Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Legal Principle: No remedy lies in law where an injury is caused to a person without any infringement of his legal right.
Fact Situation: Ashutosh started a tuition Centre right next to the one being run for the past twenty years by Gulshan. After Ashutosh started his Centre, a large number of students shifted from Gulshan’s tuition Centre to Ashutosh’s Centre forcing Gulshan to close down his establishment suffering huge losses. Can Gulshan initiate legal action against Ashutosh?
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
पर्याय
Ashutosh must compensate Gulshan for his loss consequent to the start of the new tuition centre.
Gulshan cannot blame Ashutosh if he cannot retain his students.
Ashutosh has not violated any legal right of Gulshan, though students shifted to Ashutosh’s Centre and though Gulshan suffered a loss after he shut down his tuition Centre.
Gulshan should have improved his quality with lower fees to retain his students in the light of competition brought in by Ashutosh.
Advertisements
उत्तर
Ashutosh has not violated any legal right of Gulshan, though students shifted to Ashutosh’s Centre and though Gulshan suffered a loss after he shut down his tuition Centre.
Explanation:
Damnum sine injuria a Latin maxim that means damage without legal injury. When there is the actual damage caused to the plaintiff without infringement of his legal right, no action lies against the defendant. In order to make someone liable in tort, the plaintiff must prove that he has sustained legal injury. Damage without injury is not actionable in the law of torts. The case presented before us is a perfect example where the phrase "Damnum sine injuries" applies. Inspite of the fact that Gulshan incurred huge losses due the competition given by Ashutosh, he cannot hold Ashutosh liable for the same and claim damages as none of his legal rights was infringed and Damage without injury is not actionable in the law of torts. Hence "Ashutosh has not violated any legal right of Gulshan, though students shifted to Ashutosh’s Centre and though Gulshan suffered loss, after he shut down his tuition Centre." seems most appropriate.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Mark the best option:
Facts: Kumar had a ferocious dog which used to guard his house. One evening when Mohan was returning home after illegally purchasing an unlicensed gun, he happened to pass Kumar’s house, the latter’s dog ran out and bit Mohan’s trouser and on Mohan's turning around and raising his gun the dog ran away. Mohan shot the dog as it was running into the house. Kumar’sdog died after two days because of the gunshot and he sued Mohan for compensation.
Principle:
- Every person has a right to defend his own person, property or possession against unlawful harm.
- The person may use reasonable force in order to protect his person, property or possession.
- However, the force employed should be proportionate to the apprehended danger.
Mark the best option:
Facts: Vir, a window cleaner was hired to clean the windows of Palam club. One of the windows was defective and so when it was being cleaned, it ran down quickly and injured the hand of the window cleaner and caused injuries. Vir used Palam club for damages Decide.
Principle: The occupier can expect that a person in the exercise of his calling will appreciate and guard against risks incidental to his calling and he need not be, therefore, warned about them.
Consists of legal proposition(s)/ principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles 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 these questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every 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, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the objective of this section to test your knowledge of the law.
Therefore, to answer a question, the principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option.
Principle: When a person makes such a statement that lowers another person's reputation in the estimation of other persons, it is liable for committing defamation.
Facts: 'A' writes a letter to 'B' in which he uses abusive language against 'B' and also states that 'B' is a dishonest person. 'A' put the letter in a sealed envelope and delivered it to 'B'.
Legal Principle: The Latin maxim nemo bis punitur pro eodem delictomeans that nobody can be punished twice for the same offence.
Fact Situation: Sajan, a petty thief, is caught and thrashed thoroughly by the people before being handed over to the police. Sajan pleads before the magistrate that since he was already thrashed by the people he should not be again punished by the State.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
In India, the literary work is protected until
Unliquidated damages mean
In Law of Torts,
The question contains some basic principles and fact situations in which these basic principles have to be applied. A list of probable decisions and reasons are given.
Principles:
1. A person is liable for negligence if he fails to take care of his neighbour's interest.
2. A neighbour is anyone whose interests should have been foreseeable by a reasonable man while carrying on his activities.
Facts:
A cricket match was going on in a closed-door stadium. A cricket fan who could not get into the stadium was watching the game by climbing up a nearby tree and sitting there. The cricket ball in the course of the game went out of the stadium and hit this person and injured him. He filed a suit against the organizers.
Possible Decisions
(a) The organizers are liable to compensate the injured person.
(b) The organizers are not liable to compensate the injured person'
(c) The injured person should have avoided the place where he might be hit by the cricket ball.
Possible Reasons
(i) The organizers are responsible for the people inside the stadium.
(ii) The organizers could not have foreseen somebody watching the game by climbing up a tree.
(iii) A person crazy about something must pay the price for that.
(iv) The organizers shall be liable to everybody likely to watch the game. Your decision with the reason.
In a civil suit, the person who files suit and the person against whom the suit is filed are called
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: Vicarious liability is the liability of the Master or Principal for the tort committed by his servant or agent, provided the tort is committed in the course of employment. The Master or Principal is not liable for private wrongs of the servant/agent.
Facts: 'X' hands over some cash money at his house to 'Y', who is his (X's) neighbour and is also cashier in a bank, to be deposited in A's account in the bank. Instead of depositing the money, 'Y' misappropriates it.
Which of the following statements depicts the correct legal position in this given situation?
