Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Legal Principle: An essential condition in a contract for the sale of goods is that the seller has title over the goods sold.
Fact Situation: Ranjan pays rupees two thousand and buys a watch from Mohit who runs a watch showroom and a repair shop. Jatin sees the watch with Ranjan and tells him that it is his watch and was only given to Mohit for repairs. If what Jatin says is true
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
पर्याय
Ranjan is now the owner of the watch since he paid rupees two thousand for it.
Ranjan is not the owner of the watch since Mohit did not have a title to it.
Mohit must pay Jatin rupees two thousand since he sold Jatin’s watch.
Mohit is the owner of the watch since he sold it to Ranjan.
Advertisements
उत्तर
Ranjan is not the owner of the watch since Mohit did not have a title to it.
Explanation:
Rules as to title: There is an implied condition on the part of the seller that, in the case of a sale, he has the right to sell the goods, and in the case of an agreement to sell, he will have the right to sell the goods when the property is to pass. Thus if the seller has no title to the goods, the buyer can reject the goods, or if he has taken possession of the goods and is deprived of it by the real owner, the buyer can recover the full price of the goods even if he has made use of them. A bought a motor-car from and used it for 4 months. B had no title to the car because he has obtained the possession by theft and consequently A had to surrender it to the real owner. A was entitled to recover from B the full price even though he used the car for 4 months. (Rowland Vs. Divall). Hence option (b) is the most appropriate. Mohit did not have title to the watch so he can not pass it to Ranjan so neither Mohit nor Ranjan is the owner of the watch.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: Law never enforces an impossible promise.
Facts: 'A‘ made a promise to 'B‘ to discover treasure by magic.
Principle: A condition must have complied in order to claim the benefit of an agreement.
Facts: A agrees to transfer a farm to B, if B shall not go to England within three years after the date of the agreement, his interest in the farm shall cease. B does not go to England within the term prescribed.
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by factual situations. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer.
PRINCIPLE Every agreement by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind, to that extent is void.
FACTUAL SITUATION A company entered into a contract with Coca Cola Ltd. to bottle soft drinks produced by Coca Cola. One of the terms of the contract was that the company would not bottle soft drinks for any other competitor of Coca Cola during the pendency of the contract.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE Where the parents of a minor child due to their negligence allow the child an opportunity to commit a tort, the parents are liable.
FACTUAL SITUATION The father supplied an airgun to his son who was about to turn 18 next month. After some complaints of mischief. the father took the gun away and placed it in a corner of their storeroom which was used by the family to store surplus and other unnecessary stuff. The son took it out of the store and shot A. A sued his father. Is the father liable? DECISION:
Which one of the following conditions regarding the acquisition of citizenship by naturalization has been wrongly listed?
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer.
Principle: Contractual liability is completely irrelevant to the existence of liability in tort (civil wrong).
Facts: X purchased a bottle of ginger-beer from a retailer. As she consumed more than 3/4 of the contents of the bottle, she found a decomposed remains of a snail in the bottle. After seeing the remains of a snail, she fell sick on the thought of what she consumed. She sued the manufacturer of the beer for negligence, though there is no contractual duty on the part of the manufacturer.
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer.
Principle: A contingent contract is a contract to do or not to do something, if some event, collateral to such contract, does or does not happen.
Facts: A agrees to pay B a sum of Rs. 1 lakh if B marries C within a period of six months. B marries C during the seventh month as the marriage hall was available only during that month. B claims Rs. 1 lakh from A.
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: If a contract is made by post between two persons living in two different cities, then the contract is said to be completed as soon as the letter of acceptance is properly posted and the place of completion of the contract is that city where acceptance is posted. It is worth mentioning here that in every contract there is always an offer from one party and the acceptance of the offer from the other party.
Facts: Sani, a resident of Patna, give an offer by post to sell his house for ₹25 lack to Hani, a resident of Allahabad. This offer letter is posted on 1st January 2013 from Patna and reaches Allahabad on 7th January 2013. Hani accepts this offer and posts the letter of acceptance on 8th January 2013 from Allahabad which reaches Patna on 16th January 2013. But Sani presuming that Hani is not interested in accepting his offer sells his house to Gani at the same price on the 15th of January, 2013. Hani files a suit against Sani for the breach of contract in the competent court of Allahabad. Whether Hani will succeed?
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A contract that is impossible to perform becomes void.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Surender agreed to deliver a specific quality of rice to Sonakshi identified by both of them. Before delivery, the rice was burnt by a short circuit. Is Surender discharged from the performance of the contract?
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: Contract is an agreement freely entered into between the parties. But when consent to an agreement is obtained to undue influence, the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.
Factual Situation: The Pragya had been worked for a businessman Anurag since the age of 18, working for a range of Anurag's businesses. In 2000, (aged 21) Pragya purchased a flat. In 2005, Mr. Anurag's business was facing financial difficulties, and he asked Pragya to offer up her flat as a financial security against an overdraft facility for the business. In July of that year, the bank's solicitors wrote to Pragya, advising that she should take Independent legal advice before putting her property up as a security for the debt. The bank also notified Pragya that the guarantee was unlimited in both time and financial amount. Having discussed the arrangement with Anurag, Pragya was unaware of the extent of the borrowing but was assured that her mortgage would not be called upon and that his own properties which were also used as security would be looked at first. A charge was executed over the Pragya's property in August 2005. In 2009, Mr. Anurag's business went into liquidation and the bank formally demanded ` 60,24,912 from Pragya. Pragya raised the defense of undue influence – stating that Mr. Anurag had induced her to enter into the agreement, and the bank had full knowledge/notice of this undue influence which should set aside the bank's right to enforce the debt recovery against Pragya. The bank is contending that there is no undue influence.
Assume it is a case of undue influence. Decide whether the bank has done enough to allay concerns of undue influence?
