मराठी

UG-CLAT entrance exam Question Bank Solutions for Legal Reasoning

Advertisements
[object Object]
[object Object]
विषय
मुख्य विषय
अध्याय
Advertisements
Advertisements
Legal Reasoning
< prev  401 to 420 of 1023  next > 

LEGAL PRINCIPLE A person, who lawfully brings on something but which though harmless, but mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his and if he does not, he is answerable for all the damage.

FACTUAL SITUATION 'A' was the owner of a mill. In order to supply it with water, he constructed a reservoir upon nearby land by employing engineers and contractors. 'B' was the owner of coal mines, under lands, close to but not adjoining the premises on which the reservoir was constructed. The contractors, while excavating for the bed of the reservoir, came upon abandoned shafts and filled them with soil not suspecting that they were abandoned mine shafts. The reservoir was completed and partly filled. Within days the bed of the reservoir gave way and burst, leading to the flow of water through the channels connected with B's mine. Is 'A' liable to pay damages for loss caused to 'B'?

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

PRINCIPLE A person is entitled to protect his property by using lawful means.

FACTS Ramlal is growing valuable vegetables and fruits on his farm and he has fenced the farm to prevent the cattle from entering into it. In addition, he has kept a ferocious dog to chase away intruding urchins and catties. Some children were playing in a nearby playground and the ball slipped into the farm. A boy running after the ball came near the fence and shouted for the ball. But when there was no response, he managed to creep into the farm to get the ball. The dog which was surreptitiously waiting attacked the boy and badly mauled him. The boy's parents filed a suit against Ramlal.

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

Advertisements

Negligence means

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

A person is said to be vicariously liable when

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

In Torts, the remedy is

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

In Law of Torts,

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

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. A careless person becomes liable for his negligence when he owed a duty of care to others.

2. Valenti's non-fit injury is a defence to negligence.

Factual Situation

K was a friend of L and was teaching her to drive. Prior to such an arrangement, K had sought assurances from L that appropriate Insurance had been purchased in the event of an accident. On the third day, L was executing a simple manoeuvre at slow speed when she panicked which resulted in the car crashing into a lamp-post injuring K. L was subsequently convicted of driving without due care and attention. L denied liability to pay compensation to K on the ground of volenti non-fit injuria and also that she was just learning to drive and was not in complete control of the vehicle. Decide.

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

The question contains some basic principles and fact situations in which these basic principles have to be applied. A list of probable decisions and reasons are given.

Principles:

(1) Consumable goods that are not fit for consumption are not marketable.
(2) A consumer shall not suffer on account of unmarketable goods.
(3) A seller is liable for knowingly selling unmarketable goods.
(4) A manufacturer shall be liable for the quality of his products.

Facts:

Ram bought a Coca Cola bottle from Shama's shop. Back at home, the server opened the bottle and poured the drink into the glasses of Ram and his friend Tom. As Tom started drinking, he felt irritation in his throat. Immediately, Ram and Tom took the sample to test and found nitric acid in the content. Ram filed a suit against Shama, Coca Cola company and the bottler, Kishen and Co.

Suggested Decisions

(a) Ram cannot get compensation
(b) Tom can get compensation
(c) Both Ram and Tom can get compensation

Suggested Reasons

(i) Shama did not know the contents of sealed bottle.
(ii) Ram did not actually suffer though he bought the bottle.
(iii) Tom did not buy the bottle.
(iv) Coca Cola company is responsible since it supplied the concentrate.
(v) Kishen & Co is responsible since it added water, sugar, etc., and sealed the bottle.
(vi) Shama is responsible for selling the defective product. Your decision with the reason,

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

The question contains some basic principles and fact situations in which these basic principles have to be applied. A list of probable decisions and reasons are given.

Principles:

1. A master shall be liable for the fraudulent acts of his servants committed in the course of employment.
2. Whether an act is committed in the course of employment has to be judged in the context of the case.
3. Both master and third parties must exercise reasonable care in this regard.

Facts:

Rama Bhai was an uneducated widow and she opened a'S.B. account with Syndicate Bank with the help of her nephew by name Keshav who was at that time working as a clerk in the Bank. 'Keshav used to deposit the money of Rama Bhai from time to time' and get the entries done in the passbook. After a year or so, Keshav was dismissed from the service by the Bank. Being unaware of this fact, Rama Bhai continued to hand over her savings to him and Keshav misappropriated them. Rama Bhai realized this only when Keshav disappeared from, the scene one day and she sought compensation from the Bank.

Possible Decisions

(a) Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
(b) Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
(c) Rama Bhai cannot blame others for her negligence.

Possible Reasons

(i) Keshav was not an employee of the Bank when the fraud" was committed.
(ii) The Bank was not aware of the special arrangement between Rama Bhai and Keshay.
(iii) It is the Bank's duty to take care of vulnerable customers.
(iv) Rama Bhai should have checked about Keshav in her own interest. Your decision with the reason

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

The question contains some basic principles and fact situations in which these basic principles have to be applied. A list of probable decisions and reasons are given.

Principles:

1. A person is liable for negligence if he fails to take care of his neighbour's interest.
2. A neighbour is anyone whose interests should have been foreseeable by a reasonable man while carrying on his activities.

Facts:

A cricket match was going on in a closed-door stadium. A cricket fan who could not get into the stadium was watching the game by climbing up a nearby tree and sitting there. The cricket ball in the course of the game went out of the stadium and hit this person and injured him. He filed a suit against the organizers.

Possible Decisions

(a) The organizers are liable to compensate the injured person.
(b) The organizers are not liable to compensate the injured person'
(c) The injured person should have avoided the place where he might be hit by the cricket ball.

Possible Reasons

(i) The organizers are responsible for the people inside the stadium.
(ii) The organizers could not have foreseen somebody watching the game by climbing up a tree.
(iii) A person crazy about something must pay the price for that.
(iv) The organizers shall be liable to everybody likely to watch the game. Your decision with the reason.

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

The question contains some basic principles and fact situations in which these basic principles have to be applied. A list of probable decisions and reasons are given.

Principles:

1. When a person unlawfully interferes in the chattel of another person by which the latter is deprived of its use, the former commits the tort of conversion.
2. Nobody shall enrich himself at other's expense,

Facts:

A patient suffering from stomach ailment approached. a teaching hospital. He was diagnosed as suffering from appendicitis and his appendix was removed. He became alright. The hospital however found some unique cells in the appendix and using the cell lines thereof, it developed drugs of enormous commercial value. When the erstwhile patient came to know about it, he claimed a share in the profit made by the hospital.

Possible Decisions

(a) The hospital need not share its profits with the patient.
(b) The hospital may share its profits on ex gratis basis. (c) The hospital shall share its profits with the patient.

Possible Reasons

(i) The patient, far from being deprived of the use of his appendix, actually benefitted by its removal.
(ii) The hospital instead of throwing away the appendix conducted further research on it on its own and the development of the drug was the result of its own effort.
(iii) The hospital could not have achieved its success without that appendix belonging to the patient.
(iv) Everybody must care for and share with others. Your decision with the reason.

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

Which follow from the application of the undermentioned legal principle:

Legal Principle: The occupier of premises owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitors.

Factual Situation:
Devi who was the owner of a big home with a compound wall, constructed an underground tank to store water. This was covered by jute bags since the work was incomplete. The postman who came inside to deliver registered letter fell into this tank and hurt himself. There was also a box on the outside of the compound wall, where all the mail could be deposited. The injured man filed a suit against Devi claiming compensation.

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

Which follow from the application of the undermentioned legal principle:

Legal Principle: Even if the sovereign functions of the State are discharged negligently the State is not vicariously liable in tort.

Factual Situation:
A’ was a trader in gold. There he was arrested by Police and was detained in the police lock-up after search. The gold with him along with sundry other things was seized. Later he was discharged. His possessions seized by the police were returned, except the gold. HE moved against the State in tort. In the words of the Supreme Court, “There can be no escape from the conclusion that the Police Officers were negligent in dealing with the property after it was seized.” One of the Constables was a Muslim. He fled with gold to Pakistan.

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

In a civil suit, the person who files suit and the person against whom the suit is filed are called

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

Principle: A libel is a publication of a false and defamatory statement tending to injure the reputation of another person without lawful justification or excuse. Slander is a false and defamatory statement by spoken words or gestures tending to injure the reputation of another.

A wrote a letter to B calling him a cheat. B's clerk C opened the letter, as he normally did (a fact which was known to A) and placed it on B's table. B alleges that A has committed libel

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

Principle: A Master is liable for the acts of his Servant as long as he can control the working of his servant.

A owned a taxi agency. She had hired B to drive one of her cars. On January 1, 2010, C called up A's taxi agency and asked for a car to drop him from his house to his place of work. On the way, because of the driver's negligence, the car hit a road divider and C was injured. He sued A for damages.

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

Principle: A Master is liable to third persons for every such wrong of his servant as committed in the course of service. For acts committed beyond the scope of employment, the master is liable only if he has expressly authorised the act.

A owned a bus and he had hired B to drive it and C to be the conductor. One day, when B had stepped out of the bus to have a cup of coffee. C decided to turn the bus around so that it was ready for its next trip. While doing so, C ran over D's leg, causing major injuries to him. D sued A for damages.

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

Principle: Trespass to land is the wrongful and unwarranted entry upon the land of another. A purchased a ticket to watch a movie in a theatre. After the show got over, A refused to leave the theatre. The owner of the theatre sues A for trespass

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

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.

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

Rules:

A. A person is an employee of another if the mode and the manner in which he or she carries out his work is subject to control and supervision of the latter.
B. An employer is required to provide compensation to his or her employees for any injury caused by an accident arising in the course of employment. The words ‘in the course of the employment’ mean in the course of the work which the employee is contracted to do and which is incidental to it.

Facts:

Messers. Zafar Abidi and Co. (Company) manufactures bidis with the help of persons known as ‘pattadrs’. The pattadars are supplied tobacco and leaves by the Company and are required to roll them into bidis and bring the bidis back to the Company. The pattadars are free to roll the bidis either in the factory or anywhere else they prefer. They are not bound to attend the factory for any fixed number of bidis. The Company verifies whether the bidis adhere to the specified instructions or not pays the pattadars on the basis of the number of bids that are found to be of right quality. Aashish Mathew is one of the pattadars of the Company. He was hit by a car just outside the precinct of the factory while he was heading to have lunch in a nearby food-stall. Aashish Mathew has applied for compensation from the Company.

Which of the following statements can most plausibly be inferred from the application of the rules to the give facts:

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined
< prev  401 to 420 of 1023  next > 
Advertisements
Share
Notifications

Englishहिंदीमराठी


      Forgot password?
Use app×