governing the quantum of damages now reflected in Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act (A-III); Henkel v. Pape (1870), where a telegram for 'three' rifles was transmitted as 'the' rifles, concerns mistake (B-IV); Manu Singh v. Umadat Pandey (1890), a gift by a devotee to his spiritual guru, concerns undue influence under Section 16 (C-I); and Chikkam Amiraju v. Chikkam Seshamma (1917), where a husband threatened suicide, concerns coercion under Section 15 (D-II). The correct pairing is "(A) - (III), (B) - (IV), (C) - (I), (D) - (II)".
Practice for these exams
-
All India Bar Examination (AIBE)
Subject revision
See pack details on LawMint.net -
UGC NET Law
Subject revision
See pack details on LawMint.net -
IIT Kharagpur LL.M. Entrance
Subject revision
See pack details on LawMint.net -
CUET PG Law (LL.M.)
-
CLAT PG
Subject revision for a passage-based exam
-
AILET PG
Subject revision
-
Supreme Court Law Clerk and Research Associate
Subject revision
-
Bihar Judicial Services
Subject revision
-
Uttarakhand Judicial Services
Subject revision