Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
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 the 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: When a person who has made a promise to another person to do something does not fulfill his promise, the other person becomes entitled to receive, from the person who did not fulfill his promise, compensation in the form of money.
Facts: ‘X’ made a promise to ‘Y’ to repair his car engine. ‘Y’ made the payment for repair. After the repair, ‘Y’ went for a drive in the same car. While driving the car, ‘Y’ met with an accident due to the bursting of a tire.
पर्याय
X will be entitled to receive compensation from Y in the form of money
Y will be entitled to receive compensation from X in the form of money
X will not be entitled to receive compensation
Y will not be entitled to receive compensation from X
Advertisements
उत्तर १
‘Y’ will not be entitled to receive compensation from ‘X’.
Explanation:
Y' will not be entitled to receive compensation from 'X'. The promise made by 'X' to repair the car engine of the car of 'Y' and 'Y' making the payment for the same was completed. The accident of 'Y' falls outside the purview of the promise between the two and there will be no compensation involved.
उत्तर २
‘Y’ will not be entitled to receive compensation from ‘X’.
Explanation:
Y is not entitled to receive compensation from X because X made a promise to repair Y’s car engine and Y met with an accident not because of the engine problem but because of the bursting of the tyre. In other words, X fulfilled his promise, and according to the principle Y could receive compensation only when X did not fulfill the promise.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
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.
A lease agreement is a form of
Sheela, an adult married woman, agreed to live in adultery with Rahul and also agreed to serve him as his housekeeper. In return, Rahul, an adult agreed to pay Sheela ₹ 5000 per month for living in adultery and ₹ 5000 per month for housekeeping, the agreement 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: In order to be eligible to appear in the semester examination, a student is required to attend, under all circumstances, at least 70% of the total classes held in that semester as per University rules.
Facts: Anand, an economically poor but a very brilliant student of LLB final semester, while going to his University by cycle received some leg injuries in a road accident. Consequently, Anand could not attend his classes for one week as he was advised to rest by his doctor for that period. Due to this absence from the university, Anand failed to have 70% attendance essential to appear in the examination and, therefore, he was debarred from appearing in the examination by the University authorities. Anand challenges this decision in the court of law.
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: If the object of an agreement is or becomes unlawful or immoral or opposed to public policy in the eyes of law, then the courts will not enforce such agreements. Law generally prohibits Child labour.
Facts: P enters into an agreement with T, by which P has to let his house to T for two years and T has to pay ₹20,000.00 per month to P as rent. T starts a child care centre in that house. But after some time in order to earn some money for the maintenance of the centre, T starts sending the children of the centre on the rotation basis to work for four hours a day in some nearby chemical and hazardous factories. When P comes to know about this new development, he asks T either to stop the children from working in factories or to leave his house immediately. T neither agrees to leave the house nor to stop the children from working in the factories. P files a suit in the court of law of appropriate relief/action.
Principle: Agreements in restraint of marriage are void.
Facts: 'X' enters into an agreement, with 'Y' where under he agrees not to marry anybody else other than a person whose name starts with the letter 'A' and promises to pay ₹ 100000 to 'Y' if he ('X') breaks this agreement.
Which of the following derivations is correct?
Principle: A gift comprising both existing and the future property is void as to the latter.
Facts: 'X' has a house that is owned by him. He contracted to purchase a plot of land adjacent to the said house, but the sale (of the plot of land) in his favour is yet to be completed. He makes a gift of both the properties (house and land) to 'Y'
Under the aforementioned circumstances, which of the following derivations is correct?
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: An agreement is void if its object is unlawful.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Sunil had a rich uncle who owned prime property in Chennai and had a lot of money in the bank. Being the only heir. Sunil was sure that he would inherit the property. One day, the uncle called him to his room and announced that he planned to marry again. This angered Sunil and he plans to murder his uncle so he hired Anuj, a murderer, and entered into a contract with him to kill his uncle. Sunil agreed to pay ₹10 lakhs to Anuj and even paid 5 lakhs as advance. The following night Anuj entered the uncle's house intending to kill him. On reaching there, he realised that Sunil's uncle was already dead so he left without doing anything. The next day, after the post mortem report, it transpired that Sunil's uncle had died due to heart attack. Now, Sunil wants to recover the advance from Anuj. Will he succeed?
DECISION:
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Mr. X who is usually of sound state of mind, but occasionally of unsound state of mind, enters into a contract with Mr. Y when he was of unsound state of mind. Mr. Y having come to know about this fact afterward, wants to file a suit against Mr. X.
DECISION:
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
1. A contract comes into being from the acceptance of an offer, When the person to whom the offer is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted and the parties are at consensus and idem regarding the terms of the agreement.
2. Consideration is something that moves from the promise to the promisor, at the implied or express request of the latter, in return for his promise. The item that moves can be a right. interest, profit, loss, responsibility given or suffered, forbearance, or a benefit which is of some value in the eyes of law.
3. Contractual rights and liabilities are exclusive to the parties to contract.
4. There are few exceptions to the doctrine of privity of contracts like agency, trust, assignment, and third party beneficiary.
5. A quasi-contract is a contract that is created by the court when no such official contract exists between the parties to prevent a party from being unjustly enriched, or from benefitting from the situation when he/she does not deserve to do so.
Facts: Goodtyre is a tyre manufacturer who agreed with their dealer to not sell the tyres below a recommended retail price (RRP). As part of the agreement, Goodtyre also required their dealers to gain the same agreement with their retailers, who in this instance was Bestmotors. The agreement held that if tyres were sold below the RRP, they would be required to pay ₹ 500 per tyre in damages to Good tyre. This was agreed between the dealer and Bestmotors, which effectively made Goodtyre a third party to that agreement. Sometime after this, Bestmotor sold the tyres below the agreed price and Goodtyre sued for damages and an injunction to prevent them from continuing this activity. Bestmotors is arguing that Goodtyre could not enforce the contract as it was not part of the contract between the dealer and Bestmotors. The court decided that Goodtyre had no right to access damages. Which of the following is the correct reasons?
I. The good tyre could not claim for damages as only a party to a contract can claim damages under it.
II. The good tyre had not given any consideration to Bestmotors and therefore there could be no binding contract between the parties.
III. The good tyre was not listed as an agent within the contract and could therefore not be included as a valid third-party who had rights to claim on the contract.
