Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
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.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principle: Whoever causes death by rash or negligent act commits an offence.
Facts: X is having a house on the roadside which is also having a street on the back of the house. He has a lawn on the back of his house where he has built a toilet. To prevent the intruders from entering his house, he got the fence charged with a high voltage live electric wire. Z was passing through the street at the backyard of the house of X and sat down to take rest near the fence. While getting up, his hands came in contact with the fence which was connected to high voltage electric wire causing his death.
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option
Principle: When a person consented to an act to be done by another, he cannot claim any damages resulting from doing that act, provided the act done is the same for which consent is given.
Facts: 'P' submitted written consent to a surgeon 'S' for undergoing a surgical operation for removal of appendicitis. The surgeon while doing surgery also removed the gall bladder of 'A':
Legal Principle: One of the principles of ‘Natural Justice’ states that, “No person shall be a judge in his own cause”.
Facts: A, a driver of B, a Branch Manager of ABC Bank was caught, suspecting theft, in the bank premises. The Bank management instituted an enquiry and made B the enquiry officer.
Which of the following statements is correct?
Mark the best option:
Principles:
- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threats, commits criminal intimidation.
- A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interesting, is covered within the above provision.
Facts: Monty is a tenant in the Sharmas' house, living on the top floor while the Sharmas occupy the ground floor. However, he is always irregular in paying the rent. The Sharmas' are tired of asking him to pay on time and his manners have deteriorated over time. What started as mere excuses snowballed into name-calling, until one day, Monty threatened to come with his friends and vandalize the Sharmas' house, if they complained or took action against him.
Post the threat issued by Monty, the Sharmas' called the welfare officer of their residential colony, Budhdeb to discuss the matter with him. Monty threatened Budhdeb saying that he would expose his deceased father's illegal activities and release his personal numbers etc. on the internet to trouble Budhdeb.
Against whom is Monty guilty of criminal intimidation?
Torts is a ________
LEGAL PRINCIPLE An occupier is not normally liable to a trespasser except in respect of a wilful act intended to cause him harm or done with reckless disregard.
FACTUAL SITUATION Tony, a Richman, had kept a ferocious dog to guard his house. He strictly instructed all his servants not to go near the dog. Further, a special handler was hired to take care of the dog. Visitors were warned by a prominent warning signboard about this dog.
One day, a 13 years old boy playing in the neighbourhood, running after his ball got into the house. The dog attacked him and kill him, Tony was sued for damages.
PRINCIPLE A person is entitled to protect his property by using lawful means.
FACTS Ramlal is growing valuable vegetables and fruits on his farm and he has fenced the farm to prevent the cattle from entering into it. In addition, he has kept a ferocious dog to chase away intruding urchins and catties. Some children were playing in a nearby playground and the ball slipped into the farm. A boy running after the ball came near the fence and shouted for the ball. But when there was no response, he managed to creep into the farm to get the ball. The dog which was surreptitiously waiting attacked the boy and badly mauled him. The boy's parents filed a suit against Ramlal.
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: Negligence is a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standard of care required by law, resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. A plaintiff can take civil action against the respondent if the respondent's negligence causes the plaintiff injury or loss of property.
Facts: 'D' went to a cafe and ordered and paid for a tin/can of soft drink. The tin was opaque and therefore, the contents could not be seen from outside. She ('D') consumed some of the contents and then lifted the tin to pour the remainder of the content into a tumbler. The remains of a snail in the decomposed state dropped out of the tin into the tumbler. 'D' later complained of stomach pain and her doctor diagnosed her as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe shock. She used the manufacturer of the drink for negligence. Applying the afore-stated principle, which of the following derivations is correct as regards the liability of the manufacturer in the given situation?
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. Volenti non-fit injuria is a defence to action in negligence.
Facts:
X purchased a disused cinema with the intention of turning it into a Multiplex. Six weeks after, X entered the building for the first time, it was set on fire by intruders and destroyed. As a result, the adjacent buildings were also affected and damaged. The cinema building was a target for vandals and children who often played there, but X had had no knowledge of previous attempts to start a fire at the cinema buildings. The owners of the adjacent buildings brought an action for negligence against X on grounds that X failed to take reasonable care for the safety of the buildings by not keeping the cinema locked, making regular inspections and employing a caretaker. Decide whether the occupier of a property owes a duty of care to the adjoining occupiers in respect of acts of trespass on his property resulting in damage to the adjoining properties?
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?
