Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Legal Principle: An agreement entered into by way of a wager/bet is unenforceable in law.
Fact Situation: Thomas is very good at predicting the outcomes of cricket matches. Raja and Hoja give him rupees thousand each to enable him to bet with others about the outcome of a cricket match. Thomas wins rupees three lakh after betting three thousand rupees.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Options
Thomas must share rupees three lakh with Raja and Hoja equally.
Thomas must return rupees thousand each to Raja and Hoja.
Thomas need not share the three lakh with Raja and Hoja since it is the outcome of an unenforceable agreement.
If Thomas does not pay them rupees two lakh each, Raja and Hoja can sue him to recover their share.
Advertisements
Solution
Thomas need not share the three lakh with Raja and Hoja since it is the outcome of an unenforceable agreement.
Explanation:
Effects of wagering agreement-According to the section 30 of contract act, "agreements by way of wager are void; and no suit shall be brought for recovering anything alleged to be won on any wager, or entrusted to any person to abide the result of any game or other uncertain event on which any wager is made". Thus in the case presented before us, there is no agreement and even If there was an agreement, it was by way of wager, so it is void under section 30 of the contract act. Hence option (c) is the most appropriate and Thomas is not required to share his winnings with Raja and Hoja as there was no enforceable agreement between them.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
LEGAL PRINCIPLE The contract after the death of one party can be continued if it is ratified by the surviving party.
FACTUAL SITUATION Vishal, a famous artist was requested by Arun, an industrialist to draw the portrait of his deceased wife and paid ₹ 20,000/- in advance and agreed to pay when the work was completed, a sum of ₹2 lakhs·. When the portrait was half drawn, Vishal died due to a heart attack. His son also a fine artist completed his father's work and. demanded the money from Arun. Aron refused to pay and to accept the portrait drawn by Vishal's son and also demanded the advance to be returned.
In Ram v/s Shyam, Ram cannot be a
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer.
Principle: A contingent contract is a contract to do or not to do something, if some event, collateral to such contract, does or does not happen.
Facts: A agrees to pay B a sum of Rs. 1 lakh if B marries C within a period of six months. B marries C during the seventh month as the marriage hall was available only during that month. B claims Rs. 1 lakh from A.
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer.
Principle: Proposal (communication) + Acceptance (communication) + Consideration = Contract. The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made.
Facts: X’s nephew absconded from home. He sent his servant in search of the boy. After the servant had left, X by handbills offered to pay ₹501 to anybody finding his nephew. The servant came to know of this offer only after he had already traced the missing child. He, therefore, brought an action to recover the reward.
Ramu applied for the post of Director in an organization. The governing body of the organization passed a resolution appointing him to the post. After the meeting, one of the members of the governing body informed him privately of the resolution. Subsequently, the resolution was rescinded. Ramu claims damages. Which one of the following is the correct legal proposition in the case?
Principle: A gift comprising both existing and the future property is void as to the latter.
Facts: 'X' has a house that is owned by him. He contracted to purchase a plot of land adjacent to the said house, but the sale (of the plot of land) in his favour is yet to be completed. He makes a gift of both the properties (house and land) to 'Y'
Under the aforementioned circumstances, which of the following derivations is correct?
Principle: Money or good given to a person by mistake must be returned to the person who gave them.
Factual Situation: Sunil and Burma jointly owed ₹1000 to Siraj. Sunil pays the whole amount to Sirai in Suman's absence. Suman after returning from his vacations also paid the full amount to Siraj not knowing the fact that Sunil had already paid the same. Is Siraj bound to repay or return the extra money to Suman that he obtained under mistake from her?
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.
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:
Principle: Property consists of the right to possess, the right to use, the right to alienate, and the right to exclude others. The sale is complete when the property gets transferred from the seller to the buyer.
Facts: ‘A’ sold his car to ‘B.’ B requested A to keep the car in his care on behalf B for one month. A agreed.
