Legal Principle 'Free Consent' Defined as - Consent is Said to Free When It is Not Caused by I. Coercion as Defined in Section 15 Ii. Under Influence, as Defined in Section - Legal Reasoning


LEGAL PRINCIPLE 'Free consent' defined as - Consent is said to free when it is not caused by

I. coercion as defined in Section 15
II. under influence, as defined in Section 16
III. fraud, as defined in Section 17, or
Iv. misrepresentation, as defined in Section 18
v. mistake, subject to the provisions of Sections 20, 21 and 22 Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, under the influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. 'Fraud' is defined in which Section?


  • Section 18

  • Section 19

  • Section 17

  • Section 20



Section 17

Concept: Law of Torts (Entrance Exams)
  Is there an error in this question or solution?


Principle: One who asserts must prove.

Facts:  A desires a Court to give judgment that B, C, and D shall be punished for a crime which A says B, C, and D have committed. 

Principle: A condition to a contract can also be complied with after the happening of the event to which such a condition is attached.

Facts: 'A' promises to pay Rs. 5000 to 'B' on the condition that he shall marry with the consent of 'C', 'D' and 'E'. 'B' marries without the consent of 'C', 'D' and 'E', but obtains their consent after the marriage.

The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:

Principle:  According to law, a person who finds goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee. Bailee is a person or party to whom goods are delivered for a purpose, such as custody or repair, without transfer of ownership. The finder of the goods legally can sell the goods found by him under certain circumstances including the situation that the owner refuses to pay the lawful charges of the finder.

Facts: P, a college student, while coming out of a Cricket stadium found a necklace, studded with apparently precious diamonds. P kept it for two days thinking that the owner would notify it in a local newspaper. Since he did not notice any such notification, P published a small classified advertisement in a local newspaper. In two days’ time, P was contacted by a film actor claiming that it was her Necklace and requested P to return it to her. P told her that she should compensate him for the advertisement charges then only he would return it otherwise he will sell it and make good his expenses. The film star told P that she had advertised in a national newspaper about her lost Necklace which was lost somewhere in the Cricket Stadium. The advertisement was published for three consecutive days incurring a large expenditure for her. Mentioning all this she refuses to pay P and claims the Necklace back. Which among the following is the most appropriate answer to this?

The law relating to prisoners of war has been codified by

Which Parliamentary Committee is described as ‘Watch-dog’ and guardian of the people against official negligence of corruption?

Mark the best option:
Principles: Qui facit per alium facit per se, " he who does things through others does it himself"
Facts: Nisha owner of a car asked her friend Saurabh to take her car and drive the same to her office. As he car near her office, it hit a pedestrian Srikant, who was injured seriously. Srikant files a case against Nisha.
Decide Nisha's liability.

The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a more recent development than the traditional torts of trespass to the person. To which of those torts is it most closely related?

Which of the following is an example of trespass?

What is the Compensation Act 2006 s 1 has what purpose...

Given below is the 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: ln the employer-employee relationship, the employer is held liable for all the wrongs committed by his employees in the course of employment.
FACTUAL SITUATION: David was employed as a Driver in ABC & Co over the past 15 years and has been appreciated by the General Manager for his hard work and sincerity. He has been rewarded by the company for his accident-free record. David's younger brother wanted to join the same company as a driver. He obtained a Learner's Licence, joined a Driving School and was learning driving during the last three months. He was on the verge of completion of the training and appear for the Driving test. He wanted to have more practice before the test and requested his brother David for using the Company's car for two days. David also allowed him to use the office car for the practice. While he was practicing driving, a truck came from the wrong side, hit the company's car driven by David's brother, which in turn hit a pedestrian and injured him. The pedestrian sues the company for damages.

Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principle:

  1. A person is liable for his negligence when he owed a duty of care to others and commits a breach of that duty·causing injury thereby.
  2. Valenti non-fit injuria is a defence to negligence.

Factual Situation: Anil and his wife, Reena, were in a shop as customers, where a skylight in the roof of the shop was broken, owing to the negligence of the contractors engaged in repairing the roof, and a portion of the glass fell and struck Anil causing him a severe shock. Reena, who was standing close to him, was not touched by the falling glass, but, reasonably believing her husband to be in danger, she instinctively clutched his arm, and tried to pull him from the spot. In doing this, she strained her-leg in such a way as to bring about a recurrence of thrombosis. Anil and Reena are claiming compensation for their injuries which were caused due to the negligence of the shop owners. The shop owners are denying liability on the grounds of  Valenti non-fit injuria. The defense of Valenti non-fit injuria.

The defence under nuisance is

PRINCIPLE Where the plaintiff himself is in fault, the defendant shall not be answerable for the harm brought on by the plaintiff's own actions.

FACTS Jimmy had put up a board in his house warning all trespassers of 'Beware of Dogs'. Jimmy arrived home using a cab and since he did not have the wallet asked the driver to stay outside. He received a long-distance phone call and spoke for 20 straight minutes. The cab driver outside was getting very restless and was ringing the bell which turned out to be broken. Left with no other alternative the driver came in only to be bitten black and blue by Jimmy's Rottweiler. In a suit brought by the cab driver 

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.

Principle: A master shall be responsible for the wrongful acts of his servants in the course of his employment.

Facts: The Syndicate Bank was running a small savings scheme under which its authorized agents would go round and collect small savings from several people on daily basis. These agents would get commission, on the deposits so collected. Ananth was one such agent, collecting deposits from factory workers engaged on daily wages. Though he regularly carried on his business for sometime, slowly he started appropriating deposits for his personal use and one day he just disappeared. One Fatima, who had been handing over her savings to him found that nearly for a month before his disappearance, he was not depositing her savings at all. The Bank, when approached, took the stand that Ananth was not its regular and paid employee and therefore, it was not responsible for his misconduct. She files a suit against the Bank 

Principle: Interfering with another's goods in such a way as to deny the latter's title to the goods amounts to conversion and it is a civil wrong.

Facts: Ram went to the bicycle stand to a park his bicycle and he found the stand fully occupied. Ram removed a few bicycles in order to rearrange the stand and make some space for his bicycle. He parked his bicycle properly and put back all the bicycles except the one belonging to Shyam. It was rather negligent on the part of Ram and he was in fact in a hurry to get into his office. Somebody came on the way and took away Shyam's cycle. The watchman of the stand did not take care of it assuming that the cycle was not parked inside the stand. Shyam filed a suit against Ram for conversion.

X went to Y’s house and forgot his bag which contained 1 kg sweets. Y’s children consumed the sweets. Decide the liability of Y.

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. 

Principle: The owner of immovable property is entitled to the column of airspace above the surface. However, the owner's right to air and space above his land is restricted to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures on it.

Factual Situation: Galaxy Cable TV Network Company is providing cable connections to their customers. One of the cables passes over the house of Mr. Vasanth Bhat., He is not a customer of the Network Company. The cable is neither attached to his house nor to any projection thereof.  
It is at a distance of 20 ft above the terrace of Mr. Bhat's two-storied house. Because of the cable, Mr. Bhat's son Sachin is unable to fly a kite from the terrace. Mr. Bhat requested the Network Company to change the position of the cable.  But the company did not bother to change it. One evening,  Mr. Bhat out the cable and cleared the airspace above his house. The Network Company suffered a loss of about   1000.  They bring legal action against Mr. Bhat for recovery of loss suffered. 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: Whoever stores a substance that could cause damage to escape shall be absolutely liable (i.e. liable even when he has exercised necessary care) for any damage caused by the escape of the substance.

Factual situation: Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) manufactured methyl isocyanate, an extremely toxic gas. Due to a storm, the gas that was being stored in sealed containers got released. Before much could happen, the local municipal authorities managed to contain the disaster. The authorities filed a suit against UCIL for the costs that were incurred in decontamination. However, later it was realized that the clean-up by the authorities could have been done without spending as many resources and the damage was not that significant. UCIL argued that it would pay only part of the amount demanded by the authorities, which could have dealt with the contamination. DECISION:


      Forgot password?
Use app×