•  Because a reasonable person would not feel afraid as a result of hearing such a threat
•  Because the defendant must be in the same place as the plaintiff for there to be an assault
• Because the plaintiff would have no reason to suppose that the defendant would follow through with the threat
• Because the plaintiff would have no reason to suppose that the defendant would follow through with the threat

• Alexa has assaulted Bella because Bella reasonably feared contact that she (Bella) would find offensive
• Alexa has not assaulted Bella because the contact that Alexa threatened would not have been regarded as offensive by a reasonable person
• Alexa has not assaulted Bella because Bella was abnormally apprehensive that Alexa would make contact with her
• Alexa has not assaulted Bella because Bella was abnormally apprehensive that Alexa would make contact with her

• Bridget’s action will succeed because it was reasonable for her to apprehend that Aaron might shoot her
• Bridget’s action will succeed if she can show that she believed Aaron might shoot her
• Bridget’s action will fail because there was no real threat
• Bridget’s action will fail because there was no real threat

The manager of waqf is known as

• Sajjadanashin

• Khadim

• Mutawalli

• Mutawalli

Principle : Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so or to provide gratuitously, and such other person takes the benifits of that; the latter is bound to compensate the former for somethind done or thing provided, or ot restore, the thing so delivered.

Facts: Trader 'A' delivers certain eatables at 'B's house by mistake. 'B' consmed the eatables without asking anything. Which of the following derivations is correct?

• 'B' is bound to pay 'A' for the eatables.

• 'B' can be made liable to pay for the eatables, only if 'A' establish as an express contract between 'A' and ''B'.

• 'B' is not bound to pay 'A' for the eatables.

• 'B' is not bound to pay 'A' for the eatables.