Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Legal Principle: The insurer agrees to pay no more than the actual amount of the loss.
Fact Situation: Sunny insures his car worth rupees five lakh with X, an insurance company, for its value. He again insures the same car with Y, another insurance company, on the same terms. There is an accident and the car suffers a total loss. In his separate suits against X and Y, if Sunny recovers rupees five lakh from X, how much can he recover from Y?
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
विकल्प
Sunny can recover rupees five lakhs from Y
Sunny cannot recover any amount from Y
Sunny must pay Y, the rupees five lakhs he received from X.
Sunny cannot insure his car with both X and Y at the same time.
Advertisements
उत्तर
Sunny cannot recover any amount from Y.
Explanation:
The principle of indemnity asserts that on the happening of a loss the insured shall be put back into the same financial position as he used to occupy immediately before the loss. In other words, the insured shall get neither more nor less than the actual amount of loss sustained. This, of course, is always subject to the limit of the sum insured. Ongoing through the case we discover that Sunny had insured his car with two insurance companies and thus getting it insured at double the price of his car. on losing it completely he cannot claim more than 5lakh of rupees according to the above-mentioned rule thus option (b) is the most appropriate statement according to which if Sunny has claimed rupees 5lakh from x company then he cannot claim any amount from y company.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: A condition must be complied with after the happening of the event to which such a condition is attached.
Facts: A promises to pay Rs. 5,000 to B on the condition that he shall marry with the consent of C, D, and E. B marries without the consent of C, D, and E, but obtains their consent after the marriage.
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 contract between the father and his son is a contract of utmost good faith. In such a type of contract law presumes that at the time of entering into the contract the father was in a position to dominate the will of his son. Where one of the parties was in the position to father was in the will of the other parties, the contract is enforceable only at the option of the party whose will was so dominated.
Facts: Ram had advanced a sum of ₹10,000 to his minor son Shyam. When Shyam became major, his father Ram misused his parental position and entered into an agreement with Shyam and obtained a bond from him for a sum of ₹30,000 in respect of the advance. Whether this agreement is enforceable?
Which one of the following conditions regarding the acquisition of citizenship by naturalization has been wrongly listed?
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: The owner of a land is entitled to the column of air space above the surface ad infinitum. But, the right is restricted to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and employment of his land, and the structure on it.
Factual Situation: A had constructed a single-storeyed house on a corner site. He had no intention of building an additional floor. B his neighbour, who ran an internet parlour got a hoarding made, which protruded over A's house at a height of around 6 feet above the terrace. A sues B for trespass.
Principle: Acceptance (of the offer) must be communicated by the offeree to the offerer so as to give rise to a binding obligation. The expression 'by the offeree to the offerer' includes communication between their authorised agents.
Facts 'X' made an offer to buy Y's property for a stipulated price. 'Y' accepted it and communicated his acceptance to 'Z', a stranger.
Which of the following derivations is correct?
Principle: Two or more persons are said to consent if they agree upon the same thing in the same sense. Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by coercion, or undue influence, or fraud, or misrepresentation, or mistake.
When consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud, or misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract voidable (rescindable or terminable) at the option of the party whose consent was so caused. However, when consent to an agreement is caused by mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void.
Facts: 'X' threatens to gun down 'Y' if he ('Y') does not sell his property worth ₹2000000 for ₹ 100000 only. As a consequence, 'Y' agrees to sell it as demanded by 'X'.
Which of the following derivations is correct?
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:
1. The battery is the intentional causation of harmful or offensive contact with another's person without that person's consent.
2. When lawfully exercising the power of arrest or some other statutory power a police officer had greater rights than an ordinary citizen to restrain another.
Factual Situation: Two police officers on duty in a police car observed two women in the street who appeared to be soliciting for the purpose of prostitution. One of the women was known to the police as a prostitute but the other, X, was not a known prostitute. When the police officers requested X to get into the car for questioning she refused to do so and instead walked away from the car. One of the officers, a policewoman, got out of the car and followed X in order to question her regarding her identity and conduct and to caution her, if she was suspected of being a prostitute, in accordance with the approved police procedure for administering cautions for suspicious behaviour before charging a woman with being a prostitute. X refused to speak to the policewoman and walked away, whereupon the policewoman took hold of X's arm to detain her. X then swore at the policewoman and scratched the officer's arm with her fingernails. X was convicted of assaulting a police officer in the execution of her duty. She appealed against the conviction, contending that when the assault occurred the officer was not exercising her power of arrest and was acting beyond the scope of her duty in detaining X by taking hold of her arm. The police contended that the officer was acting in the execution of her duty when the assault occurred because the officer had good cause to detain X for the purpose of questioning her to see whether a caution for suspicious behaviour should be administered. Decide whether the police officer is liable for battery.
Decision:
Principle: When, at the desire of one person, any other person has done or abstained from doing something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.
Facts: X, the uncle of Y, made a promise to pay him an amount of ₹1,00,000/- as a reward if Y quits smoking and drinking within one year. Y quit smoking and drinking within six months.
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
1. A contract comes into being from the acceptance of an offer, When the person to whom the offer is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted and the parties are at consensus and idem regarding the terms of the agreement.
2. Consideration is something that moves from the promise to the promisor, at the implied or express request of the latter, in return for his promise. The item that moves can be a right. interest, profit, loss, responsibility given or suffered, forbearance, or a benefit which is of some value in the eyes of law.
3. Contractual rights and liabilities are exclusive to the parties to contract.
4. There are few exceptions to the doctrine of privity of contracts like agency, trust, assignment, and third party beneficiary.
5. A quasi-contract is a contract that is created by the court when no such official contract exists between the parties to prevent a party from being unjustly enriched, or from benefitting from the situation when he/she does not deserve to do so.
Facts: Goodtyre is a tyre manufacturer who agreed with their dealer to not sell the tyres below a recommended retail price (RRP). As part of the agreement, Goodtyre also required their dealers to gain the same agreement with their retailers, who in this instance was Bestmotors. The agreement held that if tyres were sold below the RRP, they would be required to pay ₹ 500 per tyre in damages to Good tyre. This was agreed between the dealer and Bestmotors, which effectively made Goodtyre a third party to that agreement. Sometime after this, Bestmotor sold the tyres below the agreed price and Goodtyre sued for damages and an injunction to prevent them from continuing this activity. Bestmotors is arguing that Goodtyre could not enforce the contract as it was not part of the contract between the dealer and Bestmotors. The court decided that Goodtyre had no right to access damages. Which of the following is the correct reasons?
I. The good tyre could not claim for damages as only a party to a contract can claim damages under it.
II. The good tyre had not given any consideration to Bestmotors and therefore there could be no binding contract between the parties.
III. The good tyre was not listed as an agent within the contract and could therefore not be included as a valid third-party who had rights to claim on the contract.
