Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Consists of legal proposition(s)/ principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this Section. In other words, in answering these questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every question.
Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest in the study of law, research aptitude, and problem-solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the objective of this section to test your knowledge of the law.
Therefore, to answer a question, the principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option.
Principle: A contract would be invalid and unlawful if the contract is for any immoral or illegal purpose.
Facts: P, was a young and helpless widow, living on the pavement. R, a neighbor gave her a house, registered in her name, on the condition that she should allow R to keep his smuggled goods and drugs in her house. After the registration was done, according to the condition in the contract, R’s agents went to keep some packets in her house, she refused. R told her the condition under which the house was given to her. She still refused. Is P justified in her action?
Options
As R was making the contract for illegal activities, P's stand is valid in law.
R can take back the house by cancelling the transfer deed.
P is not justified as she did not have the right to deny R's request.
P is right as she did not like smuggled goods to be kept in her house.
Advertisements
Solution
As R was making the contract for illegal activities, P’s stand is valid in law
Explanation:
As R was making the contract for illegal activities, P's stand is valid in law. The conditions made by R were illegal in nature. Such conditions made the contract invalid and unlawful. The contract does not stand valid in the court of law.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
In this Question problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question. In answering the following question, you should not rely on any rule(s) except the rule(s) that are supplied for problem. Further, you should not assume any fact other than 'those stated in the problem. The aim is to test your ability to properly apply a rule to a given set of facts, even when the result is absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the aim to test any knowledge of law you may already possess.
Rules:
A. When land is sold, all `fixtures' on the land are also deemed to have been sold.
B. If a moveable thing is attached to the land or any building on the land, then it becomes a 'fixture'.
Facts: Khaleeda wants to sell a plot of land she owns in Baghmara, 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 Garret for sixty laky rupees. 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 Khalid used this light-colored radiant carpet to negate some of the darkness in the room. Garret, after moving in, realizes this and files a case to recover the carpet from Khalid. Assume that in the above fact scenario, Khalid no longer wants the carpet. She removes the elaborately carved door to the house after the sale has been concluded and claims that Garret 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 Baghmara house. As a judge, you would decide in favour of it.
In this Question problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question. In answering the following question, you should not rely on any rule(s) except the rule(s) that are supplied for problem. Further, you should not assume any fact other than 'those stated in the problem. The aim is to test your ability to properly apply a rule to a given set of facts, even when the result is absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the aim to test any knowledge of law you may already possess.
Rule A: An owner of land has the right to use the land in any manner he or she desires. The owner of land also owns the space above and the depths below it.
Rule B: Rights above the laud extend only to the point they are essential to any use or enjoyment of land.
Rule C: An owner cannot claim infringement of her property right if the space above his or her land is put to reasonable use by someone else at a height at which the owner would have to reasonable use of it and it does not affect the reasonable enjoyment of his or her land.
Shazia's case: Shazia owns a single storeyed house in Ahmedabad which has been in her family for more than 75 years. The foundation of the house cannot support another floor and Shazia has no intention of demolishing her family home to construct a bigger building. Javed and Sandeep are business partners and own three-story houses on either side of Shazia's house. Javed and Sandeep are also Ahmedabad's main distributors for a major soft drinks company. They have erected a huge hoarding advertising their products, with the ends supported on their roofs but the hoarding also passes over Shazia's house at 70 feet and casts a permanent shadow on her terrace. Shazia decides to hoist a huge Indian flag, going up to 75 feet, on her roof. She files a case, asking the court to order Javed and Sandeep to remove the hoarding for all these reasons.
Applying only Rules A and B to Shazia's case, you would decide:
In this Question problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question. In answering the following question, you should not rely on any rule(s) except the rule(s) that are supplied for problem. Further, you should not assume any fact other than 'those stated in the problem. The aim is to test your ability to properly apply a rule to a given set of facts, even when the result is absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the aim to test any knowledge of law you may already possess.
Rule A: An owner of land has the right to use the land in any manner he or she desires. The owner of land also owns the space above and the depths below it.
Rule B: Rights above the laud extend only to the point they are essential to any use or enjoyment of land.
Rule C: An owner cannot claim infringement of her property right if the space above his or her land is put to reasonable use by someone else at a height at which the owner would have to reasonable use of it and it does not affect the reasonable enjoyment of his or her land.
Shazia's case: Shazia owns a single-storeyed house in Ahmedabad which has been in her family for more than 75 years. The foundation of the house cannot support another floor and Shazia has no intention of demolishing her family home to construct a bigger building. Javed and Sandeep are business partners and own three-story houses on either side of Shazia's house. Javed and Sandeep are also Ahmedabad's main distributors for a major soft drinks company. They have erected a huge hoarding advertising their products, with the ends supported on their roofs but the hoarding also passes over Shazia's house at 70 feet and casts a permanent shadow on her terrace. Shazia decides to hoist a huge Indian flag, going up to 75 feet, on her roof. She files a case, asking the court to order Javed and Sandeep to remove the hoarding for all these reasons.
Applying Rule C to Shazia's case, you would decide:
Mark the best option:
Principle: A contract the consent to which is induced by a false account or idea can be avoided by the deceived party.
Facts: Jatin approached Martin to purchase a plot of land from him. Martin was under the impression that Jatin required the land for constructing a house for himself and therefore, told Jatin that a real estate group was about to start a residential project in the vicinity of the plot; though he was himself doubtful of the same. Jatin, however, wanted to purchase the plot as he had been instructed by his elder brother to do so. Jatin entered into a contract to purchase the plot for a sum of Rupees thirty-five lacs and a few days later he came to know that the information given to him by Martin in respect of the residential project was false.
What should be Jatin do next?
Which law introduced the system of dyarchy in India during the British reign?
................. is a one-sided contract in which only one party has to perform his promise or obligation.
“A Contract is an agreement creating and defining obligations between the parties” the definition was put forwarded by
The agreement is defined by the section ............... of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
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): The parties to the contract must be competent to contract otherwise it will be a void contract.
Reason (R): All wagering agreements are void.
Which article provides for the office of the Attorney General of India?
