Principle: 1. Wagering Agreements Are Void. 2. Collateral Agreements to Wagering Contracts Are Valid. - Legal Reasoning


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?


  • No, as it is a wagering contract.

  • Bank can recover money from Sabu so that payment of prize m oney can be made to Randeep.

  • Yes, as it is only a collateral agreement to horse racing and therefore the bank can recover the money from Sabu.

  • Horse racing is illegal and therefore XYZ Bank cannot recover a nything from Sabu.



Yes, as it is only a collateral agreement to horse racing and therefore the bank can recover the money from Sabu.


There is an exception under section 30 of the Indian  Contract Act in which it is mentioned that in favour of certain prizes for Horse Racing shall not be deemed to render unlawful a subscription or contribution, or agreement to subscribe or contribute,  made or entered into for or to word any plate, prize or sum of money, of the value or amount of five  hundred rupees or upwards, to be rewarded to the winner or winners of any horse race. The reasonable conclusion is drawn that only collateral agreement to horse racing and therefore the bank can recover the money from Sabu.

Concept: Law of Torts (Entrance Exams)
  Is there an error in this question or solution?
2015-2016 (May) Set 1


Principle: Death caused by a rash or negligent act of a person is an offence.

Facts: X was driving his SUV car on a lonely road leading to a forest at 160 km per hour. Suddenly, someone appears from the forest on the road and in the resultant accident, the car hits the commuter causing his death. 

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

Principle: A person is said to do a thing fraudulently, if he does that thing with intent to defraud, but not otherwise.

Facts: 'A' occasionally hands over his ATM card to 'B' to withdraw money for 'A'. On one occasion 'B' without the knowledge of 'A', uses 'A's ATM card to find out the balance in 'A's account, but does not withdraw any money.

When goods are displayed in a shop with a price tag, it is

Alexa waves at Bella in a friendly fashion and reaches out to pat her on the shoulder. Bella, who has a pathological fear of catching germs from others, recoils violently from the contact. Which of the following is correct?

Which of the following is not an element of an intentional tort?

Why is defamation a tort?

This tort occurs most often in society.

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.

PRINCIPLE Trespass is the unauthorized entry through the person or tangible object into the property of another. The rights of property exist on the surface, aerially and in the subterrain.

FACTS Kumari and Shravan lived in houses interspersed by the plot of Shantanu. Kumari and Shravan set-up a walkie talkie connection by setting up their transmitte~s facing each other. When Shantanu came to know about the arrangement, he filed a suit of trespass stating that the same was a case of trespass as signals could reach each other only by crossing his plot.

PRINCIPLE A person is not liable for every harm which comes from the act but is only liable for those harms which can be reasonably foreseen at the time of the injury.

FACTS Sumati, who was being threatened by armed robbery pulled the railway chain. The engine driver recorded the chain pulling but did not stop thinking it to be the work of mischievous passengers wishing to alight before the station. As a result, no help came to Sumati, who was robbed and injured. The suit brought by her was resisted by the railways. As a judge, you would

PRINCIPLE Where a dangerous article escapes, the owner shall be strictly liable for the harm which comes without being at fault.

FACTS Bhopal Gas Co. was in the business of manufacturing chemicals that produced a large amount of toxic residue. As per procedure, they used to store the waste in insulated boxes and hand it over to the collecting van of the municipal corporation once a week. After one such collection, the van driver drove negligently resulting in the escape and spilling of the contents of one of the waste barrels. Is Bhopal Gas Co. liable?

Negligence means

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: Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by an omission to do something which a reasonable person would do or an act which a prudent and reasonable person would not do. An action for negligence proceeds upon the principle that the person has an obligation or duty on the part of the defendant, which he/she breaches, leading to damage.

A, a surgeon operated on B. Subsequent to the operation, B complained of pain in his abdomen. On examination, it was discovered that A had left a mop in B ' s stomach while Operating.

Principle: A citizen is expected to take reasonable duty of care while driving on the road and not to cause injuries to any person.

Facts: X, the owner of a car, asked his friend Y to drive the car to his office. As the car was near his (X' s) office, it hit a pedestrian P on account of Y' s negligent driving and injured him seriously. P sued X for damages.
Which one of the following is correct?

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 Principles: In a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove the following essentials:

1. That he was prosecuted by the defendant.
2. That the proceeding complained was terminated in favour of the present plaintiff.
3. That the prosecution was instituted against him without any just or reasonable cause.
4. That the prosecution was instituted with a malicious intention, that is, not with the mere intention of getting the law into effect, but with an intention, which was wrongful in fact.
5. That he suffered damage to his reputation or to the safety of person, or to the security of his property.

Factual situation: A recovered a large sum of money from Railway Co. for personal injuries. Subsequently, Railway Co. came to know that injuries were not real and were created by doctor B. Railway Co, prosecuted B for playing fraud on the company, but B was acquitted. B sued Railway Co. for malicious prosecution. In the light of these facts which of the following statements is true? 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.

Principle: Interference with another's goods in such a way as to deny the latter's title to the goods amounts to conversion, and thus it is a civil wrong. It is an act intentionally done inconsistent with the owner's right, though the doer may not know of, or intend to challenge, the property or possession of the true owner.

Facts: y or possession of the true owner. Facts: 'R' went to a cycle-stand to park his bicycle. Seeing the stand fully occupied, he removed a few bicycles in order to rearrange a portion of 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 'S', In fact, 'R' was in a hurry, and therefore, he could not put back S's bicycle. Somebody came on the way and took away S's bicycle. The watchman of the stand did not take care of it assuming that the bicycle was not parked inside the stand. 'S' filed a suit against 'R' for conversion. Which of the following derivations is correct?

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: The master/principal is liable for all acts done by his duly appointed servant/agent for all acts done by him lawfully in the course of his employment. 

Factual Situation: A had an agency that used to lend carpenters to people on need basis. A deputed B to do some repair work in C's shed. While so doing, B lit up a  cigarette and threw it as soon as he saw someone coming there. The cigarette remaining lit caused a fire and she was reduced to ashes. C sued A and B. Decide. 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. 

Principle: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid act or omission which he can foresee would injure his neighbour. The neighbor for this purpose is any person whom he should have in his mind as likely to be affected by his actions. 

Factual Situation: Ram, while rushing to board a moving train, pushed Shyam, who was walking along with a heavy package, containing firecrackers. As a result, the package slipped from his hand, and crackers exploded injuring a boy standing close by. A suit was filed against Ram, by the boy,  claiming damages. DECISION


      Forgot password?
Use app×