Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Examine the Statement and Conclusions given below and choose a suitable answer from the options given:
Statement: Necessity knows no law.
Conclusions:
1. The act of a captain throwing some cargo into the ocean to save the ship from sinking is justified by the principle.
2. The act of a man out of poverty and starvation stealing some food from a hotel is justified by the principle.
3. The act of a tourist killing a tiger when it was attacking a villager is justified by the principle.
Options
Only Conclusion 1 follows.
Only Conclusion 2 follows.
Only Conclusion 1 and 3 follow.
All Conclusions follow.
Advertisements
Solution
Only Conclusion 1 and 3 follow.
Explanation:
Necessity knows no law is a proverb. It means that being desperate and having no means may lead you to do illegal things. Here" what is the necessity?" is important. Now in conclusion 1 throwing of cargo from the sinking ship was a necessity hence fall into a preview of this principle However stealing driven of poverty and hunger cannot take the plea of this principle as it cannot be said necessity. Again killing of the tiger to save a human being was a necessity and thus gets a cover under the above said principle Hence option 'The only Conclusion 1 and 3 follow.' is correct as both conclusions 1& 2 follow.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
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.
The question consists of two statements, one labelled as principle and other as Fact. You are to exa.mine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.
PRINCIPLE: "Nobody shall unlawfully interfere with a person's use or enjoyment of land, 0( some right over, or in connection with it. The use or enjoyment, envisaged herein, should be normal and reasonable taking into account surrounding Situation.
FACT: jeevan and Pavan were neighbors in a residential locality. Pavan started a typing class in a part of his house and his typing sound disturbed jeevan who could not put up with any kind of continuous noise. He filed a suit against Pavan.
What is a moot'?
Choose the most appropriate option:
'alibi' means a plea by an accused person that he
Legal phrase is followed by four meanings. Choose the most appropriate option:
Faux pas
Mark the best option:
Joint heirs to a property are called -
Mark the best option:
Who is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act?
The payment of wages Act is applicable to _________
In the case of industrial or other establishments, person responsibility of __________ shall be liable for the payment of the wage to employees employed by him.
Local self-governance is an example of
