Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
This question consists of principles and facts. The principal 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 the question, you must not rely on any principle 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.
Therefore, to answer a question, the principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option.
Principle: According to law, a person is deemed to have attained the age of majority when he completes the age of 18 years, except in the case of a person where a guardian of a minor’s person or property has been appointed under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 or where the superintendence of a minor’s property is assumed by a Court of Wards. Indian law expressly forbids a minor from entering into a contract. Hence, any contract entered into by a minor is voidabinitio regardless of whether the other party was aware of his minority or not. Further, though a minor is not competent to contract, nothing in the Contract Act prevents him from making the other party bound to the minor.
Facts: Lal executed a promissory note in favour of Gurudutt, aged 16 years stating that he would pay Gurudutt a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs when he attains the age of majority. On attaining the age of 18, Gurudutt demanded the amount from Lal, who refused to pay. Gurudutt wants to take legal action against Lal. Identify the most appropriate legal position from the following:
विकल्प
Gurudutt should not have entered into a contract with Lal when he was a minor.
Lal was not aware of the fact that Gurudutt was a minor.
Lal argues that as per the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Gurudutt can claim the money only after he attains the age of 21.
A promissory note duly executed in favour of a minor is not void and can be sued upon by him because he thought incompetent to contract, may yet accept a benefit.
Advertisements
उत्तर
A promissory note duly executed in favour of a minor is not void and can be sued upon by him because he thought incompetent to contract, may yet accept a benefit.
Explanation:
A promissory note duly executed in favour of a minor is not void and can be sued upon by him because he thought incompetent to contract, may yet accept a benefit. A minor by law is incompetent to contract but can accept a benefit on reaching maturity.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
In this Question, the problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question.
Rules
A. The act of using threats to force another person to enter into a contract is called coercion.
B. The act of using influence on another and taking undue advantage of that person is called undue influence.
C. In order to prove coercion, the existence of the use of threat, in any form and manner, is necessary. If coercion is proved, the person who has been so threatened can refuse to abide by the contract.
D. In order to prove undue-influence, there has to be a pre-existing relationship between the parties to a contract. The relationship has to be of such a nature that one is in a position to influence the other. If it is proven that there has been undue influence, the party who has been so influenced need not enforce the contract or perform his obligations under the contract.
Facts:
Aadil and Baalu are best friends. Aadil is the son of a multi-millionaire business person, Chulbul who owns Maakhan Pharmaceuticals. Baalu is the son of a bank employee, Dhanraj. One day, Aadil is abducted from his office by Baalu. Chulbul receives a phone call from Dhanraj telling him that if he does not make Baalu the CEO of Maakhan Pharmaceuticals, Aadil will be killed. Chulbul reluctantly agrees to make the Baalu the CEO.
Subsequently, Chulbul and Baalu sign an employment contract. However, as soon as Aadil is released and safely returns home, Chulbul tells Baalu that he shall not enforce the employment contract. Baalu and Dhanraj are not sure as to what is to be done next.
Baalu will succeed in getting the employment contract enforced if he can show that
This problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question.
Rules:
A. When land is sold, all ‘fixtures’ on the land are also deemed to have been sold.
B. If a moveable thing is attached to the land or any building on the land, then it becomes a ‘fixture’.
Facts: Khaleeda wants to sell a plot of land she owns in Beghmara, Meghalaya and the sale value decided for the plot includes the fully-furnished palatial six-bedroom house that she has built on it five years ago. She sells it to Gurpreet for sixty lakh rupees. After completing the sale, she removes the expensive Iranian carpet which used to cover the entire wooden floor of one of the bedrooms. The room had very little light and Khaleeda used this light-colored radiant carpet to negate some of the darkness in the room. Gurpreet, after moving in, realizes this and files a case to recover the carpet from Khaleeda.
As a judge, you would decide in favour of
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.
Ramesh's case: Ramesh owns an acre of land on the outskirts of Sullurpeta, Andhra Pradcsh. The Govemment of India launches its satellites into space frequently from Sriharikota, near Sullurpcla. The Government of India does not deny that once the satellite launch has traveled the distance of almost 7000 kilometres it passes over Ramesh's properly. Ramesh files a case claiming that the Government of India has violated his property rights by routing its satellite over his property, albeit 7000 kilometres directly above it.
Applying only Rule A to Ramesh's case, as a judge you would decide:
Which law introduced the system of dyarchy in India during the British reign?
A/an ............... is every Promise and every set of promises, forming consideration for each other
In social agreements usual presumption is
To form a valid contract, there should be at least .............
As per section 2(e) of the Indian Contract Act, “Every Promise and every set of promise forming the consideration for each other is a/an
An Agreement is ...................
.................. is made by words spoken.
