हिंदी

Principle: Where a Person Lawfully Does Anything for Another Person, Or Delivers Anything to Him, Not Intending to Do So Or to Provide Gratuitously

Advertisements
Advertisements

प्रश्न

Principle: Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so or to provide gratuitously, and such other person takes the benefit of that; the latter is bound to compensate the former for something is done or thing provided, or to restore, the thing so delivered.

Facts: Trader 'A' delivers certain eatables at B's house by mistake. 'B' consumed the eatables without asking anything. Which of the following derivations is correct?

विकल्प

  • 'B' is bound to pay 'A' for the eatables.

  • 'B' is not bound to pay 'A' for the eatables.

  • 'B' can be made liable to pay for the eatables, only if 'A' establishes an express contract between 'A' and 'B'.

  • It is the discretion of 'B' to make payment to 'A'

MCQ
Advertisements

उत्तर

'B' is bound to pay 'A' for the eatables.

Explanation:

According to section 70 of the Indian Contract Act where a person lawfully does anything for another person or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of or to restore the thing so done or delivered.  
The reasonable conclusion is drawn that B is bound to pay A for eatables. Hence "‘B’ is bound to pay ‘A’ for the eatables." is correct.

shaalaa.com
Law of Torts (Entrance Exams)
  क्या इस प्रश्न या उत्तर में कोई त्रुटि है?
2015-2016 (May) Set 1

संबंधित प्रश्न

Principle: The sale of liquor is illegal. All agreements relating to prohibited items do not exist in the eyes of law.  

Facts:  'A‘ entered into an agreement with 'B‘ for the sale of liquor. 'A‘ failed to supply the agreed quantity of liquor to B. 


Which Parliamentary Committee is described as ‘Watch-dog’ and guardian of the people against official negligence of corruption?


Who heads the four members Committee appointed to study the Centre-State relations especially the changes took place since Sarkaria Commission


In most cases, a threat of violence made over the telephone cannot constitute an assault. Which of the following most accurately explains why not?


PRINCIPLE The test as to whether the act done by an officer or agency of the state is a sovereign function or a function done ordinarily is dependent on the fact that an alternative person may also carry out the latter, but the former may only be carried out by the state.

FACTS In a boundary settlement dispute between India and Bangladesh, a certain territory was exchanged in pursuit of a treaty agreement. X's land which lay in the Indian enclave thus got transferred to Bangladesh, which did not recognise his proprietary rights. In a suit against the Indian Government, the likely outcome is


Which follow from the application of the undermentioned legal principle:

Legal Principle: The occupier of premises owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitors.

Factual Situation:
Devi who was the owner of a big home with a compound wall, constructed an underground tank to store water. This was covered by jute bags since the work was incomplete. The postman who came inside to deliver registered letter fell into this tank and hurt himself. There was also a box on the outside of the compound wall, where all the mail could be deposited. The injured man filed a suit against Devi claiming compensation.


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: Master/Principal is vicariously liable for the tort committed by a servant/agent, in the performance of his duties as a servant/agent.

Factual situation: A gave some cash and cheques to his friend B, who was an employee of the State Bank of India, to deposit the same in that Bank in the account of A. B misappropriated the amount. If A sues the Bank for damages, then the Bank is 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.

Principle: Nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it. If the interference is 'direct', the wrong is trespass; whereas, if the interference is 'consequential', it amounts to a nuisance.

Facts: 'A' plants a tree on his land. However, he allows of its branches to project over the land of 'B'. 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. 

Principle: An employer is responsible for any accident loss caused to his employees, during the course of employment.

Factual Situation: Ravi Menon runs the "African Circus'.  The circus has a ' night show. Two motorcyclists Rohit and Mohit rotate their motorcycles inside a big iron globe in complete darkness. And the audience, especially the children give a big clap. One day, it so happens that during the one-night show, an accident occurs inside the globe. Rohit and Mohit collide with each other and Rohit loses both his legs. His parents claim compensation from Ravi Menon, the proprietor of the circus. DECISION: 


Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:

Legal Principles:
1. Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
2. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
3. Generally, nuisances cannot be justified on the ground of necessity. pecuniary interest, convenience, or economic advantage to a defendant.

Facts: 
Dr. Hemant had for 18 years operated a clinic and hospital for the treatment of ENT. Dr. Karan operated a renal clinic in which patients receive haemo-dialysis on the floor above Dr. Hemant’s clinic. Karan was found liable for obnoxious fumes emitting from the clinic which escaped downwards into Dr. Hemant’s clinic. Hemant, his staff and patients were found to have suffered substantial damage ranging from skin diseases, red and swollen eyes, headaches, lethargy and breathing difficulties. Decide whether Karan is liable?


Share
Notifications

Englishहिंदीमराठी


      Forgot password?
Use app×