Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Consists of legal proposition(s)/ principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this Section. In other words, in answering these questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every question.
Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest in the study of law, research aptitude, and problem-solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the objective of this section to test your knowledge of the law.
Therefore, to answer a question, the principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option.
Principle: Every agreement, of which the object or consideration is opposed to public policy, is void. An agreement that has the tendency to injure public interest or public welfare is one against public policy. What constitutes an injury to the public interest or public welfare would depend upon the times and the circumstances.
Facts: 'A' promises to obtain for 'B' employment in the public service, and 'B' promises to pay rupees 5,00,000/- to 'A'.
विकल्प
The agreement is void because rupees 5,00,000/- is excessive.
The agreement is valid, as it is with consideration for public service.
The agreement is valid, as it is a contract between two parties with their free consent.
The agreement is void, as the object and consideration for it is opposed to public policy.
Advertisements
उत्तर
The agreement is void, as the object and consideration for it are opposed to public policy.
Explanation:
The agreement is void, as the object and consideration for it are opposed to public policy. The promise made by 'A' to B is opposed to public policy as it has the tendency to injure public interest or public welfare. The agreement is, therefore, void.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Legal Principle: Agreements in restraint of trade are void and unenforceable.
Fact Situation: Manu has been working as a blacksmith in his village for many decades. Somu has been undergoing training with him for the past three years. After his training is over, Somu enters into an agreement with Manu that he will not start a competing business in the same village while Manu is alive.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
A owns a residential flat. He is entitled to a quiet possession and enjoyment of his property. This is called
'Pacta Sunt Servanda' means that
Which one of the following conditions regarding the acquisition of citizenship by naturalization has been wrongly listed?
How many members are required to support the introduction of a No-Confidence Motion in the Lok Sabha?
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer.
Principle: A second suit will not be heard on the same facts between the same parties.
Nakshatra files a suit against Chandra for getting possession of a house on the ground that the property passed on to her through the will executed by Surya before his death. The suit gets dismissed as Nakshatra fails to produce the will. Nakshatra files another suit against Chandra to get the same house from the latter, on the ground that she was entitled to the house as being the nearest heir of Surya.
Principle: Trade dispute means any dispute between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen or between employers and employers which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of labour, of any person. Disputes connected with the non-employment must be understood to include a dispute connected with a dismissal, discharge, removal, or retrenchment of a workman.
Facts: 'X', an employee in a sugar factory, raised a dispute against 'Y', the employer, through trade union regarding certain matters connected with his suspension from the employment.
Principle: Money or good given to a person by mistake must be returned to the person who gave them.
Factual Situation: Sunil and Burma jointly owed ₹1000 to Siraj. Sunil pays the whole amount to Sirai in Suman's absence. Suman after returning from his vacations also paid the full amount to Siraj not knowing the fact that Sunil had already paid the same. Is Siraj bound to repay or return the extra money to Suman that he obtained under mistake from her?
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Nobody shall unlawfully interfere with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it. The use or enjoyment, envisaged herein, should be normal and reasonable taking into account the surrounding situation
FACTUAL SITUATION: Jogi and Prakash were neighbours in a residential locality. Prakash started a typing class in a part of his house and his typing sound disturbed Jogi who could not put up with any kind
DECISION:
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principle: Employers/Principles are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees/agents in the course of an employment agency. A servant/agent may be defined as any person employed by another to do work for him on the terms that he, the servant/agent, is to be subject to the control and directions of his employer/principal in respect of the manner in which his work is to be done.
Factual Situation: A motor car was owned by and registered and insured in the name of A (wife) but was regarded by her and her husband (B) as "our car." B used it to go to work and A for shopping at the weekends. B told A that if ever he was drunk and unfit to drive through, he would get a sober friend to drive him or else telephone her to come and fetch him. On the day in question, the husband telephoned the wife after work and told her that he was going out with friends. He visited a number of public houses and had drinks. At some stage, he realized that he was unable to drive safely and asked a friend, C, to drive. C drove them to other public houses. After the last had been visited C offered the three friends (X, Y, and Z) a lift and they got in, together with B who was in a soporific condition. C then proceeded, at his own suggestion, to drive in a direction away from the B's home to have a meal, On the way, due to C's negligent driving, an accident occurred in which both B and C were killed and the other friends got injured. X, Y, and Z brought an action against the wife both in her personal capacity and as administratrix of the husband's estate. Decide whether A is liable.
Decision:
