हिंदी

Principle: Whoever by Words Publishes Any Imputation Concerning Any Person is Said to Defame that Person. Facts: During a Marriage Ceremony, a Circulated a Pamphlet Saying the

Advertisements
Advertisements

प्रश्न

Principle: Whoever by words publishes any imputation concerning any person is said to defame that person.

Facts: During a marriage ceremony, A circulated a pamphlet saying the sister of the bride 'S‘ is a thief, she has stolen the shoes of the bridegroom. 

विकल्प

  • A defamed S

  • A did not defame S 

  • A defamed the bridegroom 

  • A defamed the bride 

MCQ
Advertisements

उत्तर

A defamed S

Explanation:

defamed S. This is evident from the principle stated.  A circulated a pamphlet which means A by words published. The imputation that the sister of bride S was a thief. Therefore, A has defamed S.

shaalaa.com
Law of Torts (Entrance Exams)
  क्या इस प्रश्न या उत्तर में कोई त्रुटि है?
2018-2019 (May) Set 1

संबंधित प्रश्न

Legal Principle: The Latin maxim qui facit per alium, facit per se means that he who acts through another, acts himself.

Fact Situation: Heema requests her minor sister Harika to purchase a bag for her from the local shop. Harika purchases the bag on credit telling the shop keeper that her sister will pay for it. Afterward, Heema refuses to pay for the bag.

Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?


Legal Principle: When there is an infringement of the legal right of a person, he gets a right to sue the wrongdoer for remedy irrespective of any actual loss caused.

Fact Situation: Saroj is prevented from voting at an election. The candidate she intended to vote for, wins the election.

Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?


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


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 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. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour.
  4. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance.

Factual Situation: During 2011, a European Directive was issued requiring nations of the European Community to establish standards on the presence of Perchloroethene (PCE) in water, which the Kingsland did in 2013. Alfa Water Co. purchased a borehole in 2007 to extract water to supply to the public in Kingsland. In 2014, it tested the water to ensure that it met minimum standards for human consumption and discovered that it was contaminated with an organochlorine solvent (PCE). On investigation, it emerged that the solvent seeped into the soil through the building floor of the Light & Soft Leather Tannery, about 3 miles from the borehole that eventually contaminated the Alfa's borehole. Since the tannery opened in 191 O, until 2007, the solvent it used had been delivered in 40-gallon drums which were transported by forklift truck and then tipped into a sump. Since 2007, solvents had been delivered in bulk and stored in tanks. It was then piped to the tanning machinery. There was no evidence of any spills from the tanks or pipes, and it was concluded that the water had been contaminated by frequent spills under the earlier system. Alfa Water brought a claim against the Tannery on the grounds of nuisance.
Whether the Tannery owners are liable?


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.


Principle: Nobody shall make use of his property in such a way as to cause damage to others. Any such use constitutes a private nuisance, a wrongful act under Law of Torts.

Facts: Vasan was owing to a house, adjacent to a cluster of houses, owned by Varadan. Varadan was leasing out these houses whereas Vasan was living in his house. When Vasan was transferred to another place, he leased out his house to a person suffering from AIDS. Fearing the spread of AIDS, the tenants moved out of Varadan's houses. Varadan requested Vasan to evict AIDS patient and he offered to fix a suitable tenant for Vasan's house if the AIDS patient is evicted. But Vasan refused by arguing that AIDS would not spread as feared by Varadan's tenants. Varadan filed a suit against Vasan.


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: In a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove the following essentials:

1. That he was prosecuted by the defendant.
2. That the proceeding complained was terminated in favour of the present plaintiff.
3. That the prosecution was instituted against him without any just or reasonable cause.
4. That the prosecution was instituted with a malicious intention, that is, not with the mere intention of getting the law into effect, but with an intention, which was wrongful in fact.
5. That he suffered damage to his reputation or to the safety of person, or to the security of his property.

Factual situation: A recovered a large sum of money from Railway Co. for personal injuries. Subsequently, Railway Co. came to know that injuries were not real and were created by doctor B. Railway Co, prosecuted B for playing fraud on the company, but B was acquitted. B sued Railway Co. for malicious prosecution. In the light of these facts which of the following statements is true? DECISION:


Principle: Where there is a transfer of ownership of one thing for the ownership of some other thing it is called an exchange, while the transfer of ownership for consideration of money is called a sale, whereas without consideration it becomes a gift.

Facts: 'A' transfers his house worth `50 lakh to 'B' for a shopping building worth the same amount, as consideration from 'B'.


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 defence to action in negligence.

Facts:
X purchased a disused cinema with the intention of turning it into a Multiplex. Six weeks after, X entered the building for the first time, it was set on fire by intruders and destroyed. As a result, the adjacent buildings were also affected and damaged. The cinema building was a target for vandals and children who often played there, but X had had no knowledge of previous attempts to start a fire at the cinema buildings. The owners of the adjacent buildings brought an action for negligence against X on grounds that X failed to take reasonable care for the safety of the buildings by not keeping the cinema locked, making regular inspections and employing a caretaker. Decide whether the occupier of a property owes a duty of care to the adjoining occupiers in respect of acts of trespass on his property resulting in damage to the adjoining properties? 


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

Legal Principles:
1. Vicarious liability is when employers are held liable for the torts of their employees that are committed during the course of employment.
2. A servant is a person subject to the command of his master as to the manner in which he shall do his work. The question of whether a person is an employee depends upon the degree of control which the ‘employer’ exercises over the worker.

Facts: 
Raja is a travel agent and possessed certain houses, which had an internal communication throughout, and which were used for the purposes of his business. Ramesh looked after the houses and lived in them for this purpose, but he was also a clerk in the Raja’s pay at a set annual salary. He lived in the houses with his wife, a child, and a servant. The case concerned the payment of inhabited house duty. There was a statutory exemption for premises which were occupied by a "servant”or person occupying the premises “for the protection thereof. Raja was claiming the exemption from tax liability by claiming that Ramesh was the servant. Decide whether Ramesh was a servant or an independent contractor?


Share
Notifications

Englishहिंदीमराठी


      Forgot password?
Use app×