Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Principle: In cases where there is an infringement of legal right even without any actual loss or damage, the person whose right is infringed has a cause of action.
Facts: 'P' was wrongfully prevented by the Returning Officer from ex ercising his vote in an assembly election. However, the candidate for whom he wanted to caste his vote won the election. Still, he ('P') brou ght an action claiming damages. Which of the following derivations is correct?
Options
'P' would succeed in his action, as it is mandatory to cast vote.
'P' would not succeed in his action, as the candidate for whom h e wanted to give his vote won the election.
'P' would not succeed in his action, as he did not suffer any loss in that election.
'P' would succeed in his action, as he was wrongfully prevented from exercising his legal right of voting in that election.
Advertisements
Solution
'P' would succeed in his action, as he was wrongfully prevented from exercising his legal right of voting in that election.
Explanation:
The reasonable conclusion is drawn that it is a violation of a legal right without causing any harm, loss or damage to the plaintiff. Thus it is actionable in tort. Hence P would succeed in his action, as he was wrongfully prevented from his legal right of voting.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principle: Acceptance of the proposal must be the exact mirror image of the proposal.
Facts: 'A‘ made a proposal to 'B‘ to sell a chair for Rs. 500. 'B‘ is desirous of buying the said chair for Rs. 400.
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.
In India, the literary work is protected until
Every murder is a culpable homicide but every culpable homicide is not murder. This statement
Which of the following is not an objective of the law of tort?
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
- 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.
- 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 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.
- A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour.
- The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance.
Factual Situation: M G Ltd. was constructing Crystal Heights, a posh state-of-the-art tower for commercial and residential purposes, in Gurugram. During construction, hundreds of claimants alleged that, in addition to dust and noise caused by the erection of the building, their television signals had been interrupted by the tower. The claimants, some of whom were absolute owners, and many others who were renting, sued in both negligences and in nuisance for the harm done to their amenity by the loss of their television signals. Whether the respondent's action in causing the appellant's television signals to be interrupted with the construction of their tower could constitute a private nuisance?
Principle: A libel is a publication of a false and defamatory statement tending to injure the reputation of another person without lawful justification or excuse. Slander is a false and defamatory statement by spoken words or gestures tending to injure the reputation of another.
A wrote a letter to B calling him a cheat. B's clerk C opened the letter, as he normally did (a fact which was known to A) and placed it on B's table. B alleges that A has committed libel
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 master/principal is liable for all acts done by his duly appointed servant/agent for all acts done by him lawfully in the course of his employment.
Factual Situation: A had an agency that used to lend carpenters to people on need basis. A deputed B to do some repair work in C's shed. While so doing, B lit up a cigarette and threw it as soon as he saw someone coming there. The cigarette remaining lit caused a fire and she was reduced to ashes. C sued A and B. 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: The occupier of a premise owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitors.
Factual situation: Lalit was running a dairy from his house. People used a dart of his farm as a shortcut to get to a nearby railway station. Lalit who did not approve of this, put up a notice that “Trespassers will be prosecuted”. However, since a number of these people were also his customers he tolerated them. One day a person who was using this short cut was attacked by a bull belonging to the farm. The injured person filed a suit against him. 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. 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?
