Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Principle: An agreement with a boy below the age of eighteen years is not enforceable by law.
Facts: A man entered into an agreement with a girl of seventeen years of age.
Options
The agreement is enforceable by law.
The agreement is not enforceable by law.
The agreement is enforceable by the girl.
No inference can be drawn.
Advertisements
Solution
No inference can be drawn.
Explanation:
No inference can be drawn in this case because the facts (and the principle) do not provide whether the agreement with a girl of 17 can be enforced. The principle is applicable to boys of a certain age. therefore, no conclusion can be drawn. 170. (b) Since the sale of liquor is illegal, all agreements relating to the sale and purchase of liquor are void. Therefore, B cannot initiate legal proceedings against A even if A failed to meet the agreement entered into by A and B.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Legal Principle: An essential condition in a contract for the sale of goods is that the seller has title over the goods sold.
Fact Situation: Ranjan pays rupees two thousand and buys a watch from Mohit who runs a watch showroom and a repair shop. Jatin sees the watch with Ranjan and tells him that it is his watch and was only given to Mohit for repairs. If what Jatin says is true
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
1. Consideration is something that moves from the promisee to the promisor, at the implied or express request of the latter, in return for his promise. The item that moves can be a right, interest, profit, loss, responsibility given or suffered, forbearance, or a benefit which is of some value in the eyes of law.
2. An offer may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterward.
Factual Situation: Bournville ran a sales promotion whereby if persons sent in 3 chocolate bar wrappers and a postal order for f 100 they would be sent a record. Big Beats owned the copyright in one of the records offered and disputed the right of Bournville to offer the records and sought an injunction to prevent the sale of the records which normally retailed at f 1,000. Under the Copyright Act, retailers are protected from breach of copyright if they gave notice to the copyright holders of the ordinary retail selling price and paid them 6.25% of this. Bournville gave notice stating the ordinary selling price was f 100 and three chocolate bar wrappers. The issue is whether the chocolate bar wrappers formed part of the consideration?
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer.
Principle: A second suit will not be heard on the same facts between the same parties.
Mr. Sampath went to a party alone in his wife Sunanda's car. He usually used his wife's car after office hours and his wife never objected to it. At the party, he got drunk. instead of taking the risk of driving the car, he requested his friend Mr. Vivek to drive him back home in Sunandas car, Mr. Vivek was quite sober since he had moderately consumed alcohol. On the way, Vivek knocked down a boy and injured his leg. Subsequently, on behalf of the boy, a claim for compensation was brought against Mrs.Sunanda since the car belonged to her and it was registered in her name. The insurance company refuses to pay compensation because the police report says that the person driving the car at the time of the accident had consumed alcohol.
P, Q, and R made a joint promise to give S a sum of ₹3000. S recovered the whole amount from P. Q was declared insolvent and cannot give anything. Which statement out of the following is correct?
The question consists of legal propositions/principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principles may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true. In other words, in answering the following question, you must not rely on any principles except the principle that is given hereinbelow for the 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.
Principle: When a party to a contract has refused to perform or disabled himself from performing, his promise in its entirety, the other party may put an end to the contract.
Facts: A engaged B on April 12 to enter his service on June 1, but on May 11, A wrote to B that his services would not be needed. On May 22, B joined C for employment.
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: When at the desire of the promisor, the promisee has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or abstain something, such an act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A daughter promises to give maintenance to her uncle in consideration of her mother making a gift of certain properties to her. The daughter pleads a lack of consideration when the uncle seeks to enforce the contract. She says that the uncle is a stranger to the consideration and so he cannot enforce the contract. The daughter
DECISION:
Principle: Minor's agreement is void from the very beginning. It can never be validated. It cannot be enforced in the court of law.
Facts: 'A', a boy of 16 yrs of age, agree to buy a camera from 'B', who is a girl of 21 yrs of age. 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: Contract is an agreement freely entered into between the parties. But when consent to an agreement is obtained to undue influence, the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.
Factual Situation: The Pragya had been worked for a businessman Anurag since the age of 18, working for a range of Anurag's businesses. In 2000, (aged 21) Pragya purchased a flat. In 2005, Mr. Anurag's business was facing financial difficulties, and he asked Pragya to offer up her flat as a financial security against an overdraft facility for the business. In July of that year, the bank's solicitors wrote to Pragya, advising that she should take Independent legal advice before putting her property up as a security for the debt. The bank also notified Pragya that the guarantee was unlimited in both time and financial amount. Having discussed the arrangement with Anurag, Pragya was unaware of the extent of the borrowing but was assured that her mortgage would not be called upon and that his own properties which were also used as security would be looked at first. A charge was executed over the Pragya's property in August 2005. In 2009, Mr. Anurag's business went into liquidation and the bank formally demanded ` 60,24,912 from Pragya. Pragya raised the defense of undue influence – stating that Mr. Anurag had induced her to enter into the agreement, and the bank had full knowledge/notice of this undue influence which should set aside the bank's right to enforce the debt recovery against Pragya. The bank is contending that there is no undue influence.
Whether the consent to offer the flat as financial security obtained through undue influence?
Principle: When, at the desire of one person, any other person has done or abstained from doing something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.
Facts: X, the uncle of Y, made a promise to pay him an amount of ₹1,00,000/- as a reward if Y quits smoking and drinking within one year. Y quit smoking and drinking within six months.
Principle: When a party to a contract has refused to perform or disabled himself from performing his promise in its entirety, the other party shall not put an end to the contract.
Facts: A engaged B on April 12 to enter his service on June 1, but on May 11, A wrote to B that his services would not be needed. On May 22, B joined C for employment.
