Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
The question consists of legal propositions/principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principles may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true. In other words, in answering the following question, you must not rely on any principles 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.
Principle: A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time, when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interest.
Facts: X, who is usually of sound mind but occasionally of unsound mind enters into a contract with Y when he (X) is of unsound mind. Y came to know about this fact afterward and now wants to file a suit against X.
विकल्प
X cannot enter into a contract because he is of unsound mind when he entered into a contract
X can enter into a contract but the burden is on the other party to prove that he was of unsound mind at the time of contract
X can either into a contract but the burden is on X to prove that he was of sound mind at the time of contract
None of the above
Advertisements
उत्तर
X cannot enter into a contract because he is of unsound mind when he entered into a contract
Explanation:
According to the principle, a person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract, if he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment, in this case, X is usually of sound mind but occasionally of unsound mind enters into a contract with Y when he (X) is of unsound mind. So, according to the principle X is not competent to enter into a contract with Y, because of unsoundness of mind.
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.
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, Chulbal 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 Dhamaj telling him that if he does not make Baalu the CEO of NIaakhan 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 Baala that he shall not enforce the employment contract. Baalu and Dhanraj are not sure as to what is to be done next.
As per the rules and the given facts, who coerces whom:
In a particular case, the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers is sent back by the President for reconsideration. If the Council of Ministers adhere to their earlier advice, the President
The question consists of two statements, one labelled as a principle and other as Fact. You are to exa.mine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.
PRINCIPAL: ignorantia juris nonexcusat and ingnorantia facit excusat
FACT: George was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the airport at Etombay on 28th Nov. 1962 it was found on search that George carried 34 kgs of gold bars in person and that he had not declared it in the 'Manifest for transfer. On 28th Nov. 1962 Govemment of India issued a notification and modified its earlier exemption and now it is necessary that the gold must be declared in the "Manifest" of the aircraft.
The question consists of two statements, one labelled as principle and other as Fact. You are to exa.mine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.
PRINCIPLE: "Nobody shall unlawfully interfere with a person's use or enjoyment of land, 0( some right over, or in connection with it. The use or enjoyment, envisaged herein, should be normal and reasonable taking into account surrounding Situation.
FACT: jeevan and Pavan were neighbors in a residential locality. Pavan started a typing class in a part of his house and his typing sound disturbed jeevan who could not put up with any kind of continuous noise. He filed a suit against Pavan.
What is a moot'?
Choose the most appropriate option:
'alibi' means a plea by an accused person that he
The right to information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 is a:
In the case of the factory, ___________ of that factory shall be liable to pay the wages to employees employed by him as per the Payment of Wages Act.
Responsibility for Payment of wages is covered under section ____ of Payment of Wages Act
Local self-governance is an example of
