Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: There are certain acts which, though harmful, are not wrongful in law; therefore, do not give legal right to bring action in law, to the person who suffers from such acts.
Facts: 'Prakash' has a rice mill. His neighbor, Shanti, sets up another rice mill and offers a tough competition to Prakash. As a consequence, Prakash's profits fall down. He brings a suit against Shanti for damages.
पर्याय
Prakash can succeed in his claim as it is a case of actual damages
Prakash cannot succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of damage without infringement of any legal right.
Prakash can succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of damage as a result of infringement of his legal right.
Prakash may succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of loss to his business.
Advertisements
उत्तर
Prakash cannot succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of damage without infringement of any legal right.
Explanation:
The reasonable conclusion drawn Prakash cannot succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of damage without infringement of any legal right.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: The existence of all the alleged facts is relevant whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.
Facts: A, a citizen of England, is accused of committing the murder of B in India by taking part in a conspiracy hatched in England.
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?
Mark the best option:
Facts: A fabric trader wanted to travel to Ludhiana to meet his distributors and show them the new stock of fabric. He hired a taxi and drove from Chandigarh to Ludhiana with samples of the new fabric. The trader stopped at a restaurant to grab some lunch. He asked the taxi driver to eat something as well and told him that he would return in ½ hour. The taxi driver took advantage of this opportunity and acting in collusion with some petty thieves, facilitated the stealing of some of the fabric samples by the latter. It was only on the next day that the fabric trader realized that some of his samples were missing. He suspected the taxi driver of carrying out this theft. Eventually, he sued the taxi company for the value of the stolen goods. Decide the case.
Principle: A master is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of his servant in the course of his employment and which fall within the scope of employment of the servant.
Mark the best option:
Facts: A had pawned his gold chain to B. One night he sneaks into B’s shop and takes away the gold chain. B had installed a CCTV in his shop and when he replays the previous days recording he finds out what A has done. B wants to file a complaint of theft against A. He comes to you for advice. Give legal advice to B.
Principle: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent moves that property in order to take it, is said to commit theft.
Legal Principle: The Latin maxim nemo bis punitur pro eodem delictomeans that nobody can be punished twice for the same offence.
Fact Situation: Sajan, a petty thief, is caught and thrashed thoroughly by the people before being handed over to the police. Sajan pleads before the magistrate that since he was already thrashed by the people he should not be again punished by the State.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
LEGAL PRINCIPLE 'Consent' defined as - Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense.
What does 'consent' include?
LEGAL PRINCIPLE A person, who lawfully brings on something but which though harmless, but mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his and if he does not, he is answerable for all the damage.
FACTUAL SITUATION 'A' was the owner of a mill. In order to supply it with water, he constructed a reservoir upon nearby land by employing engineers and contractors. 'B' was the owner of coal mines, under lands, close to but not adjoining the premises on which the reservoir was constructed. The contractors, while excavating for the bed of the reservoir, came upon abandoned shafts and filled them with soil not suspecting that they were abandoned mine shafts. The reservoir was completed and partly filled. Within days the bed of the reservoir gave way and burst, leading to the flow of water through the channels connected with B's mine. Is 'A' liable to pay damages for loss caused to 'B'?
In a civil suit, the person who files suit and the person against whom the suit is filed are called
Principle: Interfering with another's goods in such a way as to deny the latter's title to the goods amounts to conversion and it is a civil wrong.
Facts: Ram went to the bicycle stand to a park his bicycle and he found the stand fully occupied. Ram removed a few bicycles in order to rearrange the stand and make some space for his bicycle. He parked his bicycle properly and put back all the bicycles except the one belonging to Shyam. It was rather negligent on the part of Ram and he was in fact in a hurry to get into his office. Somebody came on the way and took away Shyam's cycle. The watchman of the stand did not take care of it assuming that the cycle was not parked inside the stand. Shyam filed a suit against Ram for conversion.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
1. Medical professionals are not immune from liability in tort on the ground of negligence.
2. Services rendered to a patient by a doctor (except when given free of charge) by way of consultation, diagnosis and treatment fall in the definition of "service" under the Consumer Protection Act, in case of negligence, the doctors are liable in tort as well as under the Consumer Protection Act.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A was the only child of his parents. Once he had a high fever and his parents called a doctor at home. This doctor used to work at a respectable hospital in Delhi. The doctor administered certain medicines and asked the nurse to stay with him for the night and administer to him a chloroquine injection. This injection was generally not suitable for young children. The nurse, without a prior test, followed instructions of the doctor and gave the injection. As a result of an allergic reaction, the child died. The parents sued the nurse and the doctor. DECISION:
