Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Legal Principle: No remedy lies in law where an injury is caused to a person without any infringement of his legal right.
Fact Situation: Ashutosh started a tuition Centre right next to the one being run for the past twenty years by Gulshan. After Ashutosh started his Centre, a large number of students shifted from Gulshan’s tuition Centre to Ashutosh’s Centre forcing Gulshan to close down his establishment suffering huge losses. Can Gulshan initiate legal action against Ashutosh?
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Options
Ashutosh must compensate Gulshan for his loss consequent to the start of the new tuition centre.
Gulshan cannot blame Ashutosh if he cannot retain his students.
Ashutosh has not violated any legal right of Gulshan, though students shifted to Ashutosh’s Centre and though Gulshan suffered a loss after he shut down his tuition Centre.
Gulshan should have improved his quality with lower fees to retain his students in the light of competition brought in by Ashutosh.
Advertisements
Solution
Ashutosh has not violated any legal right of Gulshan, though students shifted to Ashutosh’s Centre and though Gulshan suffered a loss after he shut down his tuition Centre.
Explanation:
Damnum sine injuria a Latin maxim that means damage without legal injury. When there is the actual damage caused to the plaintiff without infringement of his legal right, no action lies against the defendant. In order to make someone liable in tort, the plaintiff must prove that he has sustained legal injury. Damage without injury is not actionable in the law of torts. The case presented before us is a perfect example where the phrase "Damnum sine injuries" applies. Inspite of the fact that Gulshan incurred huge losses due the competition given by Ashutosh, he cannot hold Ashutosh liable for the same and claim damages as none of his legal rights was infringed and Damage without injury is not actionable in the law of torts. Hence "Ashutosh has not violated any legal right of Gulshan, though students shifted to Ashutosh’s Centre and though Gulshan suffered loss, after he shut down his tuition Centre." seems most appropriate.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principle:
1. Wagering agreements are void.
2. Collateral agreements to wagering contracts are valid.
Facts: XYZ Bank lends Rs. 40, 000 to Sabu in order to enable him to award as a prize to Randeep who is the winner of horse race. Later Sabu refuses to pay the prize stating that horse racing is wagering agreement. Can XYZ Bank recover money from Sabu?
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: An offer made by one party when accepted by another makes it a contract.
Transactions:
1. P offered to sell his house for Rs. 20 lakhs to R; R told P that he was interested to buy a house for 15 lakhs only.
2. C was looking for a house for not more than 25 lakhs; P informed C that his house was available for 20 lakhs.
3. K wanted to buy some old furniture; L told K that he would sell his furniture for Rs. 10, 000.
4. R advertised to sell his old car for a price of Rs. Three lakhs; S found the advertisement and offered to buy it for Rs. 2 lakhs 50 thousand; R agrees to sell it to S.
Which among the above is actually a contract?
Legal Principle: Nuisance is the unlawful interference with a person’s enjoyment of his land or some rights over or in connection with it.
Fact Situation: Ashok, in his nineties, is hard of hearing and plays the radio very loudly throughout the day and on a daily basis. Raju, his neighbor, complained that he cannot listen to his favorite TV show in his home due to the radio of Ashok.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Mark the best option:
Principles: Whoever takes away anything from the land of any person without the person's consent is said to commit theft. A thing so long as it is attached to the earth is not subject to theft, but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft soon as itis severed from the earth.
Facts: Y cuts down a tree standing on the land of X with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of X's possession without the consent of X. But Y is yet to take away the tree out of X's possession.
Decide
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?
What is the essential difference that makes the crime of assault differ from the tort of assault?
What are the remedies provided by the Human Rights Act 1998 are intended to regulate the activities of whom...
Principle: The standard to determine whether a person has been guilty of negligence is the standard of care which, in the given circumstances, a reasonable man could have foreseen.
Facts: The Agricultural University constructed 200 houses for its employees in its premises. Two huge bore wells were sunk and motors were installed. They did not cover the pump rooms properly. A child, 6 years old, from one of the quarters, was playing near the pumphouse. On hearing the noise of the pump, she was curious to see the motor. She touched the motor that was not covered properly and three of her fingers were cut.
Assertion (A): All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish or administer educational institutions of their choice.
Reason (R): Institutions established by the minorities are not entitled to governmental aid and government is not under an obligation to give aid.
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
1. Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful, and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
2. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would be likely to injure his neighbor.
3. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a prerequisite of liability in actions of nuisance
Facts:
Bharat Sugar Ltd. operated a sugar refinery on the bank of the river Ravi. They had a jetty from which raw sugar would be offloaded from barges and refined sugar would be taken. The sugar would be taken by larger vessels and then transferred to smaller barges to enable them to get through the shallow waters. As part of development, Bharat Sugar Ltd. wished to construct a new jetty and dredge the water to accommodate the larger vessels. At the same time, the State was constructing new ferry terminals. The design of the ferry terminals was such that it caused the siltation of the channels. After using the channels for a short while, Bharat Sugars’ larger vessels were no longer able to use them. Further dredging at the cost of ₹ 7,50,000 was required to make the channel and jetties usable by the vessels. Bharat Sugar Ltd. brought an action in nuisance to recover the cost of the extra dredging. Is the State liable?
