Question

Match List-I with List-II and select the correct answer using the codes given below the lists:

List-I	List-II
(a) Mohiri Bibi Case	1. Remoteness of damage
(b) Satyabrata Ghose Case	2. Frustration of Contract
(c) Hadley v. Baxendale	3. Invitation to treat
(d) Carlill v. Carbolic	4. Minor‘s contract

• A. (a)-4, (b)-2, (c)-1, (d)-3
• B. (a)-2, (b)-3, (c)-1, (d)-4
• C. (a)-4, (b)-1, (c)-2, (d)-3
• D. (a)-1, (b)-2, (c)-3, (d)-4

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The Correct Option is (A):(a)-4, (b)-2, (c)-1, (d)-3

Answer 2

This is a case-law matching question from contract law. The quickest way to solve it is to pin down each case's core holding first, then match it to the right List-II entry.

1. (a) Mohori Bibi Case: in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose, the Privy Council held that an agreement entered into by a minor is void ab initio, since a minor is not a competent party under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act. This is the leading authority on a minor's contract, so it matches item 4.
2. (b) Satyabrata Ghose Case: in Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co., the Supreme Court explained the doctrine of frustration of contract under Section 56 of the Act, holding that a contract becomes void when performance becomes impossible due to an event the promisor had no control over. This matches item 2.
3. (c) Hadley v. Baxendale: this English case laid down the foundational test for how far a defendant is liable for losses flowing from a breach, damages that arise naturally, or that both parties could reasonably have contemplated as a probable result of the breach. This is the classic remoteness of damage case, matching item 1.
4. (d) Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.: the other three items, minor's contract, frustration, and remoteness of damage, are already accounted for by (a), (b), and (c), which leaves item 3 for (d) by elimination.

Putting the four pairs together gives (a)-4, (b)-2, (c)-1, (d)-3, which is exactly option (A).

So, the correct answer is (a)-4, (b)-2, (c)-1, (d)-3.