0 votes
in Legal Studies by (72.3k points)

Choose the correct answer from the alternatives given.
D P Tyre Co. Ltd sold tyres to a dealer S, who sold those to D, a sub-dealer on the condition that those tyres would not be sold at a price lower than the list price fixed by D P Tyre Co. Ltd. and if the tyre were sold at a price lower than the list price, a penalty of  2 for every tyre sold below the list price would be recovered as damages. D sold five tyres below the list price. D P Tyre Co. Ltd filed a suit against S. Is D P Tyre Co. Ltd entitled to maintain the suit?
A

No since D P Tyre Co. Ltd was not a party to the contract


B

No since only 5 tyres are involved and the amount is insignificant


C

Yes as D P Tyre Co. Ltd is the producer of the tyres


D

Yes as D P Tyre Co. Ltd sold the tyres to S who in turn sold to D

Approved answer
Correct option is A)

A is the correct option.The court held in a consistent choice that D P Tyre couldn't guarantee for harms in the conditions. The court found that right off the bat, just involved with an agreement can guarantee upon it. Besides, D P Tyre had not given any consideration to S and in this way there could be no coupling agreement between the gatherings. 

In conclusion, D P Tyre was not recorded as an operator inside the agreement and could consequently not be incorporated as a substantial outsider who had rights to guarantee on the agreement.

1 Answer

0 votes
by (72.3k points)
 
Best answer

Choose the correct answer from the alternatives given.
D P Tyre Co. Ltd sold tyres to a dealer S, who sold those to D, a sub-dealer on the condition that those tyres would not be sold at a price lower than the list price fixed by D P Tyre Co. Ltd. and if the tyre were sold at a price lower than the list price, a penalty of  2 for every tyre sold below the list price would be recovered as damages. D sold five tyres below the list price. D P Tyre Co. Ltd filed a suit against S. Is D P Tyre Co. Ltd entitled to maintain the suit?
A

No since D P Tyre Co. Ltd was not a party to the contract


B

No since only 5 tyres are involved and the amount is insignificant


C

Yes as D P Tyre Co. Ltd is the producer of the tyres


D

Yes as D P Tyre Co. Ltd sold the tyres to S who in turn sold to D

Approved answer
Correct option is A)

A is the correct option.The court held in a consistent choice that D P Tyre couldn't guarantee for harms in the conditions. The court found that right off the bat, just involved with an agreement can guarantee upon it. Besides, D P Tyre had not given any consideration to S and in this way there could be no coupling agreement between the gatherings. 

In conclusion, D P Tyre was not recorded as an operator inside the agreement and could consequently not be incorporated as a substantial outsider who had rights to guarantee on the agreement.

Related questions

...