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
When the contract is perfectly valid but cannot be enforced because of certain technical defects. This is called
Mark the incorrect answer
The main purpose of the Law of Contract is
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: When there is a breach of contract, the resulting damages will have to be paid by the party breaching the contract to the aggrieved party. However, the parties are free to agree as to damages payable in advance in case there is a breach of contract.
Facts: Mr. Ramesh entered into a contract with Mr. Ramakrishna for selling his green Alto Car for Rs. 3 lakhs. Mr. Ramakrishna was to pay Rs. 3 lakhs on or before 25th April 2005 and take possession of the car. The party failing to honour the contract has to pay Rs. 40,000/- as damages to the other party. Mr. Ramakrishna has not performed his part of the contract. Mr. Ramesh is claiming Rs. 40,000/-
The question consists of legal propositions/principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principles may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true. In other words, in answering the following question, you must not rely on any principles except the principle that is given hereinbelow for the 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.
Principle: A pact, other than a pact to commit suicide, to suffer any harm is not an offence, provided the age of the person who has given his consent to suffer harm is above eighteen years.
Facts: A enters into a pact with B, a boy of less than 18 years of age, to fence with each other for amusement. They agreed to suffer any harm which, in the course of such fencing, may be caused without foul play.
The question consists of legal propositions/principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principles may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true. In other words, in answering the following question, you must not rely on any principles except the principle that is given hereinbelow for the 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.
Principle: Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the decision of a person to enter into a contract does not amount to fraud unless his silence is in itself equivalent to speech.
Facts: A sells to B a horse which A knows to be of unsound mind. B says to A that if A does not say anything about the state of mind of the horse, then B shall presume that the horse is of sound mind. A says nothing to B about the mental condition of the horse.
Principle: Acceptance should be made while the offer is still subsisting. The offer or is free to retract his offer at any time before his offer gets accepted by the offeree. Once the offer is withdrawn or is lapsed, it is not open to being accepted so as to give rise to a contract. Similarly, if time is prescribed within which the offer is to be accepted, then the offer must be accepted within the prescribed time. And if no time is prescribed, then the acceptance must be made within a reasonable time. 'What is a reasonable time', is a question of fact which is to be determined by taking into account all the relevant facts and surrounding circumstances.
Facts: 'X' makes an offer to 'Y' to sell his equipment for ₹1000.00. No time is specified for acceptance. 'Y' sends his reply two years after receiving the offer.
Which of the following derivations is correct?
LEGAL PRINCIPLES: 1. Acceptance must be given only by the person to whom the offer is made. 2. Communication of acceptance to a person who did not make the offer does not bind the offeror.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Pal sold his business to Sam without disclosing it to his customers. Mani, an old customer sent an order for goods to Pal by name. Sam, the new owner, executed the order. Mani refuses to accept the goods from Sam as he intended to deal only with Pal. In a suit by Sam against Mani:
DECISION:
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.
Factual Situation: Xavier telegrammed to William, "Will you sell me your house? Telegram the lowest cash price." William also replied by Telegram "The lowest price for my house is ₹30 lakh. Xavier immediately sent his reply consenting to William's telegram by saying "I agree to buy your house for ₹30 lakh asked by you." William refused to sell his house.
Decision
The following question consists 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): Custom to have the force of law must be followed from time immemorial.
Reason (R): Custom represents the common consciousness of the people.
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: An unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it is a nuisance in tort. The fact that the plaintiff "came to the nuisance" by knowingly acquiring property in the vicinity of the defendant's premises is not a defense to nuisance. However, an act cannot be a nuisance if it is imperatively demanded by public convenience. Thus, when the public welfare requires it, a nuisance may be permitted for special purposes.
Factual Situation: D owned and occupied an estate about two miles from RAF Wittering, an operational and training base for Harrier Jump Jets. D claimed that they suffered severe noise disturbance every time the Harrier pilots carried out training circuits: an average of 70 times a day. D alleged that the noise nuisance constituted a very serious interference with their enjoyment of their land. D instituted judicial proceedings against the defendants, the Ministry of Defence (MoD), damages amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000.
The MoD denied liability and raised the defence that the Harrier training was undertaken for the public benefit and that they had prescriptive right over the land as D had bought their property at a time when RAF Wittering was already established so he cannot claim compensation as he already knew about the existence of RAF Wittering near his property.
Decision:
