Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle:
1. Wagering agreements are void.
2. Collateral agreements to wagering contracts are valid.
Facts: XYZ Bank lends Rs. 40, 000 to Sabu in order to enable him to award as a prize to Randeep who is the winner of horse race. Later Sabu refuses to pay the prize stating that horse racing is wagering agreement. Can XYZ Bank recover money from Sabu?
पर्याय
No, as it is a wagering contract.
Bank can recover money from Sabu so that payment of prize m oney can be made to Randeep.
Yes, as it is only a collateral agreement to horse racing and therefore the bank can recover the money from Sabu.
Horse racing is illegal and therefore XYZ Bank cannot recover a nything from Sabu.
Advertisements
उत्तर
Yes, as it is only a collateral agreement to horse racing and therefore the bank can recover the money from Sabu.
Explanation:
There is an exception under section 30 of the Indian Contract Act in which it is mentioned that in favour of certain prizes for Horse Racing shall not be deemed to render unlawful a subscription or contribution, or agreement to subscribe or contribute, made or entered into for or to word any plate, prize or sum of money, of the value or amount of five hundred rupees or upwards, to be rewarded to the winner or winners of any horse race. The reasonable conclusion is drawn that only collateral agreement to horse racing and therefore the bank can recover the money from Sabu.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: An employer is liable for an injury caused by an employee in the course of employment.
Facts: 'A‘ and 'B‘ were working in a factory as unskilled laborers. A was carrying a basket of stones on his head. B was sitting on the ground. When A crossed B, all of a sudden a stone fell down from the basket and hit B on his head. B died instantaneously.
Principle: The existence of all the alleged facts is relevant whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.
Facts: A, a citizen of England, is accused of committing the murder of B in India by taking part in a conspiracy hatched in England.
Principle: There are certain acts which, though harmful, are not wrongful in law; therefore, do not give legal right to bring action in law, to the person who suffers from such acts.
Facts: 'Prakash' has a rice mill. His neighbor, Shanti, sets up another rice mill and offers a tough competition to Prakash. As a consequence, Prakash's profits fall down. He brings a suit against Shanti for damages.
When goods are displayed in a shop with a price tag, it is
Who heads the four members Committee appointed to study the Centre-State relations especially the changes took place since Sarkaria Commission
Which one of the following interests are not protected by the law of tort?
PRINCIPLE The test as to whether the act done by an officer or agency of the state is a sovereign function or a function done ordinarily is dependent on the fact that an alternative person may also carry out the latter, but the former may only be carried out by the state.
FACTS In a boundary settlement dispute between India and Bangladesh, a certain territory was exchanged in pursuit of a treaty agreement. X's land which lay in the Indian enclave thus got transferred to Bangladesh, which did not recognise his proprietary rights. In a suit against the Indian Government, the likely outcome is
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:
1. Joint tort-feasters means joint wrongdoers. People can be joint tortfeasors in case of common action in fact or in law.
2. Joint tort-feasters are jointly and severally liable.
Factual situation: Two dogs belonging to two different owners acting in concert attacked a flock of sheep and injured several sheep. In an action for damages brought against the owners of the dogs. If one of them puts a defene claiming that he was liable for one half only of the damage, then which one of the following statements is legally sustainable in the above case? 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: A master shall be liable for the acts of his servants done in the course of employment.
Factual situation: PUL, a public sector undertaking, is operating a number of bus services for its employees in Pune. These buses are quite distinct in their appearance and carry the board “for PUL employees only”. M, a villager from a neighbouring state, was waiting for a regular bus in one of the bus stops in Pune. A bus belonging to PUL happened to stop nearby and a number of people got into the bus. M, without realizing that it was a PUL bus, got into the bus and soon thereafter, the bus met with an accident due to driver’s negligence. M, along with several others, was injured in the accident. M seeks to file a suit against PUL claiming damages. DECISION:
