CLAThacker

don't just crack CLAT, come hack CLAT with us.

legal reasoning doubts - get your doubt resolved on this thread

the following questions have been asked by Tanmayee Sahoo...see if any of you can answer these questions.

1.  subodh and manjeet hav been friends for long time .Manjeet, Who resides abroad ,comes down to see sobodh and the two agree to get married .just before the ceremony
Manjeet discover that  subodh suffers from EPILEPSY .she seeks to avoid
the contract on the basis of fraud.

PRINCIPLE
:-a person actively conceals a fact having knowledge of the fact ,with the intation to deceive or to induce a
person to enter into a contract is said to hav committed FRAUD.

(i)subodh has committed Fraud because he has not informe Manjeet of a material fact.
(ii)Subodh has committed fraud -manjeet being his friend and trusting
him to give the picture creates a duty on subodh 's part to disclose all
fact
(iii)subodh has not committed fraud because manjeeet shud hav taken care to ensure that subodh was healthy
(iv) subodh has   not committed  fraud because there was no active concealment on his part.


2. krishna and arjuna are arch enemies .once when arjuna's house is robbed
,he lodges  a criminal complaint reporting the same and in ordered to
take revenge and cause harm to krishna ,says that krishna is guilty of
the same .The police arrested krishna, investigates  the complaint and
makes a report to the  magistrate stating that krishna is not connected
with the crime .which results in the magistrate discharging krishna
.krishna sues arjuna for the tort of malicious procecution.

PRINCIPLE:-a person who institute a procecution against someone with out any reasonable cause for the same ,with a malicious intentation 
,is guilty of tort of malicuious procecution

(i) arjuna is guilty beause he made the complaint only to seek revenge against Krishna
(ii) arjuna is  guilty  because he didnt check before complaining that krishna was guilty of theft
(iii) arjuna is not guilty because krishna has not been procecuted .
(iv)none of the above

 thanking you

Views: 7428

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

well, if i injure someone with a knife during a boxing match, did the boxer agree to that sort of risk of injury? obviously not...rather, Mali agreed to the injuries which are common/expected in boxing. biting is not expected in boxing matches, although tyson is infamous for doing it :P

Aadhya said:
yup...this question was in our second session test... so u mite have drafted it..! :D

i thought that if Mali has agreed to any kind of injury during the fight, he cannot sue tarara. because injury can be of any kind na...?

can we say that if Mali was hit hard on his head and he died, then tarara cant be held liable because that was what mali had agreed to in the contract?

Ramanuj Mukherjee said:

somehow i have a feeling i drafted this question a few years back :P

where did you find it?

the correct answer here has to be a. mali never took the risk of being bitten on the year...its not an usual practice in boxing!

 

Aadhya said:

@ramanuj sir, we have laready discussed this one, please give us your answer and explanation on this one:

pr.- one who voluntarily takes up a risk can not hold another liable if he suffers losses subsequently due to taking of the risk.
facts- Mali wants to participate in a boxing championship.he had to sign a contract before he was allowed to take part in the championship. a particular clause mentioned that mali is aware of the risks associated with the game of boxing, and would not hold anyone else liable if he is injured during the fight. during a fight, tararara, a competitor, bit his ears. mali sued him for battery. choose the right option
(a) tararara must pay compensation for the wrong. he is at fault.
(b) mali has agreed to not sue anyone for his injuries. having taken up a risk himself, he must suffer the consequences.
(c)mali has agreed to take upon him the risk of being bitten ny anyone on his ears.
(d) both a and c

government doesnt declare anyone insolvent, only an insolvency court has that power. 

 

its not true that an insolvent person can never enter into any contract. that used to be the law in the medieval ages, not anymore. i really do not bring intricate laws of insolvency here, it suffices to say that as far as it is a question of free consent as specified in the question, an insolvent is very much capable of giving free consent.

 

the problem with insolvents is that no one wants to enter into any contract as it is too risky to do so. after a point, law doesnt prevent him from making a livelihood and living a normal life. taking away someones ability to contract is as good as banishing him from society. he cant buy anything, cant work for anyone - just think about it.
Mayank said:

Sir, If govt. declare someone insolvent than no one can lend him money or contract with him.
Ramanuj Mukherjee said:

a.

 

others are not disabled from giving free consent. now in india, for instance, convicts can enter into contracts. thats how they hire lawyers ;)


Mayank said:

Answer should be "D".

Aadhya said:
a contract must be entered out of free volition of the parties, otherwise, it would not be a valid contract. due to some disabilities, certain kind of people can never give free consent. they are:
(a) minors and people of unsound mind
(b) minors, people of unsound mind and criminals
(c) minors, people of unsound mind and convicts
(d) minors, people of unsound mind, convicts and insolvents
1 is (c)
2 is (d) not sure... i think only the driver can b sued..not the taxi company

Neel Kamal Mishra said:

Mrs. Anand went to Mallazan Antique Shop to buy a vase. Mahazan showed her a vase and told her that it was of the Gupta period. Actually is was older and much more
valuable than Mahazan thought. He added, and believed’, that the vase was
“absolutely unbreakable”. Mrs. Anand said she did not care whether the vase was
of the Gupta period, she bought it.

 

 

Leaving the shop, she hailed a taxi driven by Suresh, an employee of the Capital Taxi Company. Suresh had just completed his duties for the day. However, he offered to drive Mrs. Anand home for his usual fee.
Capital Taxi Company had a firm policy prohibiting its employees from carrying
passengers while off duty.

 

Suresh carelessly drove and took a turn without signaling. The taxi rammed into a truck carrying gasoline. Mrs. Anand was thrown to the floor of the taxi and injured her back. The vase was smashed.

 

Principle of Law – I

 

“Fraud consists of a misrepresentation of existing fact upon which the defendant intends that the plaintiffs will rely, and upon which the plaintiff justifiably relies to his detriment”

 

1.          In a suit for fraud brought by Mrs. Anand against Mahajan.

             (a) Mrs. Anand will win because the vase was smasheds

             (b) Mrs. Anand will win because the vase was not of the Gupta Period

             (c) Mrs. Anand will lose because Mahajan believed that the vase was unbreakable.

             (d) Mrs. Anand will lose because she did not care whether the vase was unbreakable.

 

Principle of Law – II

 

“An employer is liable for injuries caused by the careless acts of an employee, committed in the course of his employment”.

 

2.          In a suit brought by Mrs. Anand against Capital Taxi Company for injuries caused by the careless driving of Suresh.

             (a) Mrs. Anand will win because Suresh was Capital’s employee and his careless driving caused her injury.

             (b)  Mrs. Anand will win because Suresh charged her the usual fee, even though lie was off duty.

             (c)  Mrs. Anand will lose because Suresh was off duty.

             (d)  Mrs. Anand will lose because Capital had a firm policy prohibiting its employees from caring passengers while off duty.

(b)

Neel Kamal Mishra said:
Facts: Anthony is a woodcutter. one day when he was at work a number of children flocked him and asked him to make a cricket bat for them. Without listening to them he continued to chop woods using heavy axe. Suddenly a piece of chopped wood flew and struck one child who was standing just two feet away from him as a result of which the child lost his one eye.

Principle: nothing is a an offence, which is done by accident or misfortune and without criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.

a - anthony is liable for causing injury to child
b - anthony is not liable because it is merely an accidet
c - anthony is not liable because children flocked him
d - none of the above
sorry...yeah... its (a) !! terrible mistake

Neel Kamal Mishra said:
1 should be ( a )

Aadhya said:
1 is (c)
2 is (d) not sure... i think only the driver can b sued..not the taxi company

Neel Kamal Mishra said:

Mrs. Anand went to Mallazan Antique Shop to buy a vase. Mahazan showed her a vase and told her that it was of the Gupta period. Actually is was older and much more
valuable than Mahazan thought. He added, and believed’, that the vase was
“absolutely unbreakable”. Mrs. Anand said she did not care whether the vase was
of the Gupta period, she bought it.

 

 

Leaving the shop, she hailed a taxi driven by Suresh, an employee of the Capital Taxi Company. Suresh had just completed his duties for the day. However, he offered to drive Mrs. Anand home for his usual fee.
Capital Taxi Company had a firm policy prohibiting its employees from carrying
passengers while off duty.

 

Suresh carelessly drove and took a turn without signaling. The taxi rammed into a truck carrying gasoline. Mrs. Anand was thrown to the floor of the taxi and injured her back. The vase was smashed.

 

Principle of Law – I

 

“Fraud consists of a misrepresentation of existing fact upon which the defendant intends that the plaintiffs will rely, and upon which the plaintiff justifiably relies to his detriment”

 

1.          In a suit for fraud brought by Mrs. Anand against Mahajan.

             (a) Mrs. Anand will win because the vase was smasheds

             (b) Mrs. Anand will win because the vase was not of the Gupta Period

             (c) Mrs. Anand will lose because Mahajan believed that the vase was unbreakable.

             (d) Mrs. Anand will lose because she did not care whether the vase was unbreakable.

 

Principle of Law – II

 

“An employer is liable for injuries caused by the careless acts of an employee, committed in the course of his employment”.

 

2.          In a suit brought by Mrs. Anand against Capital Taxi Company for injuries caused by the careless driving of Suresh.

             (a) Mrs. Anand will win because Suresh was Capital’s employee and his careless driving caused her injury.

             (b)  Mrs. Anand will win because Suresh charged her the usual fee, even though lie was off duty.

             (c)  Mrs. Anand will lose because Suresh was off duty.

             (d)  Mrs. Anand will lose because Capital had a firm policy prohibiting its employees from caring passengers while off duty.

its a) 

Aadhya said:
a contract must be entered out of free volition of the parties, otherwise, it would not be a valid contract. due to some disabilities, certain kind of people can never give free consent. they are:
(a) minors and people of unsound mind
(b) minors, people of unsound mind and criminals
(c) minors, people of unsound mind and convicts
(d) minors, people of unsound mind, convicts and insolvents
it shud be b)

Neel Kamal Mishra said:

Principle: Any act done by a person in self defense of his person or property is not a crime if done in a legal manner

fact: tatta kumar is a dealer in park lane.once he was carrying on buisness certain masked people came into his store room premises. he activated the electric fencing on the wall sending 500v of electricity through the naked wires. the masked men after robbing the store jumped over the wall but got electrocuted.

 

a --    he will be liable as it was use of disproportionate use of force

b-  he will not be held liable as he acted in self defense of his property

c-  he will be held liable as he should have acted in a rational manner

 

for first ans. is a)

for 2nd ans is d) only drivr cn b sued not the taxi cmpny bcoz he was prohibitd to do so nd it was not in the course of his duty.

Neel Kamal Mishra said:

Mrs. Anand went to Mallazan Antique Shop to buy a vase. Mahazan showed her a vase and told her that it was of the Gupta period. Actually is was older and much more
valuable than Mahazan thought. He added, and believed’, that the vase was
“absolutely unbreakable”. Mrs. Anand said she did not care whether the vase was
of the Gupta period, she bought it.

 

 

Leaving the shop, she hailed a taxi driven by Suresh, an employee of the Capital Taxi Company. Suresh had just completed his duties for the day. However, he offered to drive Mrs. Anand home for his usual fee.
Capital Taxi Company had a firm policy prohibiting its employees from carrying
passengers while off duty.

 

Suresh carelessly drove and took a turn without signaling. The taxi rammed into a truck carrying gasoline. Mrs. Anand was thrown to the floor of the taxi and injured her back. The vase was smashed.

 

Principle of Law – I

 

“Fraud consists of a misrepresentation of existing fact upon which the defendant intends that the plaintiffs will rely, and upon which the plaintiff justifiably relies to his detriment”

 

1.          In a suit for fraud brought by Mrs. Anand against Mahajan.

             (a) Mrs. Anand will win because the vase was smasheds

             (b) Mrs. Anand will win because the vase was not of the Gupta Period

             (c) Mrs. Anand will lose because Mahajan believed that the vase was unbreakable.

             (d) Mrs. Anand will lose because she did not care whether the vase was unbreakable.

 

Principle of Law – II

 

“An employer is liable for injuries caused by the careless acts of an employee, committed in the course of his employment”.

 

2.          In a suit brought by Mrs. Anand against Capital Taxi Company for injuries caused by the careless driving of Suresh.

             (a) Mrs. Anand will win because Suresh was Capital’s employee and his careless driving caused her injury.

             (b)  Mrs. Anand will win because Suresh charged her the usual fee, even though lie was off duty.

             (c)  Mrs. Anand will lose because Suresh was off duty.

             (d)  Mrs. Anand will lose because Capital had a firm policy prohibiting its employees from caring passengers while off duty.

i think its a) anthony is liable bcoz he didnt took proper care nd caution.he shud hav anticipated about dis accident.

Neel Kamal Mishra said:
Facts: Anthony is a woodcutter. one day when he was at work a number of children flocked him and asked him to make a cricket bat for them. Without listening to them he continued to chop woods using heavy axe. Suddenly a piece of chopped wood flew and struck one child who was standing just two feet away from him as a result of which the child lost his one eye.

Principle: nothing is a an offence, which is done by accident or misfortune and without criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.

a - anthony is liable for causing injury to child
b - anthony is not liable because it is merely an accidet
c - anthony is not liable because children flocked him
d - none of the above
1-d
2-a
1.d 2.a
neel plz provide the right ans.

Divya said:
it shud be b)

Neel Kamal Mishra said:

Principle: Any act done by a person in self defense of his person or property is not a crime if done in a legal manner

fact: tatta kumar is a dealer in park lane.once he was carrying on buisness certain masked people came into his store room premises. he activated the electric fencing on the wall sending 500v of electricity through the naked wires. the masked men after robbing the store jumped over the wall but got electrocuted.

 

a --    he will be liable as it was use of disproportionate use of force

b-  he will not be held liable as he acted in self defense of his property

c-  he will be held liable as he should have acted in a rational manner

 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Have Your Doubts Cleared!


It is never good to have doubts in your mind! Just ask a questions and the super intelligent CLAThackers, many of whom are writing CLAT this time and others who have cleared it already will answer your questions!

If you have doubts on logical reasoning or critical reasoning, ask here.

Legal reasoning doubts are answered on this thread!


Want to ask a GK question? try this thread!

Members

Photos

  • Add Photos
  • View All

Do you like CLAThacker?

© 2019   Created by Ramanuj Mukherjee.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service