Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: When a party to a contract has refused to perform or disabled himself from performing his promise in its entirety, the other party shall not put an end to the contract.
Facts: A engaged B on April 12 to enter his service on June 1, but on May 11, A wrote to B that his services would not be needed. On May 22, B joined C for employment.
पर्याय
B cannot put the contract to an end.
B can put the contract to an end.
C can put his contract with B to an end.
A must pay damages to B.
Advertisements
उत्तर
B cannot put the contract to an end.
Explanation:
B cannot put the contract to an end. In this case, A and B are the parties to the contract. A wrote to B that his services would not be needed. This message was conveyed after the contract was entered into. Meanwhile, B joined another employer. Since A did not fulfill the promise of the contract in its entirety, the other party, that is B cannot put an end to the contract.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
A owns a residential flat. He is entitled to a quiet possession and enjoyment of his property. This is called
LEGAL PRINCIPLE When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach. or which the parties knew, when they made the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it. Such compensation is not given for any remote or indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach. Decide, whether and to what extent B is entitled to damages in the following situation.
FACTUAL SITUATION A contracts with B to sell him 1000 tonnes of iron at ₹ 100 per tonne. B tells A that he needs the iron for export purposes, and that he would be selling the iron at ₹ 200 per tonne. A breaks the contract. When the question comes about damages, A says he will pay only ₹ 5000 as damages because the same variety of iron was available in the market at ₹ 105 per tonne. B however contends that he should be given ₹ 100000 because that was the profit which )he would have made had A fulfilled tbe contract B had actually bought the iron at ₹ 110 and had exported it. B 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 herein below 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 Generally, an agreement without consideration is not valid. Therefore in order to make a valid agreement some consideration which may have some value in the eyes of law, is essentially required.
FACTS William has an old car of which he makes seldom uses. He voluntarily enters into an agreement with Smith to sell this car for rupees ten thousand. Thereafter one Anson approaches William and offers to buy that car for rupees one lac as the car was one which Anson has been searching for long. Now William wants to cancel his agreement with Smith and refuses to deliver the car to him saying that consideration (price) for the car promised by Smith is negligible and, therefore, agreement with him cannot be said to be the valid one.
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:
How many members are required to support the introduction of a No-Confidence Motion in the Lok Sabha?
Mark the incorrect answer
The main purpose of the Law of Contract is
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: When the parties to an agreement agree on the same thing in the same sense, there arises legally binding obligations between them.
Facts: Zaverilals antique shop was a well-known shop in the locality. Taradevi, a socialite of the locality, went to the shop and she was attracted by an earthen jar on display. Zaverilal explained to her that the jar belonged to the Hoysaia period; and despite its earthern composition, it was very strong and almost unbreakable. Taradevi replied to him that she was so captivated by the jar that it was immaterial to her as to which period, it belonged. She bought the jar and came home. She placed the jar in a prominent place in her drawing-room. One of her friends, an art critique, who happened to visit her, told her that the jar was not at all an Antique, but Taradevi did not bother about it. One day, it accidentally fell down and broke into pieces. Taradevi took up the matter with Zaverilal that his both statements were wrong and therefore, he should pay damages to her
Principle: Strike is a collective stoppage of work by workmen undertaken in order to bring pressure upon those who depend on the sale or use of the products of work, whereaslock-out is a weapon in the hands of the employer, similar to that of the strike in the armoury of workmen, used for compelling persons employed by him to accept his terms or conditions of or affecting employment. While in closure there is permanent closing down of a place of employment or part thereof, in lay-off an employer, who is whiffing to employ, fans or refuses or is unable to provide employment for reasons beyond his control.
Facts: Workmen of a textile factory went on strike as per law, demanding the payment of bonuses. The employer of the factory refused to pay any extra allowances, including a bonus, and besides, he closed down the factory till the strike was stopped.
The following questions consist of two statements, one labelled as. 'Assertion' and the other as 'Reason'. Read both the statements carefully and answer using the codes given below.
Assertion (A): A person claims compensation for his non-gratuitous act.
Reason (R): A person who enjoys benefit from lawful, non-gratuitous acts of another must compensate him even though there is no contract.
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:
1. The battery is the intentional causation of harmful or offensive contact with another's person without that person's consent.
2. When lawfully exercising the power of arrest or some other statutory power a police officer had greater rights than an ordinary citizen to restrain another.
Factual Situation: Two police officers on duty in a police car observed two women in the street who appeared to be soliciting for the purpose of prostitution. One of the women was known to the police as a prostitute but the other, X, was not a known prostitute. When the police officers requested X to get into the car for questioning she refused to do so and instead walked away from the car. One of the officers, a policewoman, got out of the car and followed X in order to question her regarding her identity and conduct and to caution her, if she was suspected of being a prostitute, in accordance with the approved police procedure for administering cautions for suspicious behaviour before charging a woman with being a prostitute. X refused to speak to the policewoman and walked away, whereupon the policewoman took hold of X's arm to detain her. X then swore at the policewoman and scratched the officer's arm with her fingernails. X was convicted of assaulting a police officer in the execution of her duty. She appealed against the conviction, contending that when the assault occurred the officer was not exercising her power of arrest and was acting beyond the scope of her duty in detaining X by taking hold of her arm. The police contended that the officer was acting in the execution of her duty when the assault occurred because the officer had good cause to detain X for the purpose of questioning her to see whether a caution for suspicious behaviour should be administered. Decide whether the police officer is liable for battery.
Decision:
