Legal Reasoning Problems

PRINCIPLE : While conducting their affairs, everyone is legally bound to avoid those actions that one can reasonably foresee to be harmful to others by way of infringing one of their legal rights.

FACTS : Coffee Company (CC) came up with new kind of hot drinks which is to be served at 120 degrees Celsius temp. It can cause severe burn injuries if it comes into contact with bare skin. The Co. advertised this characteristic to the people who are intended customers of these drinks. They are expected to wait till the temp. comes down to a particular level when the drink turns into bright purple. That is the point when it is to be consumed. Now, in a cafeteria, a waiter accidentally drops the drink on a customer, while he was serving it and the customer suffers burn injuries. The customer sued CC for negligence. Will she succeed?

a) Yes, the waiter was working for CC who was duty bound to the customers to not injure by dropping hot drinks on them.

b) She should have sued the waiter, not CC

c) No. The customer knew that such kind of hot drinks were being served. Waiters dropping drinks is a natural event and its human to err.

d) Yes. Such unusually hot drinks should have been served carefully.

Break the principle-
1. Conducting affairs.
2. Legally bound to avoid such actions that one can reasonably foresee.
3. which can harmful to others.
4. Infringing one of their legal rights - most important.

Now in this problem, all the three components of the principle can be easily seen as waiter can reasonably foresee such harm which can be harmful to his costumers. But, the point is whether costumer would have any legal right. He, of course has a legal remedy under law of tort and the answer should be (d) because it conceptualize the principle of reasonableness that such hot drinks are to be served carefully when waiter is aware of it. And legal remedy would be against CC because when a costumer enters into a cafe, he avails the service of cafe and not of the waiter.

Thank you for the answer.

I will be posting some more in the coming days....please do reply to them also.

Q.1. - Principle 1 : Who so ever is under a duty of care to another shall be liable for any injury to the latter directly resulting from the breach of that duty.

Principle 2 : Harm suffered voluntarily does not constitute legal injury.

Facts : LAXMI STORES sent certain items in a horse carriage to a customer’s house, which happened to be by the side of a main road. Some naughty children nearby threw stones at the horses. The horses ran over in confusion and were about to run over an old woman. A traffic police, at great risk to his life, somehow seized the horses and stopped the carriage. He suffered serious personal injuries. The policeman seeks compensation from LAXMI STORES.

(NO OPTIONS FOR THIS ONE AVAILABLE. PLEASE SUGGEST THE ANSWER WITH REASON)

Q.2.- PRINCIPLE : For a tort to be constituted , a legal injusry needs to be caused.

FACTS : Nagarjun and a few other studentsdecide to start a study group before the exams and exchange each other’s notes. The study group uses Gautam’s notes without his permission but they don’t share their notes with him. Owing to this most of them manage to score higher grades than the earlier class topper Gautam who feels that the group has conspired against him and colluded to dethrone him from the top position. Gautam wants to know if he has a remedy in tort law.

a)Gautam’s notes have been used by his conpetitors without his permission hence a legal injury has been caused to him.

b)Studying in a group and sharing notes can’t cause any legal injury.

c)Gautam had no legal right to be the topper ; hence no legal injury has been caused to him..

d)Gautam has not been include in Nagarjun’s study group
hence his legal right has been violated.


Q.3.- PRINCIPLE :No one can be made liable for the damage caused by a force of nature, which no one can foresee or prepare against.

FACTS : George is a pilot and during showing off his flying skills to his friend while flying a passenger plane dips too low. He is an expert pilot and would have managed to recover height but for very strong air currents. The plane crash lands and a passenger is severely injured and wishes to sue George. George pleads that it was an ACT OF GOD beyond and beyond his control.Can George take this defence?

a)Strong air currents are a common feature while flying and George should have prepared against it.

b)George would have managed to save the flight if it had not been for these currents and it was beyond his power.

c)George was negligent in dipping the plane too low and he can’t blame forces of nature for his negligence.

d)The passengers consented to such risks while flying and George can’t be held liable.


Q.4.- PRINCIPLE : A tort arises only when legal injury has been caused.

FACTS: Somadev is a member of a cult which believes in worshipping dogs. Bamadev a reporter writes a piece in the newspaper decrying all cults which worship animals. Somadev feels that his reputation has been harmed by Bamadev’s article. He wishes to sue Bamadev. Can he succeed ?

a)No, he will not.

b)Yes, he will.

c)Somadev’s guru can sue Bamadev.


Q.5.PRINCIPLE: Claims in tort lie only for legal injuries.

FACTS: Ankur who lives by the river, constructs a fence around his land to protect it from river water. During the rains his neighbour’s land gets flooded because all the water gets diverted because of the fence. Can his neighbor sue Ankur ?

a)NO. He can’t do so bcoz he hasn’t suffered a legal injury.

b)YES. HE CAN. Ankur should have known the consequence of his acts.

c)YES. HE CAN bcoz Ankur had no right to construct this fence.


Q.6. :PRINCIPLE: A person can’t claim for any damages resulting from the risky acts which he undertakes voluntarily.

FACTS: Raghu instructs his servant to take his horse for a ride. His servant had no prior experience of horse riding but wanted to please his master and took the horse out. The horse was notorious for bolting and it bolted injuring the servant. Can the servant recover from Raghu?

a)He can because Raghu ordered him to take the horse out.

b)He can’t bcoz he voluntarily took the risk.

c)He can’t bcoz he is Raghu’s servant and he is paid to carry out such orders.


Q.7.: PRINCIPLE: Any act done in preventing harm to oneself or one’s property will be excused as long as it is reasonable.

FACTS: One night some robbers break into Venu’s house. Venu tries calling the police but his phone wire had been cut. Venu’s mobile was working but he decides to deal with the robbers himself. He takes out his gun and shoots them one by one as they enter through the broken door. They suffer from serious injuries. Can Venu’s acts be excused? ( Also tell for what if they would have died)

a)YES HIS ACTS CAN BE EXCUSED BCOZ THEY WERE DONE IN SELF DEFENCE.

b)NO HIS ACTS EXCEEDE THE THREAT..

c)NO BCOZ HE COULD HAVE CALLED THE POLICE.



Q.8. : PRINCIPLE : Interfering with another’s goods in such a way as to deny the latter’s title to goods amounts to conversion and it is a civil wrong.

FACTS : Ram went to the bicycle stand to park his bicycle but found the stand fully occupied. Ram removed a few bicycles in order to rearrange the stand and make some space for his bicycle & puts back all bicycles except the one belonging to Shyam. It was rather negligent on part of Ram and he was in a hurry. Somebody came on the way and took Shyam’s cycle. The watchman of the stand did not take care of it assuming that the cycle was not parked inside the stand. Shyam filed a suit against Ram for conversion.

a)SHYAM WOULD SUCCEED BCOZ RAM’S ACT LED TO THE STEALING OF HIS BICYCLE.

b)SHYAM WOULD NOT SUCCEED BCOZ RAM DID NOT TAKE AWAY THE BICYCLE HIMSELF.

c)RAM WOULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE WATCHMAN.


Q.9.: PRINCIPLE: The occupier of a premise owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitors.

FACTS: Laloo was running a dairy from his house. People used a part of his farm as a shortcut to get to a nearby railway station. Laloo who did not approve of this , put up a notice that ‘TRESPASSERS WILL BE PROSECUTED’ but since a no. of people were also his customers he tolerated them. One day a person who was using this shortcut was attacked by a bull belonging to the dairy. The injured person filed a suit against him.

a)LALOO IS NOT LIABLE IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR NOTICE AGAINST TRESPASSERS.

b)LALOO IS LIABLE FOR HAVING KEPT A BULL IN HIS DAIRY.

c)LALOO IS LIABLE BCOZ IN FACT HE ALLOWED PEOPLE TO USE HIS PREMISES.

d)LALOO IS NOT LIABLE OTHER THAN FOR CUSTOMERS.


Q.10.: PRINCIPLE: One is not culpable in law for publishing a statement even if it damages the reputation of another as long as the statement is true.

FACTS: Boma a film star falsely boasts of a childhood friend about his underworld links. He did not know that this friend had now become a reporter of the famous ‘TRUTH’ magazine. The friend publishes the conversation in form of an interview and it created a huge furore. Boma lost a lot of ad contracts and films. He wants to sue the reperter for defamation.

a)WHAT BOMA BOASTED ABOUT WAS UNTRUE. THE REPORTER SHOLUD HAVE TRIED TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH AND PROVIDE A COMPLETE PICTURE INSTEAD OF JUST WRITING WHAT BOMA SAID.HENCE HE IS LIABLE.

b)BOMA’S REPUTATION IS INJURED AND THE STATEMENT WAS FALSE. THEREFORE THE REPORTER IS LIABLE.

c)THE REPORTER IS NOT LIABLE AS HE WROTE ONLY WHAT BOMA SAID.

d)BOMA NEVER AGREED TO GIVE AN INTERVIEW. IT WAS A FRIENDLY CHAT.

question 1) Laxmi Stores is liable, because they owe a duty of care to all the users of the road and the driver ought to have anticipated the naughty conduct on the part of the children. And the policeman can succeed, because he owed a duty of care to old woman.
Moreover by applying the exception of "RESCUE CASE" to the general defence "Volenti non fit injuria", it is clear that Laxmi Stores is liable to pay compensation to the policemen.

Q.1 - Ans - In this problem, defendant i.e. Laxmi stores would be liable because policeman, in this case cannot be said to have done the act voluntarily for various. Firstly, he was under a duty to protect civilians. Secondly, It could have reasonably foreseen that there would be several people present in the street and it is defendant's liability to make sure that horse do not injure anyone. Also, there it can be reasonably foreseen that someone would try to stop the horse from doing such act.

Policeman would succeed in this case.

Q.2, Ans - Most probable answer to this question is (a) because Gautam has a copyright over his notes, and using it without his permission would cause him a legal injury. Topping or not is a different issue altogether.


Q.3, ans - In this problem, although George was a good pilot was from the viewpoint of a reasonable person, his act was unreasonable. Flying at such a lower height is dangerous from the viewpoint of a reasonable man.

George would be liable.

Q.4, Ans -Somdev would not succeed in this problem because the article was not aimed at him specifically. For defamation to be caused, it is an essential requirement that it should be pointed to a person, and not to a group. There are some cases when an individual can sue when defamation could be caused to a group as a whole, but only in exceptional cases. Hence, he would not succeed.

Q.5, Ans -There is no legal injury which has been caused in this problem. Protecting your house is a common practice, and by constructing a fence, you are protecting your house. Act of Ankur is reasonable and his neighbour cannot sue him

Q.6, Ans -In this problem, servant has voluntarily taken the risk to ride the horse. He knew it well that he didn't know how to ride a horse, despite this he rode the horse. The basic principle behind this problem is such that, if a servant does any act even after knowing its harmful consequences, and does not protest. Then, he is supposed to have done the act voluntarily.

Option (b) would be the answer.

Q.7, Ans - The force which has been used by Venu is unreasonable. She should have locked her door, or should have done something in proportion when she was not under a threat. She could have even called police, or called someone for help. Could have done many thing which can be considered as reasonable.

In case of thieves' death, reasoning would be the same i.e. the amount of force used by Venu was unreasonable.
Q.8Ans - the most probable answer to this question is (a). Although not done intentionally, but it was Ram's fault due to his negligence to leave the bicycle outside, which was ultimately stolen. He should have made sure that all the bicycles have been parked in the same position as they were before.


Q.9The answer to this problem would be (c) because Laloo had impliedly provided his consent to allow those people from using his premises as a shortcut. And, he cannot escape from his liable bu just putting a board stating "Trespassers would be prosecuted".

Q.10, Ans - The answer to this question should be (a). The reporter should have done some research on what he is publishing. Boma was not aware of the fact that he was getting interviewed which increases the liability of the reporter before publishing it.

Q.11: PRINCIPLE: ONE HAS TO COMPENSATE ANOTHER FOR THE INJURY CAUSED DUE TO HIS WRONGFUL ACT. THE LIABLITY TO COMPENSATE IS REDUCED TO THE EXTENT, THE LATTER HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE INJURY THROUGH HIS OWN NEGLIGENCE. THIS IS THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.



FACTS : VEERAPPA OWNS A FARM AT A DISTANCE OF HALF A FURLONG FROM THE RAILWAY TRACK. HE STORED THE STACKS OF DRIED UP STRAW ON HIS LAND AFTER THE CULTIVATION AS IS NORMAL IN FARMING. ONE DAY WHEN THE TRAIN WAS PASSING THROUGH THE TRACK, THE DRIVER WAS NEGLIGENTLY OPERATING THE LOCOMOTIVE BY ALLOWING IT TO EMIT LARGE QUANTITIES OF SPARK.THE HIGH WIND, NORMAL IN OPEN FIELDS, CARRIED THE SPARKS TO THE STACKS STORED BY VEERAPPA AND THE STACKS CAUGHT FIRE THEREBY CAUSING EXTENSIVE DAMAGE. VEERAPPA FILED A SUIT AGAINST RAILWAYS CLAIMING DAMAGES. THE RAILWAYS WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING LIABILITY ALLEGED CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF VEERAPPA.



A) VEERAPPA WAS NOY LIABLE SINCE HIS USE OF LAND WAS AWFUL.

B) VEERAPPA’S FARM BEING AT A REASONABLE DISTANCE FROM THE RAILWAY TRACK, HE CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HIGH WINDS.

C) VEERAPPA SHOULD HAVE ANTICIPATED THE POSSIBILITY AND HENCE HE IS LIABLE FOR CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.



Q.12: PRINCIPLE: DUTY OF CARE IS CONSIDERED TO BE A LEGAL OBLIGATION THAT IS IMPOSED ON AN INDIVIDUAL; IT REQUIRES HIM TO ADHERE TO A REASONABLE STANDARD OF CARE WHILE PERFORMING ANY ACT TO AVOID LOSS TO THOSE WHO MAY BE AFFECTED BY SUCH AN ACT. SUCH DUTY ARISES ONLY WHEN SUCH A LOSS CAN BE REASONABLY FORESEEN BY ONE.



FACTS: PAHAR SANYAL DECIDES TO CLIMB A MOUNTAIN. BEFORE GOING FOR THE CLIMB, MR. SANYAL GOES TO A DOCTOR TO GET A MEDICAL CHECK UP DONE AS HE NEEDED A FITNESS CERTIFICATE FROM A REGISTERED DOCTOR TO GET PERMISSION TO CLIMB. DURING THE CHECK UP , THE DOCTOR FAILS TO DETECE THAT HE HAS A PECULIAR KNEE PROBLEM. THIS KNEE PROBLEM MAY AGGRAVATE IF ONE DEVELOPS HIGH ALTITUDE SICKNESS AND ESPECIALLY FROST BITES DURING A CLIMB. SUCH AGGRAVATION MAY LEAD TO INCURABLE INJURY TO THE KNEE. INCIDENTALLY, IN HIS CLIMBING GROUP THERE WAS A DOCTOR, A FELLOW CLIMBER, WHO DIAGNOSED PAHAR WITH A SERIOUS KNEE CONDITION. HE ADVISED PAHAR TO GO DOWN IMMEDIATELY AND PAHAR, ALSO WORRIED, STARTED CLIMBING DOWN FOR THE BASE CAMP IMMEDIATELY. HOWEVER, ON HIS WAY, HE WAS CAUGHT IN A BLIZZARD AND DEVELOPED FROST BITES. ON COMING BACK, HE SUED THE DOCTOR STATING THAT HE SUFFERED INJURIES DUE TO NEGLIGENCE ON PART OF THE DOCTOR. DECIDE.



A)PAHAR KNOWINGLY UNDERTOOK A RISK OF SUFFERING FROM BLIZZARD, FROST BITE ETC. WHEN HE DECIDED TO CLIMB A MOUNTAIN. THE DOCTOR CANNOT BE MADE LIABLE FOR THAT.



B) THE DOCTOR FAILED IN HIS DUTY OF CARE AND PAHAR SUFFERED DUE TO THAT.HE IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION FOR THAT.



C) HE SUFFERED A FROST BITE DUE TO THE BLIZZARD, WHICH IS A REGULAR DANGER FOR ANYONE GOING FOR A HIGH ALTITUDE CLIMBING IRRESPECTIVE OF KNEE CONDITION. THE HARM SUFFERED IS NOT DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE DOCTOR TO DIAGNOSE.



D) NONE OF THE ABOVE.



Q.13.: PRINCIPLE: IF BOTH THE PARTIES TO A CASE WERE NEGLIGENT AND ONE PARTY SUFFERS HARM ONLY BECAUSE BOTH OF THEM WERE NEGLIGENT AT THE SAME TIME, THEN THE PARTY WHO HAD THE LAST OPPORTUNITY TO AVOID THE LOSS WOULD BE LIABLE FOR THE ENTIRE LOSS.



FACTS: MR. ANDERSON USED A DIRT TRACK WHICH CROSSED A RAILWAY LINE TO GET TO HIS HOME. AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT THE TRAIN WAS HALF AN HOUR LATE, AND SO WAS RUNNING MUCH FASTER THAN USUAL. THE TRAIN GAVE ITS USUAL SIGNAL NINE HUNDRED FEET FROM THE CROSSING THAT ALERTED THE TRAIN STATION FURTHER DOWN THE TRACK OF ITS IMMINENT ARRIVAL. ALMOST IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS, MR. ANDERSON, OVER SEVENTY YEARS OLD, BEGAN TO CROSS THE TRACKS IN HIS HORSE AND CART. HE HAD LOOKED NEITHER LEFT NOR RIGHT AND WAS KILLED AS THE TRAIN COLLIDED. THE DRIVER HAD SEEN HIM BUT COULD NOT STOP AS HE WAS GOING TOO FAST. IS THE TRAIN DRIVER RESPONSIBLE BASED ON THE ‘ LAST OPPORTUNITY RULE ‘?



A) MR. ANDERSON IS RESPONSIBLE AS HE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN SUFFICIENT CARE WHILE CROSSING THE TRACK.



B) THE DRIVER IS RESPONSIBLE AS THE TRAIN HAD AMPLE AMOUNT OF TIME TO STOP BEFORE HITTING MR. HANS AND BEINGAN OLD MAN HE COULD NOT POSSIBLE TAKE THE NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS AS HIS VISION WAS NOT VERY GOOD.



C) MR. ANDERSON HAD CONTRIBUTED TO THE DAMAGE AS HE SHOULD HAVE CHECKED OR IF HE WAS UNABLE TO DO THE NEEDFUL THEN HE SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THIS DANGEROUS ROUTE, AS HE WAS FULLY AWARE THAT A TRAIN MIGHT HIT HIM ANY MOMENT.



D) BOTH HANS AND THE TRAIN DRIVER CONTRIBUTED.



Q.14.:PRINCIPLE: A MASTER IS LIABLE FOR ONLY THOSE WRONGFUL ACTS OF HIS SERVANT WHICH HE HAS EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY AUTHORIZED.



FACTS: SADHU IS THE DRIVER OF BHOLA. EVERYDAY AFTER SADHU DROPS BHOLA AT HIS OFFICE, ON HIS WAY BACK HE PICKS UP SOME PASSENGERS TO MAKE AN EXTRA BUCK. BHOLA SUSPECTS THAT SADHU MIGHT BE ENGAGING IN THIS PRACTICE BUT HASN’T YET EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN HIM. ONE SUCH DAY HE ENTERS INTO AN ACCIDENT INJURING EASY RIDER WHO HAPPENED TO BE IN THE CAR AT THAT TIME. EASY RIDER SUES BHOLA.



A) BHOLA IS LIABLE SINCE HE KNEW SUCH A THING COULD BE TAKING PLACE BUT DID NOTHING TO PREVENT IT.



B) BHO;A IS NOT LIABLE BECAUSE HE NEVER AUTHORIZED THIS PRACTICE OF SADHU.



C) BHOLA BY NOT PREVENTING SADHU FROM CARRYING OUT THIS PRACTICE IMPLIEDLY AUTHORIZED HIM TO ENGAGE IN THIS PRACTICE.



Q.15.:PRINCIPLE: A CONTRACT MUST BE SUPPORTED BY CONSIDERATION. CONSIDERATION CAN COME FROM A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT OR EVEN A THIRD PERSON WHEN CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN BY HIM FOR THE BENEFIT OF A PARTY.



FACTS: LADY LAY OF DIDANYA IS IN HER DEATHBED. SHE CALLS HER TWO SONS BESIDES HER BED. IT SO HAPPENS THAT THE TWO OF THEM ARE MORTAL ENEMIES. SHE ASKS HER ELDER SON TO ALLOW HIS YOUNGER BROTHER TO LIVE WITH HIM IN ABSENCE OF HER IN HIS HOUSE, FOR WHICH SHE WANTS TO COMPENSATE HIM BY GIVING HIM HER DIAMOND RING. THE YOUNGER BROTHER REPEATS THE REQUEST AFTER HIS MOTHER. THE ELDER SON ACCEPTS THE SAME AND TAKES THE RING FROM LADY LAY. WHEN SHE DIES ,IF HE DOES NOT RESPECT THE PACT , CAN THE YOUNGER BROTHER SUE HIM FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT?



A)THERE IS A CONTRACT BETWEEN LADY LAY AND HER ELDER SON. IT CAN BE ENFORCED BY HER SON NOW THAT THE MOTHER HAS DIED.



B)THERE IS A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE TWO SONS. IT CAN BE ENFORCED BY THE YOUNGER SON.



C) THERE IS NO CONTRACT. IT WAS A FAMILY ARRANGEMENT MADE OUT OF LOVE AND AFFECTION. THIS IS NOT ENFORCEABLE BY LAW.



D) THERE IS NO VALUABLE CONSIDERATION GIVEN OR TAKEN BY THE INTENDED PARTIES OF THE CONTRACT . THEREFORE NO CONTRACT WAS EVER CREATED.



Q.16.: PRINCIPLE:A PROMISE CANNOT BE LEGALLY ENFORCED UNLESS IT WAS MADE WITH AN INTENTION TO ENTER INTO A LEGAL RELATIONSHIP.



FACTS: BRO CAR ASKS JO CAR, “BROTHER, I NEED TO WRITE A LETTER TO GODFATHER. AS YOU KNOW, I AM ILLITERATE. WOULD YOU PLEASE WRITE THE LETTER FOR ME ? I SHALL DICTATE AND YOU JUST WRITE THAT DOWN. “ JO CAR RESPECTED HIS ELDER BROTHER VERY MUCH, SO HE SAID, “SURE, WHY NOT? BUT WHAT DO I GET IN RETURN?” BRO CAR SAID “ JO CAR , I LOVE YOU LIKE ANYTHING. THAT IS A GOOD ENOUGH REASON FOR ME TO GIVE YOU EVERYTHING. I’LL GIVE YOU ANYTHING YOU WANT PROVIDED I HAVE THAT.” JO CAR WROTE THE LETTER FOR BRO CAR , AND THEN ASKED HIM TO TRANSFER HIS HOUSE IN NAME OF JO CAR’S WIFE. IS BRO CAR LEGALLY BOUND TO DO THAT?



A) NO. HE AGREED TO GIVE ANYTHING TO JO CAR, NOT TO HIS WIFE.



B) NO. HE MADE THE PROMISE OUT OF LOVE AND AFFECTION, NOT OUT OF AN INTENTION TO ENTER INTO A LEGAL RELATIONSHIP.



C) YES. HE MADE THE PROMISE OUT OF AN INTENTION TO BE LEGALLY BOUND. HE MUST SUFFER IF HE MADE A CARELESS PROMISE.



D) NO. THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT. THE TERMS WERE UNCERTAIN AND AMBIGUOUS.



Q.16.: PRINCIPLE:THERE IS NO CONTRACT WHERE THE PARTIES DID NOT AGREE ABOUT THE SAME THING IN THE SAME SENSE.



FACTS: BRUNO TELLS PRUNO, WOULD YOU LIKE TO BUY SOME OATS ?

P : WHAT OATS?

B: NEXT WEEK MY SHIP IS ARRIVING AT KOLKATA WITH 5000 KG OF TOP CLASS OATS FROM CUBA . YOU NEED?

P: I NEED FODDER CLASS OAT NEXT WEEK FOR MY COWS. SELL IT TO ME. RS. 20 PER KG ?

B:DONE.



HOWEVER , WHEN THE TIME OF DELIVERY COMES, PURNO DISCOVERS THAT THE OATS ARE GENETICALLY MODIFIED AND THERE IS A HISTORY OF INDIAN COWS SUFFERING FROM DIARRHOEA IF THEY CONSUMED GENETICALLY MODIFIED OATS FROM CUBA. HE CLAIMS THAT THEY DID NOT AGREE ON THE SAME THING IN THE SAME SENSE AS HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS BIT OF FACT. THERE IS NO MEETING OF MIND AND THEREFORE NO CONTRACT.



A)PURNO DID NOT AGREE TO BUY GENETICALLY MODIFIED OATS. THERE WAS NO MEETING OF MINDS. THEY DID NOT AGREE ABOUT THE SAME THING IN THE SAME SENSE.



B) THEY AGREED ABOUT THE SAME THING IN THE SAME SENSE BECAUSE THEY AGREED TO BUY AND SELL 5000 KG OF OATS AS FODDER FOR A CERTAIN PRICE.



C) THEY DID NOT AGREE ON THE SAME THINGIN THE SAME SENSE AS WHAT WAS BEING SOLD WAS

UNCERTAIN.



D) BOTH (A) AND (C)



Q.17.: IN AGREEMENTS MADE OUT OF NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION , THERE NEED NOT BE ANY CONSIDERATION.



FACTS: A MAN TELLS HIS NEIGHBOUR, “ I HAVE BEEN LIVING BESIDES YOU FOR 30 YEARS NOW. YOU ARE AN IDEAL MAN. I ALWAYS WANTED TO REWARD YOU FOR YOUR GOODNESS. I SHALL BUY YOU A SILVER CADILLAC.” HOWEVER, WHEN THE NEIGHBOUR DEMANDED THE CAR, HE PLAINLY REFUSED TO GIVE IT. HE CLAIMED THAT HE HAS NO OBLIGATION TO FULFILL THE PROMISE AS IT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY CONSIDERATION.DECIDE.



A)THERE IS NO CONTRACT. THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION EXISTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES.



B) THERE IS NO CONTRACT AS THE AGREEMENT WAS NOT REDUCED INTO A WRITTEN CONTRACT.



C) THERE IS NO AGREEMENT AS THE PROMISE WAS ONE SIDED.



D) THIS AGREEMENT IS ONE MADE OUT OF LOVE AND AFFECTION AND DOES NOT REQUIRE CONSIDERATION. THE LOVE AND AFFECTION IS MANIFEST IN WHAT THE MAN SAID TO HIS DAUGHTER.



Q.18.: PRINCIPLE : A CONTRACT ENTERED BY A PERSON WHOSE ABILITY TO GIVE FREE CONSENT TO A CONTRACT IS AFFECTED BY UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND IS VOID.



FACTS: NANDAN NAWN HAS BEEN SUFFERING FROM SCHIZOPHRENIA FOR SOME TIME. AT TIMES, FOR MONTHS AT LENGTH HE GOES INTO DEEP DEPRESSION, WHEN HE DOES NOT BEHAVE LIKE A REASONABLE PERSON AT ALL AND STOPS GOING TO WORK AND LOCKS HIMSELF UP IN HIS ROOM. HOWEVER, AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME HE BECOMES NORMAL AND BEHAVES REASONABLY, GOES TO WORK AND DOES WELL IN EVERY ASPECT OF LIFE. DURING SUCH A GOOD PHASE, HE EARNED A LOT OF MONEY BY WRITING AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY. HE ENTERED INTO A CONTRACTWITH A PROMOTER TO BUILD A HOUSE ON A LAND HE HAD. AFTERWARDS, HE AGAIN BECOME SCHIZOPHRENIC AND LOCKED HIMSELF IN HIS ROOM. THEREFORE HE FAILED TO LOOK AFTER THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT. WHEN HE BECAME NORMAL AFTER 2 MONTHS, HE DISCOVERED THAT NONE OF THE WORK HAS BEEN DONE THOUGH THE PAYMENT HE HAD MADE HAS BEEN USURPED. HE FILED A CASE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT. THE PROMOTER CLAIMED THAT THE CONTRACT HAVING BEEN ENTERED WITH A PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND, IT IS VOID AND NOT LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE. DECIDE.



A) WHAT THE PROMOTER DID IS NOT REASONABLE AT ALL. HE MUST ENFORCE THE CONTRACT.



B) THE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO WHEN MR. NAWN WAS IN A POSITION TO GIVE CONSENT. HIS CONSENT IS NOT VITIATED DUE TO UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND.



C) A PERSON OF UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND CAN’T ENTER INTO A CONTRACT. IF HE DOES, THE CONTRACT WILL BE VOID.



D) NONE OF THE ABOVE.



Q.19.: PRINCIPLE 1 : IF THERE IS UNDUE INFLUENCE ON A PARTY TO AN AGREEMENT, HE MAY REFUSE TO PERFORM THE AGREEMENT.



PRINCIPLE 2 : WHEN ONE PARTY IN AN AGREEMENT IS IN A POSTION TO DOMINATE THE WILL OF THE OTHER PARTY AND HE USES HIS POSITION OVER THE OTHER PARTY TO GET THE OTHER PARTY’S CONSNT TO THE AGREEMENT, THIS IS UNDUE INFLUENCE.



FACTS : THE LANDLORD ASKS THE TENANT TO AGREE TO INCREASE THE RENT TO DOUBLE THE PREVIOUS AMOUNT OR TO VACATE THE HOUSE. THE TENANT HAD TOI AGREE TO GIVE DOUBLE THE PREVIOUS RENT AND CONTINUE LIVING IN THE HOUSE. HE THEREAFTER REFUSES TO PAY.



A) TENANT HAS TO PAY THE NEW RENT.



B) TENANT HAS TO PAY THE OLD RENT AND CONTINUE TO OCCUPY THE HOUSE.



C) TENANT HAS TO PAY THE OLD RENT BUT VACATE THE HOUSE WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME.



Q.20.: PRINCIPLE 1: A CONTRACT ENTERED IN ORDER TO HARM OTHERS OR TO FULFILL AN ILLEGAL OBJECT IS VOID.



PRINCIPLE 2: KILLING A HUMAN BEING, WHEN DONE WITHOUT A LAWFUL JUSTIFICATION, IS ILLEGAL.



FACTS: BAYBO BHAI IS A FAMOUS CONTRACTOR IN MUMBAI. HE HAS A HISTORY OF CONVIVTION FOR KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE. HOWEVER, NOW HE LEADS A PEACEFUL LIFESTYLE SINCE HE WAS RELEASED ON A PAROLE. HE IS MAKING GOOD MONEY. BUT THERE ARE RUMOURS THAT HE HAS MANY UNDERCOVER HENCHMEN AROUND HIM TO PROTECT HIM. BAYBO HEARD A RUMOR THAT THE RELATIVES OF SOME INNOCENT PEOPLE HE HAD KILLED ONCE FORMED A SECRET GROUP TO TAKE REVENGE UPON HIM.HE HIRES AN ALGERIAN PROFESSIONAL NAMED BEBOT TO PROVIDE HIM PERSONAL SECURITY. THE AGREEMENT SAYS THAT BEBOT WILL KILL ANUONE WHO ATTACKS BABYBO BHAI WITH AN INTENTION TO KILL BAYBO BHAI IF THAT IS REQUIRED TO SAVE HIS LIFE. HOWEVER, AFTER A MONTH WHEN PAYMENT TIME COMES, BAYBO BHAI IF THAT IS REQUIRED TO SAVE HIS LIFE.HOWEVER, AFTER A MONTH WHEN PAYMENT TIME COMES, BAYBO BHAI TELLS BEBOT THAT THERE IS NO VALID CONTRACT AS BEBOT HAS AGREEED TO DO SOMETHING ILLEGAL,SO BAYBO IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY BEBOT. CAN BEBOT SUE BAYBO?



A) THE CONTRACT KILLING OF SOME PEOPLE,EVEN IF THEY ARE CRIMINALS, IS UNLAWFUL AND THUS VOID.



B) A PERSON WHO ENTERED INTO AN UNLAWFUL AGREEMENT KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY CAN’T PROTECT HIMSELF LATER BY SAYING THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS LAWFUL.



C) BOTH A) & B)



D) YES, PRIVATE DEFENCE OF HUMAN LIFE IS A LAWFUL JUSTIFICATION TO KILL A HUMAN BEING. THE CONTRACT IS VALID.



Q.21.: PRINCIPLE: ANY AGREEMENT IN RESTRAINT OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS VOID.



FACTS : ABBU ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH HAMMA THAT THEY WILL JOINTLY CONDUCT BUSINESS OF SELLING SOFT TOYS FOR 3 YEARS, AFTER WHICH THE CONTRACT MAY BE RENEWED. HOWEVER, THEY MUTUALLY DECIDE AND ACCORDINGLY ADD A CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT THAT IF THERE IS ANY DISPUTE B/W THEM, IT WILL BE INSTEAD SOLVED BY AN OLD FRENCH STYLE FENCING DUEL. WHOEVER WINS THE FIRST ROUND WILL GET TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE IN HIS WAY. IS THIS CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT SUSTAINABLE.





A) YES. THIS IS AN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT METHOD.



B) NO. IT IS IN RESTRAINT OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.



C) YES. HOWEVER, WHEN THE CONTRACT IS RENEWED, THIS CLAUSE CAN’T BE RENEWED.



D) NONE OF THE ABOVE.



Q.22.: PRINCIPLE : MERE PROMISE WITHOUT A FOLLOW UP DOES NOT CREATE A BINDING LEGAL OBLIGATION.



FACTS: SAURAV PLANNED A CONSTRUCTION OF A MARRIAGE HALL AND MAKE IT AVAILABLE FOR 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 HIS ASSURANCE, SAURAV RAISED A LOAN & CONSTRUCTED THE MARRIAGE HALL. GAURAV DID NOT PAY GAURAV WAS NOT INFORMED THAT SAURAV HAD STARTED THE CONSTRUCTION WORK, SOLELY RELYING ON HIS ASSURANCE.



A) SAURAV CAN INITIATE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST GAURAV FOR BREACH OF PROMISE AND SUCCEED.



B) THE ONE WHO EXTENDED THE LOAN TO SAURAV, CAN LEGALLY PROCEED AGAINST GAURAV FOR RECOVERY OF THE LOAN AMOUNT AND SUCCEED.



C) NO LEGAL ACTION AGAINST GAURAV WILL SUCCEED.



Q.23.:PRINCIPLE 1 : A PRINCIPLE SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ALL THE ACTS OF HIS AGENT DONE IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT.



PRINCIPLE 2: A SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS AN AGENT OF B, PROVIDED THAT



A) B REMUNERATES A



B) B HAS DIRECTION AND CONTROL OVER WHAT A IS DOING.



FACTS: THE CONSOLIDATED MOTORS (C.M.) WAS A FIRM DEALING IN SECOND HAND CARS. SURESH CAME TO THE OFFICE OF THE FIRM AND OFFERED TO SELL THEIR CARS, PROVIDED HE WOULD GET 8% COMMISSION ON CARS SOLD BY HIM. THE C.M. AGREED TO THE PROPOSTION. ONE DAY, SURESH TOOK OUT A CAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEMO TO A PROSPECTIVE CLIENT AND IN THE COURSE OF DEMO HE KNOCKED DOWN RAMESH AD INJURED HIM. RAMESH IS SEEKING LEGAL REMEDY.THE MAIN ISSUE IS WHETHER SURESH IS AN AGENT OF C.M.



A) SURESH IS THE AGENT OF C.M. BCOZ HE GETS REMUNERATION BY WAY OF COMMISSION.



B) SURESH IS NOT THE AGENT OF C.M., BCOZ THE COMMISSION IS NOT THE SAME AS REMUNERATION.



C) SURESH IS NOT AN AGENT OG CONSOLIDATED MOTORS BCOZ THE LATTER DO NOT HAVE A NY CONTROL OVER HIS ACTIVITIES.



Q.24.: PRINCIPLE : WHEN THE INJURED PARTY HAS PERFORMED A PART OF HIS OBLIGATION UNDER THE CONTRACT BEFORE THE BREACH OF CONTRACT HAS OCCURRED, HE IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE VALUE OF WHAT HE HAS DONE FROM THE PERSON IN BREACH.



FACTS: M.J.C. WAS BUILDING A SWIMMING POOL IN THE BACKYARD OF MR. FATTU IN THE SUMMER OF 1969. IT WAS A PARTICULARLY HOT SUMMER AND THERE WAS A DRAUGHT FOR 3 CONSISTENT YEARS IN THEIR CITY. THE STATE GOVT. BANNED SWIMMING POOLS’ CONSTRUCTION. PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT BECAME IMPOSSIBLE. HOWEVER BEFORE THE LAW CAME INTO FORCE THEY HAD ALREADY STARTED WORK ON IT, AND A PART OF IT WAS ALREADY DONE. THEY CLAIMED PART PAYMENT FOR THE PART OF THE WORK THEY HAVE DONE. MR. FATTU REFUSED AND M.J.C. SUED HIM.



A) MR. FATTU HAS TO PAY FOR THE PART OF WORK DONE.



B) M.J.C. IS NOT AN INJURED PARTY AS THERE WAS NO BREACH OF CONTRACT. THEY CAN’T CLAIMPART PAYMENT.



C) MR. FATTU HAS NOT BREACHED THE CONTRACT, THEREFORE HE IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY FOR THE PART OF THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE.



D) NONE OF THE ABOVE.



Q.25.: PRINCIPLE: THE ACTS OF THE AGENT ARE, FOR ALL LEGAL PURPOSES, ACTS OF THE PRINCIPLE.



FACTS: BOSE HAS AROARING HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS. GHOSH IS HIS AGENT, WHO BUYS LAND ON HIS BEHALF SO THAT HE CAN DEVELOP THOSE LANDS. GHOSH OFFERED NEELIMA RS. 2 LAKH FOR A 10 ACRE LAND SHE HAD NEAR SEALDAH. NEELIMA WAS NOT INTERESTED IN THE DEAL, SO REFUSED TO SELL. GHOSH TOOK OUT A GUN, HELD IT TO HER HEAD AND THREATENED HER THAT SHE WOULD FIND IT DIFFICULT TO LIVE IN THE LOCALITY IF SHE IS NOT READY TO SELL THE LAND WITHIN A WEEK. NEELIMA SUED GHOSH AND BOSE FOR ASSAULT. DURING THE HEARING, IT WAS FOUND OUT THAT THE ASSAULT WAS NOT AN ISOLATED ACT, GHOSH REGULARLY INDULGES IN SUCH PRACTICE OF THREATENING LAND OWNERS TO SELL THEIR LAND OFF.



A) ONLY GHOSH IS LIABLE.



B) ONLY BOSE IS LIABLE.



C) BOTH OF THEM ARE LIABLE.



D) NONE OF THEM IS LIABLE.



Q.26.: PRINCIPLE: THE ACT OF ONE PARTNER DONE IN THE COURSE OF THE PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS IS BINDING ON ALL THE OTHER PARTNERS.



FACTS: THERE ARE 20 PARTNERS INA FIRM AMSS & PARTNERS, WHICH WORKS AS AN AGENCY THAT HANDLES AIR CARGO FOR SOME COURIER COMPANIES. ALOK IS ONE OF THE SENIOR PARTNERS. HE ENTERS INTO A CONTRACT WITH FLASHPOST, A COURIER CO. THAT THE FIRM WILL PROVIDE THEM SERVICE AT 50% DISCOUNT.OTHER PARTNERS WERE FURIOUS TO HEAR THIS. THEY SAID THAT IT IS LIKELY THAT IF THIS DISCOUNT IS PROVIDED TO 1 CUSTOMER, ALL WILL DEMAND IT AND WILL BE HAVING A GRUDGE IF REFUSED. THEY TOLD ALOK TO GO AND RESCIND THE CONTRACT. ALOK TRIED BUT FAILED TO DO SO. IS THE FIRM BOUND BY WHAT ALOK HAS DONE?



A) NO. ALOK DID NOT STAND BY WHAT HE HAD DONE, HE TRIED TO RESCIND IT. THE FIRM IS NOT BOUND BY WHAT HE HAS DONE.



B) NO, THE PARTNERS MAY BE BOUND, BUT THE FIRM IS NOT.



C) YES, THE PARTNERS ARE BOUND.



D) NONE OF THE ABOVE.



Q.27.:PRINCIPLE 1: ANY PERSON MAY USE RASONABLE FORCE IN ORDER TO PROTECT HIS PROPERTY OR PERSON.



PRINCIPLE 2 : HOWEVER, THE FORCE EMPLOYED MUST BE PROPORTIONATE TO THE APPREHENDED DANGER.



FACTS : RAVI WAS WALKING ON A LONELY ROAD. MANIYAN CAME WITH A KNIFE AND TOLD RAVI, “ YOUR LIFE OR YOUR PURSE” RAVI PULLED OUT HIS REVOLVER. ON SEEING IT , MANIYAN RAN. RAVI SHOT MANIYAN IN HIS LEGS.



A) RAVI WILL NOT BE PUNISHED AS THERE WAS DANGER TO HIS PROPERTY.



B) RAVI WILL NOT BE PUNISHED AS THE FORCE HE USED WAS PROPROTIONATE TO THE APPREHENDED INJURY.



C) RAVI WILL BE PUNISHED AS THE FORCE HE USED WAS DISPROPROTIONATE TO THE APPREHENDED INJURY.



D) AS MANIYAN RAN TO ESCAPE, THERE WAS NO LONGER A THREAT TO RAVI’S PROPERTY. SO RAVI WILL BE PUNISHED.



Q.28.:PRINCIPLE 1 : PREPARATION TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE IS NOT AN OFFENCE.



PRINCIPLE 2: AFTER ONE HAS FINISHED PREPARATION TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE, ANY ACT DOEN TOWARDS COMMITTING THE OFFENCE WITH INTENTION TO COMMIT IT, IS AN ATTEMPT TO COMMIT THE OFFENCE, WHICH IS BY ITSELF AN OFFENCE.



FACTS: A WANTS TO KILL B. HE BUYS A GUN AND CARTRIDGES FOR COMMITTING THE MURDER. HE THEN SETS OUT SEARCHING FOR B AND WHEN HE SEES B, HE LOADS HIS GUN AND TAKES AIM AT B AND PULLS THE TRIGGER. THE GUN DID NOT FIRE.



A) A IS GUILTY OF ATTEMPT TO MURDER B FROM THE TIME HE SET OUT IN SEARCH OF B.



B) A IS GUILTY OF ATTEMPT TO MURDER FROM THE TIME HE LOADS HIS GUN.



C) A IS GUILTY OF ATTEMPT TO MURDER FROM THE MOMENT HE TAKES AIM AT B.



Q.29.: PRINCIPLE: IF THERE S NO GUILTY INTENTION ACCOMPANYING THE CULPABLE ACT, ONE CAN’T BE MADE CRIMINALLY LIABLE.



FACTS: ACID PETS SNAKES. HE KEEPS THE SNAKES IN A CAGE. ONCE HE FOUND A VERY POISONOUS COBRA AND KEPT IT AND PUTS IT IN ONE OF HIS CAGES IN HIS APRTMENT. AT NIGHT WHEN HE WAS ASLEEP, THE COBRA ESCAPED FROM THE CAGE AS THE NET OF THE CAGE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PREVENT IT FROM ESCAPING. IT WENT TO THE ADJACENT ROOM, AND BIT A SERVANT WHO DIED INSTANTLY. POLICE FILED A CASE OF CAUSING DEATH BY RASH AND NEGLIGENT ACT AGAINST ACID, HOLDING HIM RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH OF THE SERVANT.



A) A HUMAN BEING CAN’T BE BLAMED FOR KILLING THAT A SNAKE HAS COMMITTED.



B) IT WAS A PET OF ACID, SO HE IS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE.



C) HE WAS NEGLIGENT, THEREFORE HE IS LIABLE.



D) NONE OF THESE.



Q.30.: PRINCIPLE : WHEN ONE ACTS IN SELF DEFENCE, THERE CAN BE NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR THAT ACT.



FACTS : PURVI WOKE UP AT THE SOUND OF SOMETHING UNUSUAL AT NIGHT IN HER SAKET APARTMENT. SHE SUSPECTED THAT SOMEONE HAD ENTERED THEIR HOUSE, AND WOKE UP HER HUSBAND TOO. THE HUSBAND WAS VERY ANGRY TO BE WOKEN UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. HE TOOK HIS GUN AND WENT TO SEE WHAT WAS HAPPENING. HE SAW 2 MEN RUNNING AWAY WITH THEIR HD TV THROUGH THE BROKEN DOOR OF THEIR APARTMENT. HE SHOT AT THEIR LEGS. ONE GUY ESCAPED AND ANOTHER WAS INJURED. THE INJURED THIEF WAS CAUGHT BY PURVI’S HUSBAND. HOWEVER, THE THIEF FILED A CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST HIM FOR GRIEVOUS HURT, AND CLAIMED THAT PURVI’S HUSBAND HAS ACTED IN EXCESS OF SELF DEFENCE.



A) HE WILL SUCCEED. THE THIEVES RUNNING AWAY, NO THREAT TO PURVI OR HER HUSBAND EXISTED.



B) HE WILL SUCCEED. IT WAS ONLY BCOZ HE WAS ANGRY THAT HE SHOT AT THEM.



C) HE WILL NOT SUCCEDD. A THREAT AGAINST THE PROPERTY OF PURVI EXISTED.



D) NONE OF THE ABOVE.



Q.31.: PRINCIPLE : LAW PRESUMES INNOCENCE UNTIL GUILT IS PROVEN.



FACTS : MANISH IS AN INFAMOUS CRIMINAL. HE WAS UNTRACEABLE UNTIL HIS FATHER HELPED THE POLICE TO CATH HIM. AT THAT TIME, MANISH TOLD HIS FATHER THAT HE WILL NOT BE SPARED AND KILLED WHEN MANISH IS OUT. HOWEVER, WHEN MANISH WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL, HIS FATHER CAME TO RECEIVE HIM, AND TOOK HIM HOME. MANISH WAS ALSO BEHAVING RESPECTFULLY WITH HIS FATHER. BUT, THE NEXT DAY HIS FATHER IS FOUND DEAD. POLICE ARRESTED MANISH FOR KILLING HIS FATHER.MANISH LATER CONFESSES THAT HE KILLED HIS FATHER.



A) MANISH IS INNOCENT UNTIL POLICE CAN ESTABLISH HIS GUILT.



B) THERE IS A LEGAL PRESUMPTION AGAINST MANISH AS HE HAD DECLARED HIS WISH TO KILL HIS FATHER.NEVERTHELESS, HE IS NOT GUILTY AS OF NOW.



C) MANISH IS INNOCENT UNTIL THE COURT IS SATISFIED THAT HE IS GUILTY.



D) MANISH HAS ALREADY CONFESSED TO THE CRIME, SO HE IS GUILTY.





Q.32.: PRINCIPLE : AN ACT UNACCOMPANIED BY A GUILTY MIND CAN’T LEAD TO CRIMINAL LIABILTY.



FACTS: JACK WAS WALKING ON A VERY BUSY ROAD. INSTEAD OF WALKING ON THE FOOTPATH, FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON HE WAS WALKING ON THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. A BLACK BMW, DRIVEN AT 80 KM/H by PUP, WHO WAS DRUNK AT THAT TIME, HITS JACK. POLICE SUBMITTED A CHARGESHEET AGAINST HIM, ON BASIS OF WHICH A CASE OF CAUSING DEATH BY RASH AND NEGLIGENT ACT WAS FILED AGAINST THE DRIVER. DECIDE IF HE WAS LIABLE.



A) NO. HE IS NOT LIABLE. JACK HAD STUMBLED AND FELL ACCIDENTALLY ON THE WAY OF BMW.



B) NO. HE IS NOT LIABLE. HE HAD NO INTENTION TO EITHER HURT OR KILL.



C) NONE OF THE ABOVE.



Q.33.: PRINCIPLE : THE INTENTION OF THE ACCUSED TO PRODUCE A CERTAIN RESULT SHOWS HIS INTENTION TO DO THAT ACT. A PERSON CAN BE MADE CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR SOMETHING HE HAS DONE ONLY WHEN HIS ACT WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A CULPABLE INTENTION.



FACTS: MR. HIDE WAS WALKING WHEN HE SAW AN OLD GENTLEMAN WALKING TOWARDS HIM. HE RAN UPTO HIM;HIT HIM WITH A BLUNT STICK HE WAS CARRYING REPEATEDLY TILL HE FELL ON THE GROUND AND DIED. THE WHOLE INCIDENT WAS CAPTURED IN A CAMERA PLACED IN ORDER TO RECORD TRAFFIC ACTIVITY. POLICE CAUGHT MR. HIDE AND CHARGED FOR MURDER. HE CLAIMED THAT HE WAS NOT HIMSELF WHEN HE KILLED THE OLD MAN. CAN HE BE HELD LIABLE FOR MURDER?



A) YES. HE KNEW THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT HE WAS DOING.



B) NO. HE WAS NOT IN HIS PROPER SENSE; HE CAN’T BE MADE LIABLE AS THERE WAS LACK OF CRIMINAL INTENT.



C) THERE WAS NO MOTIVE FOR KILLING THE OLD MAN. MR. HIDE CAN’T BE MADE LIABLE AS CRIMINAL INTENT CAN’T BE ESTABLISHED IN ABSENCE OF MOTIVE.



D) BOTH B) & C)



Q.34 : PRINCIPLE: A PERSON CAN’T BE MADE CRIMINALLY LIABLE WHEN THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACT WHICH CONSTITUTE THE CRIME CHARGED AGAINST HIM ARE ONLY ACCIDENTAL CONSEQUENCES.



FACTS: ANIRBAN WAS DRIVING HIS NEW SPORTS CAR ON THE BUSYLAL NEHRU ROAD IN CENTRAL KOLKATA AT 140 KM/H SPEED, 11 IN MORNING, TRYING TO TAKE HIS SISTER TO THE HOSPITAL. HE HIT A PEDESTRIAN AT THAT SPEED, CAUSING HIM TO DIE ON THE SPOT. HE IS HELD FOR CULPABLE HOMICIDE. DECIDE.



A) HE WAS TRYING TO SAVE SOMEONE’S LIFE, SO DRIVING AT THAT SPEED IS JUSTIFIED. HE IS NOT GUILTY.



B) HE CAN’T KILL ONE TO SAVE ANOTHER’S LIFE. HE IS GUILTY.



C) IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. HE IS NOT LIABLE.



D) HE WAS DRIVING THROUGH A BUSY ROAD AT AN EXTREME SPEED KNOWING THAT IT IS LIKEL TO CAUSE TO ANOTHER. HE IS GUILTY.





Q.35.: PRINCIPLE: AN ACT DONE BYA CHILD B/W THE AGE OF 7-12 YRS. IS NOT AN OFFENCE, IF HE/SHE IS NOT MATURE ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND CONSEQUENCE OF THE ACT.



FACTS: HUMPTY & DUMPTY ARE TWINS & THEY ARE 11 YEARS OLD. DUMPTY WAS STRONGER AND HE USED TO WIN THE FIGHTS THEY FREQUENTLY HAD. ONCE AUNTY BOUGHT BOTH OF THEM 2 TOY CARS AND DUMPTY BROKE HUMPTY’S CAR. HUMPTY WAS VERY ATTACHED TO HIS CAR, SO TO TAKE REVENGE HE TOOK HIS FATHER’S GUN, LOADED IT WITH BULLETS AND WENT TO DUMPTY TO THREATEN HIM. DUMPTY WAS A BIT DUMB, HE TRIED TO HIT HUMPTY EVEN WHEN HE WAS HOLDING A GUN IN HIS FACE. ENRAGED, HUMPTY SHOT DUMPTY, GRIEVOUSLY INJURING HIM. AFTER THE INCIDENT, HUMPTY HID THE GUN, AND CONVINCED DUMPTY TO TELL EVERYONE THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY A BURGLAR WHO BROKE IN AND SHOT DUMPTY. POLICE RECOVERED HUMPTY’S DIARY, WHERE HE STATED THAT HE HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO KILL DUMPTY IF HE WAS TO LIVE, AS DUMPTY MADE HIS WORLD A LIVING HELL. DECIDE IF HUMPTY CAN BE HELD CRIMINALLY LIABLE.



A) HUMPTY IS EXEMPT AS HE IS MINOR.



B) HUMPTY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACT.



C) HUMPTY IS LIABLE BCOZ HIS ACTIONS SHOW THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THE NATURE AND CONSEQUENCE OF HIS ACTS.



D) HE IS NOT LIABLE AS IT WAS NOT INTENTIONAL.



Q.36 : PRINCIPLE: A PERSON IS GUILTY OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE AMOUNTING TO MURDER, IF THE ACT BY WHICH THE DEATH IS CAUSED IS DONE WITH THE INTENTION OF CAUSING DEATH.



FACTS: CHANU LOVED HIS WIFE VINU VERY MUCH. ONE DAY HE FOUND THAT VINU WAS IN A SECRET AMOROUS RELATIONSHIP WITH BIKU.CHANU WAS SO ANGRY THAT HE DECIDED TO PUNISH HIS WIFE. ONE DAY HE CLOSED ALL THE WINDOWS IN THEIR 2 ROOM FLAT, EMPTIED THE GAS CYLINDER KEPT IN KITCHEN FOR COOKING, SWITCHED OFF ALL LIGHTS AND LEFT THE FLAT, INTENDING THAT WHEN VINU COMES INSIDE AND SWITCHES ON THE LIGHT, THERE WILL BE A FIRE CAUSED BY THE ELECTRIC SPARK FROM THE SWITCH AND VINU WILL DIE INSTANTLY. HOWEVER INSTEAD OF VINU, THEIR MAID SERVANT WHO HAD COEM TO CLEAN THE FLAT BEACME A VICTIM OF HIS TRAP AND WAS BURNT INSTATNTLY.

IS CHANU LIABLE FOR THE MURDER OF THE MAID SERVANT?



A) NO. IT IS CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER AS THE INTENTION WAS TO KILL SOMEONE ELSE.



B) YES. IT IS CULPABLE HOMICIDE AMOUNTING TO MURDER.



C) NO. THERE IS NO PROOF THAT IT WAS CHANU WHO DID ALL THESE.



D) NONE OF THE ABOVE.



Q.37: PRINCIPLE: WHOEVER ATTEMPTS TO COMMIT SUICIDE AND DOES ANYTHING TOWARDS KILLING HIMSELF IS SAID TO HAVE COMMITTED AN OFFENCE.



FACTS: BOLTU WAS IN LOVE WITH NUTS. HOWEVER NUTS LIKES SOMEONE ELSE, SO SHE REFUSED. HE DECIDED TO COMMIT SUICIDE AND WROTE A SUICIDE NOTE. HOWEVER, HIS ROOMMATE SAW THE SUICIDE NOTE AND CALLED THE POLICE. WHEN POLICE CAME, BOLTU WAS SITTING ON THE ROOF WONDERING HOW HE WOULD COMMIT SUICIDE. THE POLICE ARRESTED HIM AND CHARGED WITH ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SUICIDE. DECIDE.



A) HE IS LIABLE, HE HAS WRITTEN A SUICIDE NOTE.



B) HE IS LIABLE, HE HAS GONE TO THE ROOF TO COMMIT SUICIDE.



C) HE IS NOT LIABLE, HE HAS DONE NOTHING TOWARDS COMMITTING SUICIDE.



D) HE IS LIABLE.



Q.38: PRINCIPLE: A PERSON WHO INTENDS TO TAKE ANY MOVEABLE PROPERTY OUT OF THE POSSESSION OF ANY PERSON WITHOUT THAT PERSON’S CONSENT AND MOVES THAT PROPERTY IN ORDER TO SUCH TAKING, IS SAID TO COMMIT THEFT.



FACTS: BROZEN WAS WALKING ON THE STREET, WHEN HE SAW A PURSE FALLING OUT OF SOMEONE’S POCKET. INSTEAD OF ALERTING THE PERSON, HE PICKED UP THE PURSE WHEN THE PERSON WALKED AWAY AND TOOKIT HOME. UNFORTUNATELY, THE PERSON WAS THE POLICE COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY, AND THE SCOTLAND YARD WAS TOLD TO INVESTIGATE. THEY FOUND THE PURSE IN BROZEN’S HOUSE AND PROSECUETD HIM FOR THEFT. DECIDE.



A) BROZEN IS LIABLE FOR THEFT.



B) BROZEN IS NOT LIABLE FOR THEFT.



C) THE WHOLE THING IS UNFAIR.BROZEN ES BEING NAILED JUST BCOZ THE PURSE BELONGED TO THE COMMISSIONER.



D) NONE OF THE ABOVE.



Q.39: PRINCIPLE: TAKING THE LIF EOF ANOTHER PERSON INTENDING TO CAUSE DEATH WOULD MAKE THE KILLER LEABLE FOR CUPLABLE HOMICIDE AMOUNTING TO MURDER.



FACTS: HEROD DID NOT LIKE SOCRATED, SO HE PUT SOME POISON IN HIS LUCNH BOX. SOCRATES WAS A VERY WISE PERSON. HE DIDN’T LIKE THE SMELL OF THE FOOD. SO HE GAVE HIS LUNCH TO HEROD’S DOG TO EAT,WHO ATE IT AND DIED. CAN POLICE CHARGE SOCRATES WITH CULPABLE HOMICIDE AMOUNTING TO MURDER?



A) YES. HE CAUSED THE DEAT OF THE DOG OF HEROD BY POISONING IT.



B) NO. HE DID NOT HAVE THE INTENTION TO KILL THE DOG.



C) NO. SOCRATES CAN’T BE MADE LIABLE FOR CULPABLE HOMICIDE; HE HAS CAUSED DEATH BY NEGLIGENCE.



D) NONE OF THE ABOVE.



Q.40: PRINCIPLE 1: SUICIDE ITSELF IS NOT AN OFFENCE, BUT ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SUICIDE IS AN OFFENCE.



PRINCIPLE 2: ABATEMENT OF ANY OFFENCE IS PUNISHABLE.



FACTS: MJ LED A SAD LIFE. ONE DAY, HE TOLD HIS FRIEND AKON ABOUT HOW SAD HIS LIFE WAS. AKON SUGGESTED THAT MJ SHOULD COMMIT SUICIDE . MJ ASKED AKON WHAT WOULD BE APAINLESS WAY OF COMMITTING SUICIDE. AKON ADVISED HIM TO JUMP OFF THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING WHICH HAD 100 FLOORS. MJ WROTE ABOUT ALL THIS IN HIS DAILY DIARY. FURTHER, EVEN IN HIS SUICIDE NOTE, HE THANKED LATTU PROFUSELY FOR HIS FRIENDSHIP AND VALUABLE ADVICE, AND THEN JUMPED OFF THE BUILDING. MJ COMMITTED HIS SUICIDE SUCCESSFULLY. POLICE ARRESTED AKON FOR ABATEMENT TO MJ’S SUICIDE. IS HE GUILTY?



A) YES. HE ACTUALLY ABATED MJ’S SUICIDE.



B) YES. WHAT HE HAS DONE IS ABSOLUTELY HEINOUS.



C) NO. SUICIDE IS NOT AN OFFENCE.



D) NONE OF THE ABOVE.