Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: A condition must be complied with after the happening of the event to which such a condition is attached.
Facts: A promises to pay Rs. 5,000 to B on the condition that he shall marry with the consent of C, D, and E. B marries without the consent of C, D, and E, but obtains their consent after the marriage.
पर्याय
B has fulfilled the condition
B has not fulfilled the condition
The condition is illegal
B must divorce his wife
Advertisements
उत्तर
B has fulfilled the condition
Explanation:
B has fulfilled the condition. The condition as understood in the principle is that the condition must be complied with after the happening of the event. The condition is that B will marry with the consent of C, D, and E. B has taken their consent after the marriage, that is, after the happening of the event.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made.
Facts: 'A‘ sent a letter making a proposal to 'B‘ to purchase the house of B.
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.
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:
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, the 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. Arun refused to pay and to accept the portrait drawn by Vishal’s son and also demanded the advance to be returned.
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 contract procured by coercion is bad under the Indian Contract Act. Coercion is defined as committing or threatening to commit any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code. Attempt to commit suicide is an offence under the India Penal Code.
Facts: A wanted his wife B to part with some landed property given to her by her father. B resisted fearing that her husband would squander it away. A threatened her that if she does not sign the deed transferring the property to him (i.e., A), he would commit suicide. B signed the deed. Subsequently, she challenged the deed on the ground that the deed was bad under law.
Principle: The consideration or object of an agreement is unlawful if it is forbidden by law. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.
Facts: 'X' promises to pay 'Y' ₹50000, if he ('Y') commits a crime, 'X' further promises to indemnify him ('Y') against any liability arising thereof. 'Y' agrees to act as per X's promise. Which of the following derivations is correct?
Principle: Two or more persons are said to consent if they agree upon the same thing in the same sense. Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by coercion, or undue influence, or fraud, or misrepresentation, or mistake.
When consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud, or misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract voidable (rescindable or terminable) at the option of the party whose consent was so caused. However, when consent to an agreement is caused by mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void.
Facts: 'X' threatens to gun down 'Y' if he ('Y') does not sell his property worth ₹2000000 for ₹ 100000 only. As a consequence, 'Y' agrees to sell it as demanded by 'X'.
Which of the following derivations is correct?
Principle: When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have made a proposal.
Factual Situation: Xavier telegrammed to William, "Will you sell me your house? Telegram the lowest cash price." William also replied by Telegram "The lowest price for my house is ₹30 lakh. Xavier immediately sent his reply consenting to William's telegram by saying "I agree to buy your house for ₹30 lakh asked by you." William refused to sell his house.
Decision
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Mr. X who is usually of sound state of mind, but occasionally of unsound state of mind, enters into a contract with Mr. Y when he was of unsound state of mind. Mr. Y having come to know about this fact afterward, wants to file a suit against Mr. X.
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: An unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it is a nuisance in tort. The fact that the plaintiff "came to the nuisance" by knowingly acquiring property in the vicinity of the defendant's premises is not a defense to nuisance. However, an act cannot be a nuisance if it is imperatively demanded by public convenience. Thus, when the public welfare requires it, a nuisance may be permitted for special purposes.
Factual Situation: D owned and occupied an estate about two miles from RAF Wittering, an operational and training base for Harrier Jump Jets. D claimed that they suffered severe noise disturbance every time the Harrier pilots carried out training circuits: an average of 70 times a day. D alleged that the noise nuisance constituted a very serious interference with their enjoyment of their land. D instituted judicial proceedings against the defendants, the Ministry of Defence (MoD), damages amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000.
The MoD denied liability and raised the defence that the Harrier training was undertaken for the public benefit and that they had prescriptive right over the land as D had bought their property at a time when RAF Wittering was already established so he cannot claim compensation as he already knew about the existence of RAF Wittering near his property.
Decision:
