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

Question 1:

Principle: Only Parliament or State Legislatures have the authority to enact laws on their own. No law made by the State can take away a person’s fundamental right.

Facts: Parliament enacted a law, which according to a group of lawyers is violating the fundamental rights of traders. A group of lawyers files a writ petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the statute seeking relief to quash the statute and further direct Parliament to enact a new law.

(a) No writ would lie against Parliament, as the court has no authority to direct Parliament to enact or re-enact a law

(b) The court can quash existing law if it violates fundamental rights and can direct Parliament to make a new law

(c) The court can quash the existing law if it violates fundamental rights but cannot direct Parliament to make a new law

(d) None of these

Question 2:

Principle: When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have made a proposal.

Fact: “Ramanuj telegraphed to Shyam Sunder, writing: “Will you sell me your Rolls Royce CAR? Telegram the lowest cash price.” Shyam Sunder also replied by telegram: “Lowest price for CAR is Rs. 20 lakh.” Ramanuj immediately sent his consent through telegram stating: “I agree to buy the CAR for Rs. 20 lakh asked by you.” Shyam Sunder refused to sell the car.

(a) He cannot refuse to sell the CAR because the contract has already been made.

(b) He can refuse to sell the CAR because it was only invitation to offer and not the real offer

(c) It was not a valid offer because willingness to enter into a contract was absent

(d) None of these

Question: 3

Principle: A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests.

Facts: Mr. X who is usually of sound state of mind, but occasionally of unsound state of mind, enters into a contract with Mr. Y when he was of unsound state of mind. Mr. Y having come to know about this fact afterwards, wants to file a suit against Mr. X.

(a) Mr. X cannot enter into contract because he is of unsound state of mind when he entered into contract.

(b) Mr. X can enter into contract but the burden is on the other party to prove that he was of unsound state of mind at the time of contract.

(c) Mr. X can enter into contract but the burden is on Mr. X to prove that he was of sound state of mind at the time of contract.

(d) None of these

Question 4:

Principle: Willful rash driving is an offense.

Facts: Mr. Tiwari was driving his car after drinking alcohol. Police books him for willful negligent driving. Is the act of the police lawful?

(a) No, because Mr. Tiwari was not driving rashly; he was drunk while driving.

(b) No, this is not a negligent act.

(c) Yes, because Mr. Tiwari was driving rashly.

(d) Yes, because the police has the power to arrest a person driving rashly.

Question 5:

Principle: Ignorance of Fact is excused but ignorance of law is no excuse.

Fact: X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the Airport of Bombay on 28 Nov. 1962 it was found on searching that X carried 34 kg of Gold Bars on his person and that he had not declared it in the ‘Manifest for Transit’. On 26th Nov. 1962 the Government of India had issued a notification modifying its earlier exemption, making it mandatory now that the gold must be declared in the “Manifest” of the aircraft.

(a) X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days ago

(b) X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusable

(c) X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusable

(d) X’s liability would depend on the discretion of the court


Question 5:

Principle: Any direct physical interference with goods in somebody’s possession without lawful justification is called trespass of goods.

Facts: Z purchased a car from a person who had no title to it and sent it to a garage for repair. X believing wrongly that the car was his, removed it from the garage.

(a) X cannot be held responsible for trespass of goods as he was under a wrong belief.

(b) X can be held responsible for trespass of goods

(c) X has not committed any wrong.

(d) None of the above.

Question 6:

Principle: Mere silence as to the facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not a fraud, unless the circumstances of the case are such that, on close examination it is found to be the duty of the person keeping silent to speak, or unless his silence is, in itself, equivalent to speech.

Facts: X sells by auction to Y, a horse which X knows to be of unsound state of mind. X says nothing to Y about the horse’s unsound state of mind. Give the correct answer-

(a) X can be held liable for fraud

(b) X can be held liable for misrepresentation

(c) X cannot be held liable, because he did not say anything positive about the mental state of the horse

(d) X cannot be held liable because it is the buyer who must be aware of the things

Question 7:

X, a married woman, agreed to live in adultery with B and also agreed to serve him as his housekeeper. In return, B agreed to pay X Rs. 500 per month for living in adultery and Rs. 500 per month for housekeeping. The agreement is

(a) Valid

(b) Void

(c) Void as to the first object but valid with respect to the second object

(d) Unlawful as being opposed to public policy

Question 8:

Ramu applied for the post of Director in an organization. The governing body of the organization passed a resolution appointing him to the post. After the meeting, one of the members of the governing body informed him privately of the resolution. Subsequently, the resolution was rescinded. Ramu claims damages. Which one of the following is the correct legal proposition in the case?

(a) Ramu cannot claim damages as he had not resigned from his existing post in anticipation of getting the appointment letter

(b) Ramu cannot claim damages as there was no formal communication

(c) Ramu can claim damages as governing body cannot rescind the resolution once passed

(d) Ramu can claim damages as there was private communication

Question 9:

Ms. Usha wants to file a suit against Bhagyalaxmi Theatre praying for a permanent injunction (stay order) restraining the theatre from running the film named “Jai Santoshi Maa”. Her contention is that the film hurt her religious feelings and sentiments as Goddess Saraswati, Laxmi and Parvati were depicted as jealous and were ridiculed.

(a) She cannot file a suit because injury to religious feelings is not a legally recognized right.

(b) She cannot file a suit because the Theatre has a fundamental right to speech and expression.

(c) She can file a suit as injury to religious feelings has been legally recognized as a right (injuria sine damnum).

(d) It is a case of complete judicial discretion.

Question 10:

X went to Y’s house and forgot his bag which contained 1 kg sweets. Y’s children consumed the sweets. Decide the liability of Y.

(a) Y is bound to pay the price of sweets to X

(b) Y is not bound to pay anything

(c) Y is bound to pay half the price of sweets

(d) Y would not have to pay anything because X loves Y’s children

Question 11:

Y makes an attempt to steal some jewels by breaking open a box and finds, after opening the box, that there is no jewel in it. Choose the appropriate answer.

(a) Y is not guilty of attempt to theft because the box was empty.

(b) Y is guilty of attempt to commit theft.

(c) Y is guilty of trespass.

(d) Y is not guilty of any offence.


Question 12:

Mr. Samay was severely hurt while working in his factory and fell unconscious. He was rushed to a hospital by his fellow workers. In the hospital (at emergency/casualty ward) the doctors opined that he should be operated immediately. While conducting preliminary examinations, he was found to be HIV positive.  The doctors are in a dilemma regarding what should they do first-

(a) Doctors should operate first

(b) Doctors should inform his family members

(c) Doctors should inform his employers

(d) Doctors should not inform anyone because it would violate patient’s right of privacy


1. c

2. b

3. c

4. c

5. b

6. c

7. d

8. b

9. a

10. b

11. b

12. a


Views: 524


You need to be a member of CLAThacker to add comments!

Join CLAThacker

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!



  • Add Photos
  • View All

Do you like CLAThacker?

© 2018   Created by Ramanuj Mukherjee.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service