Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
This question consists of principles and facts. The principal may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this Section. In other words, in answering the question, you must not rely on any principle 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.
Therefore, to answer a question, the principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option.
Principle: According to law, a person is deemed to have attained the age of majority when he completes the age of 18 years, except in the case of a person where a guardian of a minor’s person or property has been appointed under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 or where the superintendence of a minor’s property is assumed by a Court of Wards. Indian law expressly forbids a minor from entering into a contract. Hence, any contract entered into by a minor is voidabinitio regardless of whether the other party was aware of his minority or not. Further, though a minor is not competent to contract, nothing in the Contract Act prevents him from making the other party bound to the minor.
Facts: Lal executed a promissory note in favour of Gurudutt, aged 16 years stating that he would pay Gurudutt a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs when he attains the age of majority. On attaining the age of 18, Gurudutt demanded the amount from Lal, who refused to pay. Gurudutt wants to take legal action against Lal. Identify the most appropriate legal position from the following:
पर्याय
Gurudutt should not have entered into a contract with Lal when he was a minor.
Lal was not aware of the fact that Gurudutt was a minor.
Lal argues that as per the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Gurudutt can claim the money only after he attains the age of 21.
A promissory note duly executed in favour of a minor is not void and can be sued upon by him because he thought incompetent to contract, may yet accept a benefit.
Advertisements
उत्तर
A promissory note duly executed in favour of a minor is not void and can be sued upon by him because he thought incompetent to contract, may yet accept a benefit.
Explanation:
A promissory note duly executed in favour of a minor is not void and can be sued upon by him because he thought incompetent to contract, may yet accept a benefit. A minor by law is incompetent to contract but can accept a benefit on reaching maturity.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
In this Question, the problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question.
Rules:
A. A minor is a person who is below the age of eighteen. However, where a guardian administers the minor's property the age of majority is twenty-one.
B. A minor is not permitted by law to enter into a contract. Hence, where a minor enters into a contract with a major person, the contract is not enforceable. This effectively means that neither the minor nor the other party can make any claim on the basis of the contract.
C. In a contract with a minor, if the other party hands over any money or confers any other benefit on the minor, the same shall not be recoverable from the minor unless the other party was deceived by the minor to hand over money or any other benefit. The other party will have to show that (he minor misrepresented her age, he was ignorant about the age of the minor and that he handed over the benefit on the basis of such representation.
Facts Ajay convinces Bandita, a girl aged I8 that she should sell her land to him. Bandita's mother Chaaru is her guardian. Nonetheless Bandita, without the permission of Chaaru, sells the land to Ajay for a total sum of rupees fifty lakh, paid in full and final settlement of the price. Chaaru challenges this transaction claiming that Bandita is a minor and hence the possession of the land shall not be given to Ajay. Thus Ajay is in a difficult situation and has no idea how to recover his money from Bandita.
Which of the following is correct?
In this Question problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question. In answering the following question, you should not rely on any rule(s) except the rule(s) that are supplied for problem. Further, you should not assume any fact other than 'those stated in the problem. The aim is to test your ability to properly apply a rule to a given set of facts, even when the result is absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the aim to test any knowledge of law you may already possess.
Rule A: An owner of land has the right to use the land in any manner he or she desires. The owner of land also owns the space above and the depths below it.
Rule B: Rights above the laud extend only to the point they are essential to any use or enjoyment of land.
Rule C: An owner cannot claim infringement of her property right if the space above his or her land is put to reasonable use by someone else at a height at which the owner would have to reasonable use of it and it does not affect the reasonable enjoyment of his or her land.
Shazia's case: Shazia owns a single storeyed house in Ahmedabad which has been in her family for more than 75 years. The foundation of the house cannot support another floor and Shazia has no intention of demolishing her family home to construct a bigger building. Javed and Sandeep are business partners and own three-story houses on either side of Shazia's house. Javed and Sandeep are also Ahmedabad's main distributors for a major soft drinks company. They have erected a huge hoarding advertising their products, with the ends supported on their roofs but the hoarding also passes over Shazia's house at 70 feet and casts a permanent shadow on her terrace. Shazia decides to hoist a huge Indian flag, going up to 75 feet, on her roof. She files a case, asking the court to order Javed and Sandeep to remove the hoarding for all these reasons.
Applying only Rules A and B to Shazia's case, you would decide:
The question consists of two statements, one labelled as principle and other as Fact. You are to exa.mine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.
PRINCIPLE: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person'S consent moves that property, such tatting is said to commit theft.
FACT: RAMU cuts down a tree on RINKU'S ground, with the intention of dishonestly tatting the tree out of RINKU'S possession without RINKU'S consent. A could not take the tree away.
The question consists of two statements, one labelled as principle and other as Fact. You are to exa.mine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.
PRINCIPLE: Nuisance as a tort (civil wrong) means an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it.
FACT: During the scarcity of onions, long queues "'Nt?l'e made outside the defendant's shop who has a license to sell fruits and vegetables used to sell only l Kg, of onion per ration card The queues extended on to the highway and also causes some obstruction to the neighboring shops. The neighboring shopkeepers brought an action for nuisance against the defendant.
Mark the best option:
Facts: Ganga asked Ram to send him 15 bottles of groundnut oil at once. Ram wrote back that he would send the bottles in15-20 days. Ganga did not reply and ultimately about a month and a half later Ram sent the goods. Ganga refused to accept the goods and said that there was no contract. Ram sued him in court. Will Ram succeed in his case?
Principle:
- In order to convert a proposal into a promise, the acceptance should be absolute and unqualified.
- If there is an offer and acceptance between parties a contract is formed.
Valid contracts
A promised to marry B. Later on B died. This contract of marriage
An offer and its acceptance is the basic requirement of an agreement and as per this requirement an offer by one party
Acceptance takes place as against the proposer, when
From the four answers given, shade the appropriate answer.
A contract contravening public policy is void. There cannot be a general definition of public policy. Which of the following is a correct derivation from the above?
