1-B-DTU

Roll Number and NAME

2k21/DMBA/95 and Ranjit Ganesh

Thomas says to Rajat, “I offer to sell 50 shares of Rubicon Ltd. to you for Rs. 700 a
share.” Rajat replies, “I accept the offer but I will confirm this evening.” Later in
the evening, Rajat calls up Thomas and says, “I am sorry I am not going to buy the
shares.” Thomas insists that an agreement has got formed between the parties.

Thomas is correct. Because Rajat had accepted and his confirmation in the evening
was just a formality.

Rajat is correct because his acceptance was qualified/conditional as he had said he

will confirm in the evening

Thomas is wrong because no payment has been done.

Rajat is wrong because Thomas will feel bad.

Rahul was an applicant for the post of ‘Product Manager’. The selection
committee passed a resolution appointing Rahul, but the decision was not
communicated to him. One of the members, however in his individual capacity
informed him that he has been selected for the post of ‘Product Manager’. The
selection committee later cancelled their resolution appointing Rahul. Rahul sued
for breach of contract.

Rahul will succeed as he has been selected and informed and the company is bound
by the promise.

Rahul will succeed because a selection resolution cannot be cancelled.

Rahul will not succeed because no offer was made to him and the company is not
bound by any promise.

Rahul will not succeed because Rahul has not accepted the offer.

o Nalin had placed an order for supply of merchandise on a party in Bengaluru

and was awaiting the acceptance. He got a phone call from a transporter making
enquiries regarding reaching his premises. The transporter also told Nalin that he
was being booked by the party to carry the goods. Later the party informed
Nalin that he was rejecting the offer. Nalin contends that an agreement was
reached between the parties when the transporters informed him that he was
going to be supplying the goods.

Nalin is right because after all the transporter got his number from the party.

Nalin is right because the party has not formally refused the offer which the party is
obliged to do.

Nalin is wrong because he did not listen to the transporter.

Nalin is wrong because the acceptance must come from the party to whom the offer
is made.
Mary receives an offer which mentions that the appointment is subject to her
being found medically fit by the doctor. She accepts the offer and celebrates
throughout the semester. When she goes for the medical test she is found to be
having unacceptable levels of diabetes and blood pressure. The company
revokes the appointment letter issued. Advise Mary.

Mary can sue as there is a valid contract between her and the company.

Mary cannot sue as she is having blood pressure and diabetes.

Mary can sue as diabetes and blood pressure are manageable with medicines and
cannot be a ground for rejection of her candidature.

Mary cannot sue as her contract was subject to her fulfilling the required conditions
which she failed to fulfill.

Prema is HR head in her company. The notice period stipulated in the

appointment letters issued to employees stipulated a one month notice period.
However the high attrition rate was creating problems as project schedules were
getting delayed. She wants to change the notice period to three months even for
existing employees. Advise Prema of the best option.

She can issue a circular intimating the change in notice period to 3 months.

She does not issue a circular but advises all department heads to inform their
employees about a change of notice period.

She tells the Management that there is no solution to the problem. It can only be
changed with future appointments,

She asks employees to give their consent to a change in the notice period and after
receiving the consents issues a circular.
Untitled Question

Option 1

This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy

 Forms