Advertisements
Advertisements
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.
विकल्प
B has fulfilled the condition
B has not fulfilled the condition
The condition is illegal
B must divorce his wife
Advertisements
उत्तर
B has fulfilled the condition
Explanation:
B has fulfilled the condition. The condition as understood in the principle is that the condition must be complied with after the happening of the event. The condition is that B will marry with the consent of C, D, and E. B has taken their consent after the marriage, that is, after the happening of the event.
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 and B enter into a contract to marry each other. Before the time fixed for the marriage, A goes mad. The contract becomes
LEGAL PRINCIPLE A minor is not competent to contract.
FACTUAL SITUATION Deep, a 9th standard student realises that he is a minor, he is not permitted by law to execute a contract, appoints on Mandeep as his agent to conclude the purchase of land to gift it to his mother on her birthday. Mandeep accordingly prepares the papers for the transaction but at the last minute, the seller who had agreed to sell it now refuses to sell it contending that he does not wish to sell the land to a minor. Deep seeks to enforce the contract against the seller.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: The contract after the death of one party can be continued if it is ratified by the surviving party.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Vishal, a famous artist was requested by Arun, an industrialist to draw the portrait of his deceased wife and paid ₹20,000/- in advance and agreed to pay when the work was completed, the sum of ₹2 lakhs. When the portrait was half drawn, Vishal died due to a heart attack. His son also a fine artist completed his father’s work and demanded the money from Arun. Arun refused to pay and to accept the portrait drawn by Vishal’s son and also demanded the advance to be returned.
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.
Mr. Sampath went to a party alone in his wife Sunanda's car. He usually used his wife's car after office hours and his wife never objected to it. At the party, he got drunk. instead of taking the risk of driving the car, he requested his friend Mr. Vivek to drive him back home in Sunandas car, Mr. Vivek was quite sober since he had moderately consumed alcohol. On the way, Vivek knocked down a boy and injured his leg. Subsequently, on behalf of the boy, a claim for compensation was brought against Mrs.Sunanda since the car belonged to her and it was registered in her name. The insurance company refuses to pay compensation because the police report says that the person driving the car at the time of the accident had consumed alcohol.
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: Every person, who is of the age of majority, is competent to contract according to the law to which he is subject.
Facts: A minor mortgaged his house in favour of Thakur Das, a money lender, to secure a loan of ₹20000. A part of this, i.e. ₹10500 was actually advanced to him. While considering the proposed advance, the attorney who was acting for the money lender, received information that the plaintiff was still a minor. Subsequently the minor commenced an action stating that he was underage when he executed the mortgage and the same should, therefore, be cancelled. He prayed for setting aside the mortgage. The mortgagee money lender prayed for the refund of ₹10500 from the minor.
P, Q, and R made a joint promise to give S a sum of ₹3000. S recovered the whole amount from P. Q was declared insolvent and cannot give anything. Which statement out of the following is correct?
LEGAL PRINCIPLES: A contract is an agreement enforceable by law.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Amita invited Bina to her house for dinner. Bina accepted the invitation but later did not go. On Bina's failure to attend, Amita filed a suit against Bina for the price of non-consumed food. Will the law enforce this agreement?
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): No action lies for more damage caused by some act that does not violate a legal right.
Reason (R): An action lies for interference with another's legal right even where it causes no actual damage.
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:
