Site navigation

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
Select one answer
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

Related question papers

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic