Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so or to provide gratuitously, and such other person takes the benefit of that; the latter is bound to compensate the former for something is done or thing provided, or to restore, the thing so delivered.
Facts: Trader 'A' delivers certain eatables at B's house by mistake. 'B' consumed the eatables without asking anything. Which of the following derivations is correct?
पर्याय
'B' is bound to pay 'A' for the eatables.
'B' is not bound to pay 'A' for the eatables.
'B' can be made liable to pay for the eatables, only if 'A' establishes an express contract between 'A' and 'B'.
It is the discretion of 'B' to make payment to 'A'
Advertisements
उत्तर
'B' is bound to pay 'A' for the eatables.
Explanation:
According to section 70 of the Indian Contract Act where a person lawfully does anything for another person or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of or to restore the thing so done or delivered.
The reasonable conclusion is drawn that B is bound to pay A for eatables. Hence "‘B’ is bound to pay ‘A’ for the eatables." is correct.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: Law does not penalise for wrongs which are of trivial nature.
Facts: In the course of a discussion, 'A' threw a file of papers at the table which touched the hands of 'B'.
The Government of India is planning to open Rail Link between Sealdah to Devpura. Devpura is located in –
Within the jurisdiction of which High Court does Lakshadweep fall
Which of the following is not an element of an intentional tort?
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
- Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
- The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
- A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour.
- The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance.
Factual Situation: During 2011, a European Directive was issued requiring nations of the European Community to establish standards on the presence of Perchloroethene (PCE) in water, which the Kingsland did in 2013. Alfa Water Co. purchased a borehole in 2007 to extract water to supply to the public in Kingsland. In 2014, it tested the water to ensure that it met minimum standards for human consumption and discovered that it was contaminated with an organochlorine solvent (PCE). On investigation, it emerged that the solvent seeped into the soil through the building floor of the Light & Soft Leather Tannery, about 3 miles from the borehole that eventually contaminated the Alfa's borehole. Since the tannery opened in 191 O, until 2007, the solvent it used had been delivered in 40-gallon drums which were transported by forklift truck and then tipped into a sump. Since 2007, solvents had been delivered in bulk and stored in tanks. It was then piped to the tanning machinery. There was no evidence of any spills from the tanks or pipes, and it was concluded that the water had been contaminated by frequent spills under the earlier system. Alfa Water brought a claim against the Tannery on the grounds of nuisance.
Whether the Tannery owners are liable?
Injuria sine damnum stands for.
Principle: Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by an omission to do something which a reasonable person would do or an act which a prudent and reasonable person would not do. An action for negligence proceeds upon the principle that the person has an obligation or duty on the part of the defendant, which he/she breaches, leading to damage.
A, a surgeon operated on B. Subsequent to the operation, B complained of pain in his abdomen. On examination, it was discovered that A had left a mop in B ' s stomach while Operating.
Principle: Nobody shall make use of his property in such a way as to cause damage to others. Any such use constitutes a private nuisance, a wrongful act under Law of Torts.
Facts: Vasan was owing to a house, adjacent to a cluster of houses, owned by Varadan. Varadan was leasing out these houses whereas Vasan was living in his house. When Vasan was transferred to another place, he leased out his house to a person suffering from AIDS. Fearing the spread of AIDS, the tenants moved out of Varadan's houses. Varadan requested Vasan to evict AIDS patient and he offered to fix a suitable tenant for Vasan's house if the AIDS patient is evicted. But Vasan refused by arguing that AIDS would not spread as feared by Varadan's tenants. Varadan filed a suit against Vasan.
X went to Y’s house and forgot his bag which contained 1 kg sweets. Y’s children consumed the sweets. Decide the liability of Y.
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
1. The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
3. Volenti non-fit injuria is a defence to action in negligence.
Facts:
X purchased a disused cinema with the intention of turning it into a Multiplex. Six weeks after, X entered the building for the first time, it was set on fire by intruders and destroyed. As a result, the adjacent buildings were also affected and damaged. The cinema building was a target for vandals and children who often played there, but X had had no knowledge of previous attempts to start a fire at the cinema buildings. The owners of the adjacent buildings brought an action for negligence against X on grounds that X failed to take reasonable care for the safety of the buildings by not keeping the cinema locked, making regular inspections and employing a caretaker. Decide whether the occupier of a property owes a duty of care to the adjoining occupiers in respect of acts of trespass on his property resulting in damage to the adjoining properties?
