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
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.
Principle: An interest created, dependent upon a condition fails, if the fulfillment of the condition is impossible.
Facts: A promises to pay Rs. Ten Lakh to B on condition that he shall marry A‘s daughter C. At the date on which A gave Rs. Ten Lac to B, C was dead.
Legal Principle: The insurer agrees to pay no more than the actual amount of the loss.
Fact Situation: Sunny insures his car worth rupees five lakh with X, an insurance company, for its value. He again insures the same car with Y, another insurance company, on the same terms. There is an accident and the car suffers a total loss. In his separate suits against X and Y, if Sunny recovers rupees five lakh from X, how much can he recover from Y?
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Which one of the following conditions regarding the acquisition of citizenship by naturalization has been wrongly listed?
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: Damages are payable for breach of contract and the purpose of damages is to compensate him for the loss suffered and not to improve his position more than what it would have been if the contract had been duly performed.
Facts: A wanted to buy a house and he contracted with a surveyor S to inspect a particular house and value it for him. S surveyed the house and valued it for Rs. 10 lakhs. S, however, failed to notice the defective plumbing system in the house, and had he taken note of it, the house would have been worth only Rs. 8 lakhs. A followed S's advice and bought the house for Rs. 8 lakhs and thereafter spent Rs. 4 lakhs for repairing the plumbing system. He filed a suit against S claiming Rs. 4 lakhs as damages
Principle: Caveat emptor, i.e., 'let the buyer beware' stands for the practical skill judgment of the buyer in his choice of goods for purchase. It is the business of the buyer to judge for himself that what he buys has its use and worth for him. Once bought, and if the buyer is not up to his expectations, then he alone is to blame and no one else.
Facts: For the purpose of making a uniform for the employees, 'A' bought dark blue coloured cloth from 'B' but did not disclose to the seller ('B') the specific purpose of the said purchase. When uniforms were prepared and used by the employees, the cloth was found unfit. However, the cloth was fit for a variety of other purposes (such as, making caps, boots, and carriage lining, etc)
Applying the afore-stated principle, which of the following derivations is correct as regards remedy available to 'A' in the given situation?
Principle: Money or good given to a person by mistake must be returned to the person who gave them.
Factual Situation: Sunil and Burma jointly owed ₹1000 to Siraj. Sunil pays the whole amount to Sirai in Suman's absence. Suman after returning from his vacations also paid the full amount to Siraj not knowing the fact that Sunil had already paid the same. Is Siraj bound to repay or return the extra money to Suman that he obtained under mistake from her?
The following question consists 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): The entries in the three legislative lists are not always set out with scientific precision.
Reason (R): The entries are not powers but are only fields of legislation.
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: Article 19(1) (d) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all citizens the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. But at the same time, Article 19(5) empowers the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of movement on the ground of interest of the general public.
Factual Situation: Wearing of the helmet is made compulsory for all two-wheeler riders by a law enacted by the State. The constitutionality of the law is questioned before the High Court on the ground that it violates Article 19(1)(d) of the petitioner. Will the petitioner succeed?
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: An unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it is a nuisance in tort. The fact that the plaintiff "came to the nuisance" by knowingly acquiring property in the vicinity of the defendant's premises is not a defense to nuisance. However, an act cannot be a nuisance if it is imperatively demanded by public convenience. Thus, when the public welfare requires it, a nuisance may be permitted for special purposes.
Factual Situation: D owned and occupied an estate about two miles from RAF Wittering, an operational and training base for Harrier Jump Jets. D claimed that they suffered severe noise disturbance every time the Harrier pilots carried out training circuits: an average of 70 times a day. D alleged that the noise nuisance constituted a very serious interference with their enjoyment of their land. D instituted judicial proceedings against the defendants, the Ministry of Defence (MoD), damages amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000.
The MoD denied liability and raised the defence that the Harrier training was undertaken for the public benefit and that they had prescriptive right over the land as D had bought their property at a time when RAF Wittering was already established so he cannot claim compensation as he already knew about the existence of RAF Wittering near his property.
Decision:
