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: 7429

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

my answers are

1   No because she did not take the ring.

2   Krishnan will not be liable, because he could not have foreseen Larry suffering from nervous shock as a result of his act

3  The pedestrian can sue Gopal as well as Martin

4  No it is not, because trading flesh for money is illegal under Suppression of Immoral Trafficking Act.

5  A is guilty of mischief as he set the house to fire.    

6     X is only responsible to compensate W.

 

please anybody tell which are correct and which are wrong(with explanation).

harpreet has posted the correct answers as given in the book

akshay sir, y not for 4) that its an immoral giving a relative???

n rest same doubts.

martin and gopal both can be held liable. master and servant both are liable in case of vicarious liability.
Party X filed a claim against party Y in a higher court; the case is ongoing. 6 months after filing the original claim, party X filed another claim (totally different issues that happened at totally different times), against party Y, but this time in a lower court. Party Y then filed a motion in the higher court insisting that the higher court dismiss X's lower court claim. The judge in the higher court suggested that party X consolidate the lower court claim with the higher court claim, therefore there will only be one claim in the higher court. Party X requested an adjournment. Shortly after, party X consented to consolidating the two cases, but not to the original motion to dismiss. Now, party Y wants X to pay for the cost of the motion. On what bases should the court allocate cost?

Principle: When at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstain from doing something,such act or abstience or promise is called a consideration for the promise.A consideration must be certain.

Fact: Anita was returing to house from market.when she reached at her house,her house was on fire.She shouted to help.A person came to help in extinguishing fire.After person demand for payment for his services.Decide

a) Anita can be sued as she asked for help.

b) Anita cant be sued as consideration to person was uncertain.

c) None of these

Principle: Mere promise without a proper follow-up does not create binding legal obligation.

Fact: Saurav planned construction of a marriage hall and make it available for the use of all sections of society, at nominal rates.Gaurav, a rich philanthropist in the area, assured him financial help to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh.Relying on the assurance, Saurav raised a loan and constructed the marriage hall.Gaurav did not pay the assured sum.Gaurav was not informed that saurav had started the construction work,soley relying on his assurance.

a) saurav initiate legal action agaisnt gaurav for breach of promise and succed.

b) The one who extended the loan to saurav, can legaly proceed agaisnt gaurav for recovery of the loan amount and succed

c) No legal action agianst gaurav will succeed.

Principle: The doctrine privity of contract means, Only those persons who are parties to the contract can enforce the same.A stranger cant enforce a contract even though contract may have been entered into for his benefit.A stranger to consideration can sue.

Fact: A mortages his property to B in consideration of B's promise to A that he shall pay A debt to C.Later B didnt pay debt of A to C.Decide

a) C can sued to both of them

b) C can sue to A

c) C can sue to B

d) None of these

Principle: The doctrine privity of contract means, Only those persons who are parties to the contract can enforce the same.A stranger cant enforce a contract even though contract may have been entered into for his benefit.A stranger to consideration can sue.

Fact: A an old lady by deed of gift, made over certain property to her daughter Ramayya, with a direction that the daughter should pay an annuity to A's brother Chinayya, as has been done by A.Accordingly on the same day Rmayya  executed a writing in the favor of her maternal uncle agreeing to pay the annuity.Afterwards she declined to pay annuity to Chinayya.Decide

a) Chinayya can sue to Ramyya

b) Ramyya cant be sue

c) None of these

 

a because he is receiving consideration?

answer is ....a

 

Principle: The doctrine privity of contract means, Only those persons who are parties to the contract can enforce the same.A stranger cant enforce a contract even though contract may have been entered into for his benefit.A stranger to consideration can sue.

Fact: A an old lady by deed of gift, made over certain property to her daughter Ramayya, with a direction that the daughter should pay an annuity to A's brother Chinayya, as has been done by A.Accordingly on the same day Rmayya  executed a writing in the favor of her maternal uncle agreeing to pay the annuity.Afterwards she declined to pay annuity to Chinayya.Decide

a) Chinayya can sue to Ramyya

b) Ramyya cant be sue

c) None of these

 

but ramayya has refused to give him annuity than he he is recieving consideration?

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