Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Legal Principle: An essential condition in a contract for the sale of goods is that the seller has title over the goods sold.
Fact Situation: Ranjan pays rupees two thousand and buys a watch from Mohit who runs a watch showroom and a repair shop. Jatin sees the watch with Ranjan and tells him that it is his watch and was only given to Mohit for repairs. If what Jatin says is true
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
विकल्प
Ranjan is now the owner of the watch since he paid rupees two thousand for it.
Ranjan is not the owner of the watch since Mohit did not have a title to it.
Mohit must pay Jatin rupees two thousand since he sold Jatin’s watch.
Mohit is the owner of the watch since he sold it to Ranjan.
Advertisements
उत्तर
Ranjan is not the owner of the watch since Mohit did not have a title to it.
Explanation:
Rules as to title: There is an implied condition on the part of the seller that, in the case of a sale, he has the right to sell the goods, and in the case of an agreement to sell, he will have the right to sell the goods when the property is to pass. Thus if the seller has no title to the goods, the buyer can reject the goods, or if he has taken possession of the goods and is deprived of it by the real owner, the buyer can recover the full price of the goods even if he has made use of them. A bought a motor-car from and used it for 4 months. B had no title to the car because he has obtained the possession by theft and consequently A had to surrender it to the real owner. A was entitled to recover from B the full price even though he used the car for 4 months. (Rowland Vs. Divall). Hence option (b) is the most appropriate. Mohit did not have title to the watch so he can not pass it to Ranjan so neither Mohit nor Ranjan is the owner of the watch.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: Terms of any written contract can be proved by producing the written contract only and oral evidence is excluded.
Facts: A gives B receipt for money paid by B. Oral evidence is offered to prove payment.
The law of contract is nothing but
The frustration of contract implies
'Pacta Sunt Servanda' means that
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: When at the desire of the promisor, the promisee has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or abstain something, such an act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A daughter promises to give maintenance to her uncle in consideration of her mother making a gift of certain properties to her. The daughter pleads a lack of consideration when the uncle seeks to enforce the contract. She says that the uncle is a stranger to the consideration and so he cannot enforce the contract. The daughter
DECISION:
Principle: A contract that is duly supported by real and lawful consideration is valid not withstanding the fact that the consideration is inadequate. The quantum of consideration is for the parties to decide at the time of making a contract and not for the courts (to decide) when the contract is sought to be enforced. An agreement to which the consent of the promisor is freely given is not void merely because the consideration is inadequate, but the inadequacy of the consideration may be taken into account by the court in determining the question of whether the consent of the promisor was freely given.
Facts: 'A' agrees to sell his mobile phone worth ₹20000 for ₹100 only to ‘B’ as the content is freely given.
Which of the following derivations is correct?
Principle: The consideration or object of an agreement is unlawful if the court regards it as opposed to public policy. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.
Facts: 'X' promises to obtain for 'Y' employment in the public service and 'Y' promises to pay ₹500000 to 'X'
Which of the following derivations is correct?
Principle: A gift comprising both existing and the future property is void as to the latter.
Facts: 'X' has a house that is owned by him. He contracted to purchase a plot of land adjacent to the said house, but the sale (of the plot of land) in his favour is yet to be completed. He makes a gift of both the properties (house and land) to 'Y'
Under the aforementioned circumstances, which of the following derivations is correct?
LEGAL PRINCIPLES:
1. Once a person accepts another's an offer, and signifies such acceptance to the former, a contract comes into existence between them.
2. Uncertain agreements are void agreements.
3. Rejected offers can be accepted only if renewed.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Bakshi wanted to purchase a particular land. He sent a letter to his cousin. Dutt, offering him ₹4 lakhs for it. Dutt replied that he would not sell it below 5 lakhs. Bakshi communicated his willingness to pay this amount. Dutt did not sell the land to Bakshi. Bakshi sued him for breach of contract.
DECISION:
The following questions consist of two statements, one labelled as. 'Assertion' and the other as 'Reason'. Read both the statements carefully and answer using the codes given below.
Assertion (A): A person claims compensation for his non-gratuitous act.
Reason (R): A person who enjoys benefit from lawful, non-gratuitous acts of another must compensate him even though there is no contract.
