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: A contract would be invalid and unlawful if the contract is for any immoral or illegal purpose.
Facts: P, was a young and helpless widow, living on the pavement. R, a neighbor gave her a house, registered in her name, on the condition that she should allow R to keep his smuggled goods and drugs in her house. After the registration was done, according to the condition in the contract, R’s agents went to keep some packets in her house, she refused. R told her the condition under which the house was given to her. She still refused. Is P justified in her action?
विकल्प
As R was making the contract for illegal activities, P's stand is valid in law.
R can take back the house by cancelling the transfer deed.
P is not justified as she did not have the right to deny R's request.
P is right as she did not like smuggled goods to be kept in her house.
Advertisements
उत्तर
As R was making the contract for illegal activities, P’s stand is valid in law
Explanation:
As R was making the contract for illegal activities, P's stand is valid in law. The conditions made by R were illegal in nature. Such conditions made the contract invalid and unlawful. The contract does not stand valid in the court of law.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
In this Question problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question. In answering the following question, you should not rely on any rule(s) except the rule(s) that are supplied for problem. Further, you should not assume any fact other than 'those stated in the problem. The aim is to test your ability to properly apply a rule to a given set of facts, even when the result is absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the aim to test any knowledge of law you may already possess.
Rule A: An owner of land has the right to use the land in any manner he or she desires. The owner of land also owns the space above and the depths below it.
Rule B: Rights above the laud extend only to the point they are essential to any use or enjoyment of land.
Rule C: An owner cannot claim infringement of her property right if the space above his or her land is put to reasonable use by someone else at a height at which the owner would have to reasonable use of it and it does not affect the reasonable enjoyment of his or her land.
Shazia's case: Shazia owns a single storeyed house in Ahmedabad which has been in her family for more than 75 years. The foundation of the house cannot support another floor and Shazia has no intention of demolishing her family home to construct a bigger building. Javed and Sandeep are business partners and own three storey houses on either side of Shazia's house. Javed and Sandeep are also Ahmedabad's main distributors for a major soft drinke company. They have erected a huge hoarding advertising their products, with the ends supported on their roofs but the hoarding also passes over Shazia's house at 70 feet and casts a permanent shadow on her terrace. Shazia decides to hoist a huge Indian flag, going up to 75 feet, on her roof. She files a case, asking the court to order Javed and Sandeep to remove the hoarding for all these reasons.
Applying only Rule B and C to Ramesh's case, you would decide:
The question consists of two statements, one labelled as the principle and other as Fact. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.
Principle: When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal.
Fact: “Ramanuj telegraphed to Shyam Sunder, writing: “Will you sell me your Rolls Royce CAR? Telegram the lowest cash price.” Shyam Sunder also replied by telegram: “Lowest price for CAR is ₹20 lakh.” Ramanuj immediately sent his consent through telegram stating: “I agree to buy the CAR for ₹20 lakh asked by you.” Shyam Sunder refused to sell the car.
Choose the best option for the following statement:
The distinction between fraud and misrepresentation:
1. Fraud is more or less intentional wrong, whereas misrepresentation may be quite innocent.
2. In addition to rendering the contract voidable, iS a cause of action in tort for damages. Simple misrepresentation is not a tort but a person who rightfully rescinds a contract is entitled to compensation for any damages which he has sustained through the non-fulfillment of the contract.
3. A person complaining of misrepresentation can be met with the defence that he had "the means of discovering the truth with ordinary diligence. But excepting fraud by silence in other cases of fraud it is no defence that "the plaintiff had the means of discovering the truth by ordinary diligence".
4. None of the above.
................. is a one-sided contract in which only one party has to perform his promise or obligation.
Express contract means a contract made by
Contracts classified on the basis of performance are
Below question contains some basic principles and fact situations in which these basic principles have to be applied. A list of probable decisions and reasons are given.
Principles:
1. If A is asked to do something by B, B is responsible for the act, not A.
2. If A, while acting for B commits a wrong, A is responsible for the wrong, not B.
3. If A is authorized to do something for B, but in the name of A without disclosing B's presence, both A and B may be held liable.
Facts:
Somu contracted with Amar whereunder Amar would buy a pump set to be used in Somu's farm. Such a pump set was in short supply in the market. Gulab, a dealer, had such a pump set and he refused to sell it to Amar. Amar threatened Gulab of serious consequences if he fails to part with the pump set. Gulab filed a complaint against Amar.
Proposed Decision:
(a) Amar alone is liable for the wrong though he acted for Somu.
(b) Amar is not liable for the wrong, though he is bound by the contract with Somu.
(c) Somu is bound by the contract and liable for the wrong.
(d) Both Somu and Amar are liable for the wrong.
Suggested Reasons
i) Amar committed the wrong while acting for the benefit of Somu.
ii) Amar cannot do while acting for Somu something which he cannot do while acting for himself.
iii) Both Amar and Somu are liable since they are bound by the contract.
iv) Somu has to be responsible for the act of Amar committed to Somu's benefit. Your decision with the reason.
From the four answers given, shade the appropriate answer.
No minor can enter into a contract of work. Working in a shop can be done only by a contract. Which of the following derivation is correct?
From the four answers given, Choose the appropriate answer.
All motor vehicles are required to have third party insurance. Any vehicle not using a mechanical device is not a motor vehicle.
Which of the following is a correct derivation from the above?
From the four answers given, shade the appropriate answer.
A contract contravening public policy is void. There cannot be a general definition of public policy. Which of the following is a correct derivation from the above?
