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: Foreign judgment binds the parties and is conclusive unless it is obtained by fraud.
Facts: A obtains a judgment from the US court by producing fake documents.
Principle: Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so or to provide gratuitously, and such other person takes the benefit of that; the latter is bound to compensate the former for something is done or thing provided, or to restore, the thing so delivered.
Facts: Trader 'A' delivers certain eatables at B's house by mistake. 'B' consumed the eatables without asking anything. Which of the following derivations is correct?
Principle: A person, who is usually of unsound mind, but occasionally normal, may make a contract when he is not of unsound mind.
Facts: 'A' generally remains in the state of unsound mind and rarely becomes capable of understanding the things.
Principle: Killing is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of selfcontrol by intense and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation.
Facts: 'A', a man found his girlfriend sleeping, in her own bedroom, with another man named 'B'. 'A' did not do anything but went to his home, picked a gun and cartridges, returned to the girl friend's bedroom with a loaded gun but found the place empty. After fifteen days he saw his girlfriend dining in a restaurant. Without waiting for even a second, 'A' fired five bullets at his girlfriend who died on the spot.
Which of the following is not a defense to trespass to the person?
Injuria sine damnum stands for.
PRINCIPLE Nuisance is the interference in the enjoyment of the property.
FACTS Pizzeria, a small cafeteria selling namesake used to run a wood-fired oven. The resulting smoke caused a lot of smoke in the neighbourhood and there were a number of complaints from the locals who had not witnessed such an oven. The food inspector taking cognizance of these reports asked the restaurant to shut down the oven. The owner who had earlier ran a similar establishment in Italy did not comply. Is Pizzeria committing a nuisance?
Principle: A citizen is expected to take reasonable duty of care while driving on the road and not to cause injuries to any person.
Facts: X, the owner of a car, asked his friend Y to drive the car to his office. As the car was near his (X' s) office, it hit a pedestrian P on account of Y' s negligent driving and injured him seriously. P sued X for damages.
Which one of the following is correct?
Principle: A citizen is expected to take the reasonable duty of care while driving on the road and not to cause injuries to any person.
Facts: X, the owner of a car, asked his friend Y to drive the car to his office. As the car was near his (X' s) office, it hit a pedestrian P on account of Y' s negligent driving and injured him seriously. P sued X for damages.
Two persons are said to be joint tort-feasors when
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
1. The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
3. Volenti non-fit injuria is defence to action in negligence.
Facts:
In a sad incident, 95 fans of a Football club died in a stampede in the Nehru Stadium. The court has decided that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the Police in permitting too many supporters to crowd in one part of the stadium. Now, a suit is filed by Harman and several other people against the Commissioner of State Police. Harman and the other claimants had relatives who were caught up in the Nehru Stadium disaster. The disaster was broadcast on live television, where several claimants alleged, they had witnessed friends and relatives die. Others were present in the stadium or had heard about the events in other ways. All claimed damages for the psychiatric harm they suffered as a result. Determine whether, for the purposes of establishing liability in negligence, those who suffer purely psychiatric harm from witnessing an event at which they are not physically present are sufficiently proximate for a duty to be owed, and thus can be said to be reasonably within the contemplation of the tortfeasor?
