Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: Acceptance of the proposal must be the exact mirror image of the proposal.
Facts: 'A‘ made a proposal to 'B‘ to sell a chair for Rs. 500. 'B‘ is desirous of buying the said chair for Rs. 400.
विकल्प
B has accepted the proposal of A.
B has not accepted the proposal of A.
It is not clear if B has accepted the proposal of A.
It is not clear whether A made a proposal to B.
Advertisements
उत्तर
B has not accepted the proposal of A.
Explanation:
An acceptance with a variation is no acceptance it is simply counter-proposal. The reasonable conclusion is drawn that B has not accepted the proposal of A.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Legal Principle: Negligence is the absence of care by one party which results in some damage to another. Damage is an essential ingredient to constitute a tort of negligence.
Fact Situation: Mistry left his ladder on the public road while unloading it from a truck when he went to open the shutters of his shop. Saini who was riding his motorcycle had to swerve hard to avoid hitting the ladder as he came with speed on the road. Saini fell down but was miraculously not injured.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Result of successful prosecution is
Mark the best option:
Principle: When the plaintiff by reason of his own conduct contributes to the damage caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendant, he is considered to be guilty of contributory negligence.
Facts: A had to buy groceries from the shop across the road from his house. As A had to leave for a meeting he was in a hurry. He tried to cross the road, all of a sudden, without looking and was hit by B's car. Is A guilty of contributory negligence?
Which Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects which right...?
Principle: A master shall be responsible for the wrongful acts of his servants in the course of his employment.
Facts: The Syndicate Bank was running a small savings scheme under which its authorized agents would go round and collect small savings from several people on daily basis. These agents would get commission, on the deposits so collected. Ananth was one such agent, collecting deposits from factory workers engaged on daily wages. Though he regularly carried on his business for sometime, slowly he started appropriating deposits for his personal use and one day he just disappeared. One Fatima, who had been handing over her savings to him found that nearly for a month before his disappearance, he was not depositing her savings at all. The Bank, when approached, took the stand that Ananth was not its regular and paid employee and therefore, it was not responsible for his misconduct. She files a suit against the Bank
Principle: One has to compensate another for the injury caused due to his wrongful act. The liability to compensate is reduced to the extent the latter has contributed to the injury through his own negligence, This is the underlying principle of contributory negligence.
Facts: Veerappa owns a farm at a distance of half a furlong from the railway track. He stored in his land the stacks of dried up straw after the cultivation as is normal in farming. One day when the train was passing through the track, the driver was negligently operating the locomotive by allowing it to emit large quantities of spark. The high wind, normal in open fields, carried the sparks to the stacks stored by Veerappa and the stacks caught fire thereby causing extensive damage. Veerappa filed a suit against the Railways claiming damages. The Railways while acknowledging liability alleged contributory negligence on the part of Veerappa.
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 Principles:
1. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do
2. Defendant’s duty of care depends of the reasonable foreseeability of injury which may be caused to the plaintiff on breach of duty.
Factual situation: The defendants employees of the Municipal Corporation opened a manhole in the street and in the evening left the manhole open an covered it by a canvass shelter, unattended and surrounded by warning lamps. The plaintiff, an eight years old boy, took one of the lamps into the shelter and was playing with it there when he stumbled over it and fell into the manhole. A violent explosion followed and the plaintiff suffered burn injuries. The defendants are DECISION:
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. An act done by the consent of a person above 18 years is not an offense; provide the offender did not intend to cause death or grievous hurt.
2. Mere pecuniary benefit is not a thing done for a person's benefit'.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A is in a house which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket. A drops the child from the housetop, knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child but intending to save him from the fire. Unfortunately, the child is killed is guilty? DECISION:
Define vicarious liability.
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
1. The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
3. Volenti non-fit injuria is a defense to action in negligence.
Facts:
A team of scientists imported a virus for the purpose of research. They carried out research on their premises into foot and mouth disease in cattle, and they were apparently responsible for the escape of some virus. As a result, there was an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the area, and the Minister of Agriculture ordered two markets to be closed. This caused some of the traders, who were two firms of auctioneers, to suffer a loss of profits on a total of six market days, from which they sought to recover. Decide whether the scientists owed a duty of care towards the traders?
