Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Legal Principle: The insurer agrees to pay no more than the actual amount of the loss.
Fact Situation: Sunny insures his car worth rupees five lakh with X, an insurance company, for its value. He again insures the same car with Y, another insurance company, on the same terms. There is an accident and the car suffers a total loss. In his separate suits against X and Y, if Sunny recovers rupees five lakh from X, how much can he recover from Y?
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Options
Sunny can recover rupees five lakhs from Y
Sunny cannot recover any amount from Y
Sunny must pay Y, the rupees five lakhs he received from X.
Sunny cannot insure his car with both X and Y at the same time.
Advertisements
Solution
Sunny cannot recover any amount from Y.
Explanation:
The principle of indemnity asserts that on the happening of a loss the insured shall be put back into the same financial position as he used to occupy immediately before the loss. In other words, the insured shall get neither more nor less than the actual amount of loss sustained. This, of course, is always subject to the limit of the sum insured. Ongoing through the case we discover that Sunny had insured his car with two insurance companies and thus getting it insured at double the price of his car. on losing it completely he cannot claim more than 5lakh of rupees according to the above-mentioned rule thus option (b) is the most appropriate statement according to which if Sunny has claimed rupees 5lakh from x company then he cannot claim any amount from y company.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principle: A person, who is usually mad, but occasionally not mad, may make a contract when he is not mad.
Facts: 'A‘ generally remains in the state of madness and rarely becomes capable of understanding anything.
Agreement to murder a person
An agreement is valid
Voidable contract is one
A void agreement means
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 second suit will not be heard on the same facts between the same parties.
Nakshatra files a suit against Chandra for getting possession of a house on the ground that the property passed on to her through the will executed by Surya before his death. The suit gets dismissed as Nakshatra fails to produce the will. Nakshatra files another suit against Chandra to get the same house from the latter, on the ground that she was entitled to the house as being the nearest heir of Surya.
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: Every person, who is of the age of majority, is competent to contract according to the law to which he is subject.
Facts: A minor mortgaged his house in favour of Thakur Das, a money lender, to secure a loan of ₹20000. A part of this, i.e. ₹10500 was actually advanced to him. While considering the proposed advance, the attorney who was acting for the money lender, received information that the plaintiff was still a minor. Subsequently the minor commenced an action stating that he was underage when he executed the mortgage and the same should, therefore, be cancelled. He prayed for setting aside the mortgage. The mortgagee money lender prayed for the refund of ₹10500 from the minor.
Principle: Agreements in restraint of marriage are void.
Facts: 'X' enters into an agreement, with 'Y' where under he agrees not to marry anybody else other than a person whose name starts with the letter 'A' and promises to pay ₹ 100000 to 'Y' if he ('X') breaks this agreement.
Which of the following derivations is correct?
Principle: Where both the parties to an agreement are under a mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void.
Factual Situation: Roxanne supplies designer clothes to big showrooms and famous cloth houses. Max agrees to buy a certain consignment of only pink designer clothes for his shop due to the pink coloured theme of his famous shop. The issue cropped up when the exclusive pink coloured dresses were not delivered to Max's showroom, but to some other buyer, who had earlier contracted with Roxanne's store and all this was neither in the knowledge of Roxanne nor Max Decide whether the contract between Roxanne and Max is void?
Study the following information and answer the question that follows:
Principle: A 'fixture' is something attached to the land or a building in such a way that it is regarded as an irremovable part of the property you are considering buying. Some typical 'fixtures' in a home include the hot water service, range top, wall oven, fixed floor coverings, light fittings, and a built-in (under bench) dishwasher. Garden plants, including bushes and trees, are also 'fixtures'.
Rule A. When land is sold, all 'fixtures' on the land are also deemed to have been sold.
Rule B. If a movable thing is attached to the land or any building on the land, then it becomes a 'fixture'.
Factual Situation Khaleeda wants to sell a plot of land she owns in Beghmara (Meghalaya) and the sale value decided for the plot includes the fully-furnished palatial six-bedroom house that she has built on it five years ago. She sells it to Gurpreet for ₹60 lakh. After completing the sale, she removes the expensive Iranian carpet which used to cover the entire wooden floor of one of the bedrooms. The room had very little light and Khaleeda used this light-coloured radiant carpet to negate some of the darkness in the room. Gurpreet, after moving in, realises this and files a case to recover the carpet from Khaleeda.
Assume that in the above fact scenario, Khaleeda no longer wants the carpet. She removes the elaborately carved door to the house after the sale has been concluded and claims that Gurpreet has no claim to the door. The door in question was part of Khaleeda's ancestral home in Nagercoil (Tamil Nadu) for more than 150 years before she had it fitted as the entrance to her Beghmara house.
As a judge you would decide in favour of
