Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: Acceptance of a proposal must be absolute and unqualified.
Facts: ‘A’ made a proposal to sell his motorcycle to ‘B’ for rupees 25, 000/. ‘B’ agreed to buy it for rupees 24,000/. ‘A’ sold his motorcycle to ‘C’ for 26,000/ the next day. ‘B’ sues ‘A’ for damages.
Options
‘B’ will get the difference of rupees 1,000/ only.
‘B’ will not get any damages from ‘A’.
‘B’ will get damages from ‘A’
‘B’ can proceed against ‘C’
Advertisements
Solution
‘B’ will not get any damages from ‘A’.
Explanation:
According to Section 7 of the Contract Act, the acceptance must be absolute and unqualified. It must correspond with all the terms of the offer. Conditional acceptance is not an acceptance. In case of a variation in terms of acceptance, there is no acceptance but a counteroffer, which the proposer is free to accept or refuse. A counteroffer destroys the original offer. Thus, the offerer cannot revert to the original offer and purport to accept it. (Trollope & Colls Ltd. v Atomic Power Construction ltd (1963)).
In the given problem, 'A' is the offerer and 'B' makes a counteroffer to 'A'. 'B' agrees to buy the motorbike from 'A' which is a new offer from B which was not accepted by 'A'. On selling the motorbike to 'C', 'A' does not violate a contract and thus, 'B' cannot sue 'A' for damages.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principle: Whoever takes away any moveable thing from the land of any person without that person‘s consent is said to commit theft.
Facts: During his visit to the home of C, A asks B, the son of C, to accompany A to a forest. Neither A nor B informs C in this regard. B accompanies A to the forest.
Principle: Nothing is an offense if it is done under intoxication and the person committing the offense was incapable to understand the nature of the Act. Intoxication should be without the knowledge or against the will of the person.
Facts: A, B and C were having a party in Bar where A persuaded B and C to take alcoholic drinks. On the persistent persuasion B and C also consumed alcohol along with A. B and C had never consumed alcohol before. After intoxication, there was some argument between B and C where C pushed B with full force causing serious injury to B.
Directions: Read the statement and on the basis of that, choose the most appropriate course of action(s) given below the statement.
Statement: Official data show more people died on Indian roads in 2016 than in 2015; UP and Tamil Nadu accounted for the largest numbers of fatalities.
Courses of Action:
I. The government should make a policy regulating the manufacturing of automobiles for private use.
II. The government should take steps to create awareness among the public about road safety.
III. Accidents can be avoided if the Government takes steps to make good roads.
IV. To eliminate accidents completely the Government should impose stringent punishments for traffic violations.
Legal Principle: The Latin maxim qui facit per alium, facit per se means that he who acts through another, acts himself.
Fact Situation: Heema requests her minor sister Harika to purchase a bag for her from the local shop. Harika purchases the bag on credit telling the shop keeper that her sister will pay for it. Afterward, Heema refuses to pay for the bag.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Legal Principle: ‘ Audi alteram partem’ is a Latin phrase which means ‘hear the other side’. It is the principle that no person should be judged without a fair hearing.
Fact Situation: Sanjay, in Delhi, is accused of theft and brought before the Court. The magistrate discovers that Sanjay is mute.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Mark the best option:
Principle: An occupier is not normally liable to a trespasser except in respect of willful act intended to cause harm or done with reckless disregard.
Facts: Jaspal, a richman of the locality had kept a ferocious dog to guard his house. He strictly instructed all his servants not to go near that dog and there was a special attender who was to take care of the dog. There was a prominent board warning the visitors about the ferocious dog. One day, a twelve-year-old boy playing in the neighborhood, running after his ball got into the house. The dog attacked him and killed him. Jaspal was sued for damages.
PRINCIPLE Nuisance is the interference in the enjoyment of the property.
FACTS Pizzeria, a small cafeteria selling namesake used to run a wood-fired oven. The resulting smoke caused a lot of smoke in the neighbourhood and there were a number of complaints from the locals who had not witnessed such an oven. The food inspector taking cognizance of these reports asked the restaurant to shut down the oven. The owner who had earlier ran a similar establishment in Italy did not comply. Is Pizzeria committing a nuisance?
Principle: Trespass to land is the wrongful and unwarranted entry upon the land of another. A purchased a ticket to watch a movie in a theatre. After the show got over, A refused to leave the theatre. The owner of the theatre sues A for trespass
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:
1. Master/ Principal is vicariously liable for the tort committed by a servant/ agent, in the performance of his duties as a servant/ agent.
2. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do.
Factual situation: A patient is brought to a hospital maintained by B. The patient is to be operated upon, As a result of faulty oxygen supply, the patient dies on the operation theatre table, then 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?
