Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract.—When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it. —When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract.”
In a contract a breach of contract occurs when :-

Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract.—When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it. —When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract.”
Mark the incorrect statement:

Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract.—When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it. —When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract.”
The principle behind the doctrine of pari delictto is that where each party is equally at fault , the law favours the party who actually is

Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract.—When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it. —When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract.”
Which of the following is a remedy available for breach of contract:

Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract.—When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it. —When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract.”
Which of the following is the most common remedy for breach of contract.?

To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representer suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy. “Fraud” means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent1 , with intent to deceive another party thereto of his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:—
(1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;
(2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;
(3) a promise made without any intention of performing it;
(4) any other act fitted to deceive;
(5) any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent.
According to Indian contract Act ‘fraud’ means an act done by a party to the contract which is :-

To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representer suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy. “Fraud” means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent1 , with intent to deceive another party thereto of his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:—
(1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;
(2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;
(3) a promise made without any intention of performing it;
(4) any other act fitted to deceive;
(5) any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent.
To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them and a promise may be fraud if :-

To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representer suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy. “Fraud” means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent1 , with intent to deceive another party thereto of his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:—
(1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;
(2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;
(3) a promise made without any intention of performing it;
(4) any other act fitted to deceive;
(5) any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent.
According to Indian contract Act the essentials of a fraud are :-

To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representer suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy. “Fraud” means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent1 , with intent to deceive another party thereto of his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:—
(1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;
(2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;
(3) a promise made without any intention of performing it;
(4) any other act fitted to deceive;
(5) any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent.
A negligent misrepresentation i.e. not caring for the truth or falsehood of a representation may amount to :-

To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representer suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy. “Fraud” means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent1 , with intent to deceive another party thereto of his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:—
(1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;
(2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;
(3) a promise made without any intention of performing it;
(4) any other act fitted to deceive;
(5) any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent.
In Indian contract act 1872 an active concealment of fact is associated with which one of the following:-