Correct option is D
The correct matching of cases is as follows:
· A. Satyabrat Ghosh v. Manganeeram - Doctrine of Frustration (4)
· B. Raj Rani v. Prem Adib - Minor's Agreement (3)
· C. Entores Ltd. v. Miles for East Corporation - Communication of Acceptance (2)
· D. Harvey v. Facey - Invitation to Offer (1)
Information Booster:
· Satyabrat Ghosh v. Manganeeram (4): This case deals with the doctrine of frustration, where a contract becomes impossible to perform due to unforeseen circumstances.
· Raj Rani v. Prem Adib (3): This case involves the issue of a minor's incapacity to enter into contracts, emphasizing that agreements with minors are void.
· Entores Ltd. v. Miles for East Corporation (2): A key case on communication of acceptance, holding that acceptance must be effectively communicated to form a contract.
· Harvey v. Facey (1): This case distinguishes between an invitation to offer and an actual offer, ruling that a response to a request for information is not an offer.
