Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: A person, who is usually mad, but occasionally not mad, may make a contract when he is not mad.
Facts: 'A‘ generally remains in the state of madness and rarely becomes capable of understanding anything.
पर्याय
A can make a contract.
A can never make a contract.
A can make a contract at any time whenever he pleases.
A can make a contract only for his own benefit.
Advertisements
उत्तर
A can make a contract.
Explanation:
A can make the contract is evident from the principle that a person can make a contract when he is not mad. In this case on rare occasions when A is not mad, he can make a contract.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforced only at the option of the party whose consent was not free.
Facts: A obtains the consent of B to enter into an agreement by putting a gun on the head of B‘s girlfriend.
A owns a residential flat. He is entitled to a quiet possession and enjoyment of his property. This is called
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
1. Consideration is something that moves from the promisee 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.
2. An offer may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterward.
Factual Situation: The defendant, Mr. Dhawan, wrote to the complainant, Mr. Chaman, with an offer to sell his house to him for Rs. 8,00,000. He promised that he would keep this offer open to him until Friday. However, on a Thursday Mr. Dhawan accepted an offer from a third party and sold his house. According to Mr. Chaman, he was going to accept this offer but had not said anything to Mr. Dhawan because he understood that he had time until Friday. Mr. Dhawan communicated to Mr. Chaman that the offer had been withdrawn, through a friend to the complainant. After hearing this, Mr. Chaman went to find the defendant, informing of his acceptance of the offer. Thereafter, the complainant brought an action for specific performance and breach of contract against the defendant. Whether the defendant's promise to keep the offer open until Friday morning was a binding contract between the parties and whether he was allowed to revoke this offer and sell to a third party?
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 Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void.
FACT A horse was bought for a certain price coupled with a promise to give ₹500 more if the horse proved lucky.
Under which law a minor is incapable of entering into a contract?
The following question consists of two statements, one labeled as ‘Assertion’ (A) and other as ‘Reason’ (R). You are to examine these two statements carefully and select the correct answer.
Assertion (A): A void contract is not necessarily illegal
Reason (R): Every illegal contract is void.
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: Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the decision of a person to enter into a contract does not amount to fraud unless his silence is in itself equivalent to speech.
Facts: A sells to B a horse which A knows to be of unsound mind. B says to A that if A does not say anything about the state of mind of the horse, then B shall presume that the horse is of sound mind. A says nothing to B about the mental condition of the horse.
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?
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:
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: Employers/Principles are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees/agents in the course of an employment agency. A servant/agent may be defined as any person employed by another to do work for him on the terms that he, the servant/agent, is to be subject to the control and directions of his employer/principal in respect of the manner in which his work is to be done.
Factual Situation: A motor car was owned by and registered and insured in the name of A (wife) but was regarded by her and her husband (B) as "our car." B used it to go to work and A for shopping at the weekends. B told A that if ever he was drunk and unfit to drive through, he would get a sober friend to drive him or else telephone her to come and fetch him. On the day in question, the husband telephoned the wife after work and told her that he was going out with friends. He visited a number of public houses and had drinks. At some stage, he realized that he was unable to drive safely and asked a friend, C, to drive. C drove them to other public houses. After the last had been visited C offered the three friends (X, Y, and Z) a lift and they got in, together with B who was in a soporific condition. C then proceeded, at his own suggestion, to drive in a direction away from the B's home to have a meal, On the way, due to C's negligent driving, an accident occurred in which both B and C were killed and the other friends got injured. X, Y, and Z brought an action against the wife both in her personal capacity and as administratrix of the husband's estate. Decide whether A is liable.
Decision:
