Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Legal Principle: The insurer agrees to pay no more than the actual amount of the loss.
Fact Situation: Sunny insures his car worth rupees five lakh with X, an insurance company, for its value. He again insures the same car with Y, another insurance company, on the same terms. There is an accident and the car suffers a total loss. In his separate suits against X and Y, if Sunny recovers rupees five lakh from X, how much can he recover from Y?
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
पर्याय
Sunny can recover rupees five lakhs from Y
Sunny cannot recover any amount from Y
Sunny must pay Y, the rupees five lakhs he received from X.
Sunny cannot insure his car with both X and Y at the same time.
Advertisements
उत्तर
Sunny cannot recover any amount from Y.
Explanation:
The principle of indemnity asserts that on the happening of a loss the insured shall be put back into the same financial position as he used to occupy immediately before the loss. In other words, the insured shall get neither more nor less than the actual amount of loss sustained. This, of course, is always subject to the limit of the sum insured. Ongoing through the case we discover that Sunny had insured his car with two insurance companies and thus getting it insured at double the price of his car. on losing it completely he cannot claim more than 5lakh of rupees according to the above-mentioned rule thus option (b) is the most appropriate statement according to which if Sunny has claimed rupees 5lakh from x company then he cannot claim any amount from y company.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
The Contract Act came into force
A sells his car to B. A has a right to recover the price of the car from B. This right is a
LEGAL PRINCIPLE The contract after the death of one party can be continued if it is ratified by the surviving party.
FACTUAL SITUATION Vishal, a famous artist was requested by Arun, an industrialist to draw the portrait of his deceased wife and paid ₹ 20,000/- in advance and agreed to pay when the work was completed, a sum of ₹2 lakhs·. When the portrait was half drawn, Vishal died due to a heart attack. His son also a fine artist completed his father's work and. demanded the money from Arun. Aron refused to pay and to accept the portrait drawn by Vishal's son and also demanded the advance to be returned.
The contract is said to have three essentials. Which one among the following is not essential in the formation of a contract?
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 second suit will not be heard on the same facts between the same parties.
Mr. Sampath went to a party alone in his wife Sunanda's car. He usually used his wife's car after office hours and his wife never objected to it. At the party, he got drunk. instead of taking the risk of driving the car, he requested his friend Mr. Vivek to drive him back home in Sunandas car, Mr. Vivek was quite sober since he had moderately consumed alcohol. On the way, Vivek knocked down a boy and injured his leg. Subsequently, on behalf of the boy, a claim for compensation was brought against Mrs.Sunanda since the car belonged to her and it was registered in her name. The insurance company refuses to pay compensation because the police report says that the person driving the car at the time of the accident had consumed alcohol.
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: An agreement to do an act impossible in itself cannot be enforced by a court of law.
Facts: Ramesh agrees with his girlfriend Shilpa to pluck stars from the sky through his extraordinary will power, and bring them down on Earth for her within a week. After the expiry of one week, Shilpa filed a suit for damages against Ramesh for the breach of contract as Ramesh failed to perform his promise.
Principle: When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal. The expression of willingness/desire results in a valid proposal only when it is made/addressed to some person(s).
Facts: 'X' makes the following statement in an uninhabited hall. 'I wish to sell my mobile phone for ₹1000.'
Which of the following derivations is correct?
Principle: Acceptance (of the offer) must be communicated by the offeree to the offerer so as to give rise to a binding obligation. The expression 'by the offeree to the offerer' includes communication between their authorised agents.
Facts 'X' made an offer to buy Y's property for a stipulated price. 'Y' accepted it and communicated his acceptance to 'Z', a stranger.
Which of the following derivations is correct?
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A and B started a partnership firm for providing vehicle repair services. C approached the firm for getting his car repaired and noticed that only B was present in the office. C informed the problem and B started repairing the car. While B was repairing, he filled petrol instead of oil in the engine. As a consequence, a small blast occurred and damaged the car. Now, C sued both A and B for the damage so caused. Decide.
DECISION:
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
1. A contract comes into being from the acceptance of an offer, When the person to whom the offer is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted and the parties are at consensus and idem regarding the terms of the agreement.
2. Consideration is something that moves from the promise to the promisor, at the implied or express request of the latter, in return for his promise. The item that moves can be a right. interest, profit, loss, responsibility given or suffered, forbearance, or a benefit which is of some value in the eyes of law.
3. Contractual rights and liabilities are exclusive to the parties to contract.
4. There are few exceptions to the doctrine of privity of contracts like agency, trust, assignment, and third party beneficiary.
5. A quasi-contract is a contract that is created by the court when no such official contract exists between the parties to prevent a party from being unjustly enriched, or from benefitting from the situation when he/she does not deserve to do so.
Facts: Nandini, by deed of gift, made over the certain landed property to Reena, her daughter. By the terms of the deed, which was registered, it was stipulated that an annuity of ₹ 3,000 should be paid every year to Subhashini, sister of Nandini. Reena executed in Subhashini’s favour an agreement promising to give effect to stipulation. The annuity was, however, not paid and Subhashini sued to recover it. Reena is defending herself by claiming that there is no valid contract with Subhashini. Which of the following can be ground/s for the court’s decision?
I. A promise is enforceable if there is some consideration for it and it is quite immaterial whether it moves from the promise or any other person.
II Only a person who is a party to a contract may demand the execution of that contract from other parties. But if there is a third-party beneficiary to the contract then it is enforced to the extent of his\her benefit.
III. The agreement is valid as both Reena and Subhashini agreed to it on the same thing in the same sense.
IV. There is no privity of contract as Subhashini has furnished no consideration. Reena had promised to Subhashini but consideration was furnished by Nandini.
