Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
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: 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 interest.
Facts: X, who is usually of sound mind but occasionally of unsound mind enters into a contract with Y when he (X) is of unsound mind. Y came to know about this fact afterward and now wants to file a suit against X.
पर्याय
X cannot enter into a contract because he is of unsound mind when he entered into a contract
X can enter into a contract but the burden is on the other party to prove that he was of unsound mind at the time of contract
X can either into a contract but the burden is on X to prove that he was of sound mind at the time of contract
None of the above
Advertisements
उत्तर
X cannot enter into a contract because he is of unsound mind when he entered into a contract
Explanation:
According to the principle, a person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract, if he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment, in this case, X is usually of sound mind but occasionally of unsound mind enters into a contract with Y when he (X) is of unsound mind. So, according to the principle X is not competent to enter into a contract with Y, because of unsoundness of mind.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
In this Question, problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question.
Rules
A. The act of using threats to force another person to enter into a contract is called coercion.
B. The act of using influence on another and taking undue advantage of that person is called undue influence.
C. In order to prove coercion, the existence of the use of threat, in any form and manner, is necessary. If coercion is proved, the person who has been so threatened can refuse to abide by the contract.
D. In order to prove undue-influence, there has to be a pre-existing relationship between the parties to a contract. The relationship has to be of such a nature that one is in a position to influence the other. If it is proven that there has been undue influence, the party who has been so influenced need not enforce the contract or perform his obligations under the contract.
Facts
Aadil and Baalu are best friends. Aadil is the son of a multi-millionaire business person, Chulbal who owns Maakhan Pharmaceuticals. Baalu is the son of a bank employee, Dhanraj. One day, Aadil is abducted from his office by Baalu. Chulbul receives a phone call from Dhamaj telling him that if he does not make Baalu the CEO of NIaakhan Pharmaceuticals, Aadil will be killed. Chulbul reluctantly agrees to make the Baalu the CEO. Subsequently, Chulbul and Baalu sign an employment contract. However, as soon as Aadil is released and safely returns home, Chulbul tells Baala that he shall not enforce the employment contract. Baalu and Dhanraj are not sure as to what is to be done next.
As per the rules and the given facts, who coerces whom:
In this Question problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question. In answering the following question, you should not rely on any rule(s) except the rule(s) that are supplied for problem. Further, you should not assume any fact other than 'those stated in the problem. The aim is to test your ability to properly apply a rule to a given set of facts, even when the result is absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the aim to test any knowledge of law you may already possess.
Rule:
Whoever finds an unattended object can keep it unless the true owner claims that object. This does not affect the property owner's right to the ownership of the property on which the object is found. The right to ownership of a property does not include the right to ownership of unattended objects on that property.
Facts:
Elizabeth is the CEO of a global management services company in Chennai and is on her way to Ranchi to deliver the convocation address at India's leading business school on the outskirts of Ranchi. Flying business class on Dolphin Airlines, she is entitled to use the lounge owned by the airline in Chennai Airport while waiting for her flight. She finds a diamond ear-ring on the floor of the lounge and gives it to the staff of Dolphin Airlines expressly stating that in the event of nobody claiming the ear-ring within six months, she would claim it back. The airline sells the ear-ring after eight months and Elizabeth files a case to recover the value of the ear-ring from the airline when she is informed about its sale. To the original fact scenario, the following fact is added: In the lounge there are numerous signboards which proclaim 'Any unattended item will be confiscated by Dolphin Airlines'. In this case, you would:
Choose the most appropriate option:
'lis pendens' means-
Choose the most appropriate option:
'Audi alteram partem' means
This question consists of principles and facts. The principal 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 the question, you must not rely on any principle 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.
Therefore, to answer a question, the principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option.
Principle: Under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, an employer is liable to pay compensation to his workmen for injuries sustained by them by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.
Facts: M, the Manager of SRK Industries asked his secretary S to submit a report at the Government Labour Office. ‘S’ submitted the report as directed. On his way back S met one of his classmates. He then decided to have a cup of tea together at a wayside restaurant. Sometime later, ‘S’ got a message from his office to report back as it was a long time since he left the office. ‘S’ rushed back on his Motor Cycle. On his way back a Truck that was coming from a side road hit ‘S’. H e was admitted to a nearby hospital with multiple injuries. He claims compensation under the Employees Compensation Act from his employer.
Mark the best option:
Joint heirs to a property are called -
Mark the best option:
A will or testament –
Symbol of Maharaja of Air India is
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): International law is not law at all.
Reason (R): International law has no judicial system to enforce the law by applying sanctions.
Fill in the blanks: Choose the pair of words which complete the sentence to make logical sense.
The _____________ Legislative assembly on 31st March 2015 passed a controversial Anti-Terrorism Law. Earlier, the passed bill was rejected two times by the then ____________ in 2004 and 2008
