Principle: a Person, Who is Usually of Unsound Mind, but Occasionally Normal, May Make a Contract When He is Not of Unsound Mind. - Legal Reasoning

Advertisements
Advertisements
MCQ

Principle: A person, who is usually of unsound mind, but occasionally normal, may make a contract when he is not of unsound mind.

Facts: 'A' generally remains in the state of unsound mind and rarely becomes capable of understanding the things.

Options

  • 'A' can make a contract at any time whenever he pleases.

  • 'A' can make a contract only for his own benefit.

  • 'A' can make a contract when normal.

  • 'A' can never make a contract.

Advertisements

Solution

'A' can make a contract when normal.

Explanation:

According to the Section 12 of the Indian Contract  Act defines that if a person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interest.   
A person who is usually of unsound but occasionally of sound mind may make a contract when he is a sound  mind. Reasonable conclusion drawn in the above-noted problem, A can make the contract when normal. 

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

RELATED QUESTIONS

Mark the best option:
Facts: Babu, the driver of the bus, parked the bus at the karamangala bus station and went to the nearby bakery shop for some cutlets and samosas. Ranjit, the cleaner of the bus, on his own initiative took charge of the bus and drove it through the neighboring by-lanes. While reversing the bus he ran over a man who was trying to cross the road. The man was seriously injured and had to be hospitalized. The man sued the bus company for damages. Decide
Principle: A master is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of his servant acting in the course of his employment.


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?


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: When a person makes such a statement that lowers another person's reputation in the estimation of other persons, it is liable for committing defamation.

Facts: 'A' writes a letter to 'B' in which he uses abusive language against 'B' and also states that 'B' is a dishonest person. 'A' put the letter in a sealed envelope and delivered it to 'B'.


Legal Principle: Parents are not liable for wrongs committed by their children unless they provide the opportunity for such wrongful acts to be committed by their children.

Fact Situation: Sunil, a minor, takes the keys to his father’s car from the tabletop where his father keeps it, drives the car on the public road and hits a pedestrian who gets injured.

Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?


Legal Principle: When there is an infringement of the legal right of a person, he gets a right to sue the wrongdoer for remedy irrespective of any actual loss caused.

Fact Situation: Saroj is prevented from voting at an election. The candidate she intended to vote for, wins the election.

Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?


Legal Principle: A person who keeps hazardous substances in his premises, is responsible for the fault if that substance escapes in any manner and causes damage.

Facts: A, an industrialist stored 1000 litres of liquid ammonia in a tank in his premises for his industrial use. There was a leakage from the tank due to which there was ammonia vapour in the surroundings. Many workers in other industries, as well as his own industry and some members from the public, suffered serious health hazards. Examine the liability of A, if any.


Aaron points a gun at Bridget and threatens to shoot her. Aaron knows that the gun is not loaded but Bridget does not. Which of the following most accurately states the likely outcome if Bridget sues Aaron alleging assault?


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

  1. The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
  2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
  3. The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred 'but for' the negligence of the defendant. The claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant's breach of duty caused the harm.

Factual Situation: A 13-year-old boy fell from a tree. He went to a hospital where his hip was examined, but an incorrect diagnosis was made. After 5 days it was found that he was suffering from avascular necrosis. This was more advanced and serious than if it had been spotted straight away. Despite receiving treatment, it was determined that he had suffered from a muscular condition (avascular necrosis) which left the boy with a permanent disability and further left a strong probability that he would develop severe osteoarthritis later in life. The expert medical testimony indicated that had his fractured hip been identified on his initial hospital visit, there was a 25% chance of his condition having been successfully treated. He is claiming compensation for the negligence of the hospital. Whether the hospital's negligence on his initial visit had caused his injury?


PRINCIPLE An owner of land has the right to use the land in any manner he or she desires. The owner of the land also owns the space above and the depths below it.

FACTS Ramesh owns an acre of land on the outskirts of Sullurpeta, Andhra Pradesh. The Government of India launches its satellites into space frequently from Sriharikota, near Sullurpeta. The Government of India does not deny that once the satellite launch has travelled the distance of almost 7000 kilometres it passes over Ramesh's property. Ramesh files a case claiming that the Government of India has violated his property rights by routing its satellite over his property, albeit 7000 kilometers directly above it.

Applying the principle to the case you would decide


LEGAL PRINCIPLE 'Consent' defined as - Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense.

What does 'consent' include?


LEGAL PRINCIPLE A master will be liable for the wrongful acts of his servants in the course of employment.

FACTUAL SITUATION Maria was an old widow who opened an account with the Indian Overseas Bank, whereby she would deposit ₹5 every day in the bank. Stephen was her neighbour, who used to collect the amount and deposit them in the bank. Stephen would get a small commission from the bank for the money deposited. One day, it was discovered that Stephen who had not deposited the money for more than three months had vanished with the amount. Maria filed a suit against the Bank. 


LEGAL PRINCIPLE A person, who lawfully brings on something but which though harmless, but mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his and if he does not, he is answerable for all the damage.

FACTUAL SITUATION 'A' was the owner of a mill. In order to supply it with water, he constructed a reservoir upon nearby land by employing engineers and contractors. 'B' was the owner of coal mines, under lands, close to but not adjoining the premises on which the reservoir was constructed. The contractors, while excavating for the bed of the reservoir, came upon abandoned shafts and filled them with soil not suspecting that they were abandoned mine shafts. The reservoir was completed and partly filled. Within days the bed of the reservoir gave way and burst, leading to the flow of water through the channels connected with B's mine. Is 'A' liable to pay damages for loss caused to 'B'?


In a civil suit, the person who files suit and the person against whom the suit is filed are called


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.


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.

Legal Principle: The occupier of a premise owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitor.

Factual Situation: Radhika's brother, Akash, had come to visit at her place. After seeing her wealth. Akash decided to commit theft that night. While he was trying to escape that night he gets electrocuted by the wires which were fixed on the boundary walls. Akash plans to sue Radhika. Will his claim succeed? 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: A statement is defamatory in nature if it is injurious to a person’s reputation and if the statement has been published.

Factual situation: Rudra had been dating a girl named Kiara for three weeks. But he had introduced himself to her as Ricky Thakur (who is one of Rudra’s friends) and he continued to be Ricky for the rest of their relationship. But ultimately the relationship ended badly and Kiara being upset and angry at Rudra started a website named ‘rickythakur-is-a-jerk.com’. She created this website so as to warn other girls about ‘Ricky Thakur’. The real Ricky Thakur files a suit for defamation. 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.

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

Factual situation: Krish, while driving a car at a high speed in a crowded road, knocked down a cyclist. The cyclist died on the spot with a lot of blood spilling around, Lekha, a pregnant woman passing by, suffered from a nervous shock, leading’ to abortion. Lekha filed a suit against Krishnan claiming damages. DECISION:


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. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
3. Generally, nuisances cannot be justified on the ground of necessity. pecuniary interest, convenience, or economic advantage to a defendant.

Facts: 
Dr. Hemant had for 18 years operated a clinic and hospital for the treatment of ENT. Dr. Karan operated a renal clinic in which patients receive haemo-dialysis on the floor above Dr. Hemant’s clinic. Karan was found liable for obnoxious fumes emitting from the clinic which escaped downwards into Dr. Hemant’s clinic. Hemant, his staff and patients were found to have suffered substantial damage ranging from skin diseases, red and swollen eyes, headaches, lethargy and breathing difficulties. Decide whether Karan is liable?


Share
Notifications



      Forgot password?
Use app×