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
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: When a person interferes with peaceful possession of another person without the permission of the person in possession of those premises, commits trespass to land.
Facts: 'T' just walked over the land of 'P' to reach his house as it was a short cut. 'P' had displayed a notice that it is not a thoroughfare. 'P' did not cause any damage to the land.
When goods are displayed in a shop with a price tag, it is
Muslim religious foundations are known as
Rape involves an offence which is against:
If a person is enjoying the benefits of a lawful no gratuitous act of another, then he/she:
Every murder is a culpable homicide but every culpable homicide is not murder. This statement
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?
What the Injuries Board is...
The question contains some basic principles and fact situations in which these basic principles have to be applied. A list of probable decisions and reasons are given.
Principles:
1. A person is liable for negligence if he fails to take care of his neighbour's interest.
2. A neighbour is anyone whose interests should have been foreseeable by a reasonable man while carrying on his activities.
Facts:
A cricket match was going on in a closed-door stadium. A cricket fan who could not get into the stadium was watching the game by climbing up a nearby tree and sitting there. The cricket ball in the course of the game went out of the stadium and hit this person and injured him. He filed a suit against the organizers.
Possible Decisions
(a) The organizers are liable to compensate the injured person.
(b) The organizers are not liable to compensate the injured person'
(c) The injured person should have avoided the place where he might be hit by the cricket ball.
Possible Reasons
(i) The organizers are responsible for the people inside the stadium.
(ii) The organizers could not have foreseen somebody watching the game by climbing up a tree.
(iii) A person crazy about something must pay the price for that.
(iv) The organizers shall be liable to everybody likely to watch the game. Your decision with the reason.
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:
