It can be done in 15 min.
Place 2 steaks  on the pan and fry for 5 min. Then, move one of them out of the pan and replace it with the 3rd one. Also, flip the first one, one side of which is already done. Fry for 5 min. The first steak is ready. Now flip the one remaining in the pan and put the 2nd one (which was one-side fried and kept aside) in the pan. Both of them will be ready in next 5 min.

Note: One of the following assumptions is necessary: Steak which is one-side fried  can be kept away from heat (cooled) without affecting its quality OR the one-side-fried steak is kept under heat-preserving conditions (such as in a casserole)

Assuming a 50-over match, the maximum number of deliveries a batsman can face is 49 * 5 + 6 = 251 (i.e., a batsman coming in as opener facing first ball of the innings can face all 6 balls of the first over and all except first ball of the remaining overs because strike will have to be rotated at end of over.) And theoretically, he can score a six off every fall he faces. (that’s 1506 runs, much more than the max. total number of runs ever scored in a one-day match…!)

It seems that there’s something wrong with the question. In the present condition,  I don’t see any solution possible (unless with some assumptions not specified in the puzzle). The ‘halves solution’ given by two others won’t work, as evident from the figure.

The question is faulty.

The question says: “boxes have been incorrectly labeled such that no label identifies the actual contents of the box it labels”. An ‘incorrect’ label on a box NEED NOT necessarily match any other box (e.g. Box containing apples bearing label which says ‘potatoes’, the box of oranges having label that says ‘pears’ and the box containing apples and oranges labelled ‘grapes’ , are all ‘incorrectly labeled‘, satisfying the condition mentioned in the puzzle. If this be the case, the only way you can correct the labels is by checking ALL boxes.)

This is a repeat of the ‘Orangaes & Apples’ problem. But the question is faulty.

The question says: ” all labels are wrong“. A ‘wrong’ label on a bag NEED NOT necessarily match any other bag. (e.g. A label which says ‘black balls’ on a bag containing blue rock, another label that says ‘red flowers’ on the bag with red rock and a label ‘blue rocks’ on the bag containing blue and red rocks, are all ‘wrong‘, satisfying the condition mentioned in the puzzle. If this be the case, the only way you can correct the labels is by checking ALL bags.)

It’s only the suitors who are bound by the movement restrictions, not the princess. So, a suitor can ask the princess her hand. 🙂

He has to buy: 19 Snake eggs + 4 sets (20 each) of Birds’ Eggs + 1 Echidna egg.

Calculations:

Assume that he needs to buy ‘b’ sets (20-piece) of Birds’ eggs, ‘e’ number of Echidna eggs and ‘s’ number of Snake eggs.

Cost-wise: b + e + 5s = 100 and   – (1)
Number-wise: 20b + e + s = 100  – (2)

(2) – (1)=> 19b – 4s = 0 => s = 19/4 b

Since ‘s’ can’t be a fraction, ‘b’ has to be a multiple of 4. Also, since the max,. number of snake eggs he can buy with 100 pence is 19 (provided he has to buy other eggs also), ‘b’ can’t be more than 4.

Thus, b = 4, s = 19 which leaves 1 penny with which he can buy 1 echidna egg.

It seems that something’s missing from the puzzle… Because there are a number of straight-forward answers to  the question in its present form:

1 + 3 + 11 + 15 = 30
1+ 5 + 9 + 15  = 30
3 + 5 + 7 + 15 = 30
1 + 7 + 9 + 13 = 30 etc. being a few, without repeating the numbers.  (With ‘repeat’ option, answers are plenty.)

The obvious answer- or, rather,the ‘obvious question’ – of how did the man know the crime scene without the police telling him actually has a perfectly logical and practically possible answer, which can put the police action under cloud. Consider the following scenario:

Let’s call the man Mr. John. Mrs. John had gone visiting her parents who are living in the neighbouring city. Naturally, Mr. John knows where she has gone, and which route she has / might have taken, how far she could have traveled etc. So, when he gets the call from the Police informing about the murder, he takes off on the same route and reaches the crime scene which he can identify without trouble thanks to the presence of police, cordoned off site etc. He’s perfectly innocent, having never even thought of killing his wife in the  wildest of dreams, yet ends up in custody…!

The man’s explanation – that he thought it was his room – sounds suspicious, but the statement in itself need not necessarily be a reason for raising an alarm, because the statement could be true. (Consider the situation wherein the man had gone out leaving his wife / someone else in the room. Then he needn’t have the key with him. He comes back and knocks the wrong door by mistake.) A better reason for suspicion is that after giving his ‘explanation’,he walked to the elevator (to go to a different floor, may be.) It seems less likely that he might go to the wrong floor AND wrong room. (Of course, even that is not outright impossible.)