Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: An agreement with a boy below the age of eighteen years is not enforceable by law.
Facts: A man entered into an agreement with a girl of seventeen years of age.
पर्याय
The agreement is enforceable by law.
The agreement is not enforceable by law.
The agreement is enforceable by the girl.
No inference can be drawn.
Advertisements
उत्तर
No inference can be drawn.
Explanation:
No inference can be drawn in this case because the facts (and the principle) do not provide whether the agreement with a girl of 17 can be enforced. The principle is applicable to boys of a certain age. therefore, no conclusion can be drawn. 170. (b) Since the sale of liquor is illegal, all agreements relating to the sale and purchase of liquor are void. Therefore, B cannot initiate legal proceedings against A even if A failed to meet the agreement entered into by A and B.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
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.
A owns a residential flat. He is entitled to a quiet possession and enjoyment of his property. This is called
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.
How many members are required to support the introduction of a No-Confidence Motion in the Lok Sabha?
The decision of a High Court is
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: When a person voluntarily agrees to suffer some harm, he is not allowed to complain about that.
Facts: ‘A’ was one of the spectators at a formula one car race, being held at Gurgaon, on a track owned by one’ company. During the race, there was a collision between two racing cars, one of which was thrown away amidst spectators, thereby causing an injury to ‘A’, ‘A’ claims damages for the injuries caused to him.
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 PRINCIPLES: 1. Acceptance must be given only by the person to whom the offer is made. 2. Communication of acceptance to a person who did not make the offer does not bind the offeror.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Pal sold his business to Sam without disclosing it to his customers. Mani, an old customer sent an order for goods to Pal by name. Sam, the new owner, executed the order. Mani refuses to accept the goods from Sam as he intended to deal only with Pal. In a suit by Sam against Mani:
DECISION:
Consists of legal proposition(s)/ principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles 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 these questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every 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 study of law, research aptitude, and problem-solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the objective of this section to test your knowledge of the law.
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 the law of trade unions in India, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be maintainable in any civil court against any registered trade union or any officer or member thereof in respect of any act done in contemplation or in furtherance of a trade dispute.
Facts: Soloman, the Secretary of a registered Trade Union took a loan from a bank for the higher education of his daughter. Soon after completing the course, she was married to an NRI Engineer. Solomon did not repay the loan. The Bank demanded the payments from Soloman and warned him that the Bank will take suitable legal action against him. Identify the legal position in this regard.
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: Contract is an agreement freely entered into between the parties. But when consent to an agreement is obtained to undue influence, the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.
Factual Situation: The Pragya had been worked for a businessman Anurag since the age of 18, working for a range of Anurag's businesses. In 2000, (aged 21) Pragya purchased a flat. In 2005, Mr. Anurag's business was facing financial difficulties, and he asked Pragya to offer up her flat as a financial security against an overdraft facility for the business. In July of that year, the bank's solicitors wrote to Pragya, advising that she should take Independent legal advice before putting her property up as a security for the debt. The bank also notified Pragya that the guarantee was unlimited in both time and financial amount. Having discussed the arrangement with Anurag, Pragya was unaware of the extent of the borrowing but was assured that her mortgage would not be called upon and that his own properties which were also used as security would be looked at first. A charge was executed over the Pragya's property in August 2005. In 2009, Mr. Anurag's business went into liquidation and the bank formally demanded ` 60,24,912 from Pragya. Pragya raised the defense of undue influence – stating that Mr. Anurag had induced her to enter into the agreement, and the bank had full knowledge/notice of this undue influence which should set aside the bank's right to enforce the debt recovery against Pragya. The bank is contending that there is no undue influence.
Assume it is a case of undue influence. Decide whether the bank has done enough to allay concerns of undue influence?
