AILET entrance exam Question Bank Solutions for Legal Reasoning

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: In case of a breach of contract, compensation can be awarded for the personal inconvenience suffered by a party by reason of the breach, 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.

Factual Situation: Sunita and Sushmita bought bus tickets for a journey from Adyar to Mandaveli. The bus was to go to St. Thomas Mount via Mandaveli. However, the driver mistakenly took the wrong direction and the two girls were dropped at a distance of 2Vi miles from Mandaveli on the highway. With no other transportation in sight nor a place to stay, the two had to walk 2V4 miles at midnight. Later they filed a case against the bus company and claimed 5,000 as damages for the inconvenience caused in having to walk and 6,500 for Sushmita having fallen ill by catching a cold during the night.

Decision:

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: When an offer is accepted by a person to whom it is made, it becomes a promise. But this promise will become legally binding only when the acceptance of the offer is unconditional.

Facts: Ram makes an offer to sell his house to Shyam for ₹50 lacs. Shyam accepts this offer but wants to pay the price of the house in five quarterly installments. Ram does not agree with it. Thereafter Shyam agrees to pay the price of the house in the way as originally desired by Ram. But Ram does not reply to it. Can Shyam compel Ram to sell his house to him?

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: When at the desire of the promisor, the promisee has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or abstain something, such an act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.

FACTUAL SITUATION: A daughter promises to give maintenance to her uncle in consideration of her mother making a gift of certain properties to her. The daughter pleads a lack of consideration when the uncle seeks to enforce the contract. She says that the uncle is a stranger to the consideration and so he cannot enforce the contract. The daughter

DECISION:

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have made a proposal.

FACTUAL SITUATION: Ram sends a telegram to Sohan, writing: “Will you sell me your Rolls Royce car? Telegram the lowest cash price.” Sohan also replied by telegram: “Lowest price for the car is ₹20 lakh.” Ram immediately sent his consent through telegram stating: “I agree to buy the car for ₹20 lakh asked by you.” Sohan refused to sell the car. 

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: 

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A contract that is impossible to perform becomes void.

FACTUAL SITUATION: Surender agreed to deliver a specific quality of rice to Sonakshi identified by both of them. Before delivery, the rice was burnt by a short circuit. Is Surender discharged from the performance of the contract?

DECISION:

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Nobody shall unlawfully interfere with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it. The use or enjoyment, envisaged herein, should be normal and reasonable taking into account the surrounding situation 

FACTUAL SITUATION: Jogi and Prakash were neighbours in a residential locality. Prakash started a typing class in a part of his house and his typing sound disturbed Jogi who could not put up with any kind

DECISION:

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.

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): No action lies for more damage caused by some act that does not violate a legal right.
Reason (R): An action lies for interference with another's legal right even where it causes no actual damage.

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): Custom to have the force of law must be followed from time immemorial.
Reason (R): Custom represents the common consciousness of the people.

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 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: According to the law of trade unions in India, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be maintainable in any civil court against any registered trade union or any officer or member thereof in respect of any act done in contemplation or in furtherance of a trade dispute.

Facts: Soloman, the Secretary of a registered Trade Union took a loan from a bank for the higher education of his daughter. Soon after completing the course, she was married to an NRI Engineer. Solomon did not repay the loan. The Bank demanded the payments from Soloman and warned him that the Bank will take suitable legal action against him. Identify the legal position in this regard.

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: Every agreement, of which the object or consideration is opposed to public policy, is void. An agreement that has the tendency to injure public interest or public welfare is one against public policy. What constitutes an injury to the public interest or public welfare would depend upon the times and the circumstances.
Facts: 'A' promises to obtain for 'B' employment in the public service, and 'B' promises to pay rupees 5,00,000/- to 'A'.

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: Contract is an agreement freely entered into between the parties. But when consent to an agreement is obtained to undue influence, the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained. 
Factual Situation: The Pragya had been worked for a businessman Anurag since the age of 18, working for a range of Anurag's businesses. In 2000, (aged 21) Pragya purchased a flat. In 2005, Mr. Anurag's business was facing financial difficulties, and he asked Pragya to offer up her flat as a financial security against an overdraft facility for the business. In July of that year, the bank's solicitors wrote to Pragya, advising that she should take Independent legal advice before putting her property up as a security for the debt. The bank also notified Pragya that the guarantee was unlimited in both time and financial amount. Having discussed the arrangement with Anurag, Pragya was unaware of the extent of the borrowing but was assured that her mortgage would not be called upon and that his own properties which were also used as security would be looked at first. A charge was executed over the Pragya's property in August 2005. In 2009, Mr. Anurag's business went into liquidation and the bank formally demanded ` 60,24,912 from Pragya. Pragya raised the defense of undue influence – stating that Mr. Anurag had induced her to enter into the agreement, and the bank had full knowledge/notice of this undue influence which should set aside the bank's right to enforce the debt recovery against Pragya. The bank is contending that there is no undue influence. 

Whether the consent to offer the flat as financial security obtained through undue influence?  

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: Contract is an agreement freely entered into between the parties. But when consent to an agreement is obtained to undue influence, the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained. 

Factual Situation: The Pragya had been worked for a businessman Anurag since the age of 18, working for a range of Anurag's businesses. In 2000, (aged 21) Pragya purchased a flat. In 2005,  Mr. Anurag's business was facing financial difficulties, and he asked Pragya to offer up her flat as a financial security against an overdraft facility for the business. In July of that year, the bank's solicitors wrote to Pragya, advising that she should take  Independent legal advice before putting her property up as a  security for the debt. The bank also notified Pragya that the guarantee was unlimited in both time and financial amount. Having discussed the arrangement with Anurag, Pragya was unaware of the extent of the borrowing but was assured that her mortgage would not be called upon and that his own properties which were also used as security would be looked at first. A charge was executed over the Pragya's property in August 2005. In 2009, Mr.  Anurag's business went into liquidation and the bank formally demanded ` 60,24,912 from Pragya. Pragya raised the defense of undue influence – stating that Mr. Anurag had induced her to enter into the agreement, and the bank had full knowledge/notice of this undue influence which should set aside the bank's right to enforce the debt recovery against Pragya. The bank is contending that there is no undue influence.

Assume it is a case of undue influence. Decide whether the bank has done enough to allay concerns of undue influence?  

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: The acceptance must be absolute and unqualified, leaving no ground for doubt or uncertainty. If the acceptance is conditional, no valid contract is formed, and the offer can be withdrawn at any moment until the absolute acceptance has taken place within a reasonable time of such an offer.
Factual Situation: Delhi Government conducted an auction for the sale of the license of the wine shop. X offered the highest bid which was provisionally accepted "...subject to the confirmation of Chief Commissioner who may reject any bid without assigning any reasons." Since X failed to deposit the required amount, the Chief Commissioner rejected the bid. The government held X liable for the difference between the bid offered by him and the highest bid accepted in reauction and commenced proceedings for the recovery of the sum. It was contended on behalf of the government of Delhi that X was under a legal obligation to pay the difference as it was due to his default that a resale of the excise shop was ordered and hence X was liable for the deficiency in price and all expenses of such resale which was caused by his default.
Decide, giving a reason, whether X is liable to make payment to the Delhi Government.

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: Employers/Principles are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees/agents in the course of an employment agency. A servant/agent may be defined as any person employed by another to do work for him on the terms that he, the servant/agent, is to be subject to the control and directions of his employer/principal in respect of the manner in which his work is to be done.
Factual Situation: A motor car was owned by and registered and insured in the name of A (wife) but was regarded by her and her husband (B) as "our car." B used it to go to work and A for shopping at the weekends. B told A that if ever he was drunk and unfit to drive through, he would get a sober friend to drive him or else telephone her to come and fetch him. On the day in question, the husband telephoned the wife after work and told her that he was going out with friends. He visited a number of public houses and had drinks. At some stage, he realized that he was unable to drive safely and asked a friend, C, to drive. C drove them to other public houses. After the last had been visited C offered the three friends (X, Y, and Z) a lift and they got in, together with B who was in a soporific condition. C then proceeded, at his own suggestion, to drive in a direction away from the B's home to have a meal, On the way, due to C's negligent driving, an accident occurred in which both B and C were killed and the other friends got injured. X, Y, and Z brought an action against the wife both in her personal capacity and as administratrix of the husband's estate. Decide whether A is liable.

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:
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:

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:

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. Negligence is the absence of care on the part of one party which results in some damage to the other Party.
2. Generally, a person is under no duty to control another to prevent his doing damage to a third party.
3. The foreseeability test basically asks whether the person causing the injury should have reasonably foreseen the general consequences that would result because of his or her conduct.  
4. Statutory authority implies that an act is done by a  person to fulfill his duty imposed by the State.  Statutory authority is a valid defence under the law of torts.

Factual Situation: Ten borstal trainees were working on an island in a harbour in the custody and under the control of three officers. During the night, seven of them escaped. It was claimed that at the time of the escape the officer's lad retired to bed. The seven got on board a yacht, moored off the island and set it in motion. They collided with another yacht, the property of X and damaged it. X sued the Home office for the amount of the damage. Decide whether, on the facts pleaded in the statement of claim the Home Office, its servants or agents owed any duty of care to X capable of giving rise to a liability in damages with respect to the detention of persons undergoing sentences of borstal training or with respect to the manner in which such persons were treated, employed, disciplined, controlled or supervised whilst undergoing such sentences.

Decision: