Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under twelve years of age, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.
Facts: Himesh, 11 years old boy, picks up a gold ring worth Rs 5000/- lying on a table in his friend's house and immediately sells it for Rs 2000/, and misappropriates the money.
Options
Himesh would be protected under the principle stated above be cause he is below 12 years of age.
Himesh would not be protected under the principle stated above because his acts show that he was sufficiently mature to understand the nature and consequences of his conduct.
Himesh would be protected under the principle stated above because his acts show that he was not sufficiently mature to understand the nature and consequences of his conduct.
Himesh would not be protected under the principle stated above because, irrespective of the age, stealing is an offence.
Advertisements
Solution
Himesh would be protected under the principle stated above because his acts show that he was not sufficiently mature to understand the nature and consequences of his conduct.
Explanation:
Under Section 83 of Indian Penal code defines nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.
The reasonable conclusion is drawn Himesh would be protected under the principle stated above because his acts show that he was not sufficiently mature to understand the nature and consequences of his conduct.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principle: The sale of liquor is illegal. All agreements relating to prohibited items do not exist in the eyes of law.
Facts: 'A‘ entered into an agreement with 'B‘ for the sale of liquor. 'A‘ failed to supply the agreed quantity of liquor to B.
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?
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: According to law, a person who finds goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee. Bailee is a person or party to whom goods are delivered for a purpose, such as custody or repair, without transfer of ownership. The finder of the goods legally can sell the goods found by him under certain circumstances including the situation that the owner refuses to pay the lawful charges of the finder.
Facts: P, a college student, while coming out of a Cricket stadium found a necklace, studded with apparently precious diamonds. P kept it for two days thinking that the owner would notify it in a local newspaper. Since he did not notice any such notification, P published a small classified advertisement in a local newspaper. In two days’ time, P was contacted by a film actor claiming that it was her Necklace and requested P to return it to her. P told her that she should compensate him for the advertisement charges then only he would return it otherwise he will sell it and make good his expenses. The film star told P that she had advertised in a national newspaper about her lost Necklace which was lost somewhere in the Cricket Stadium. The advertisement was published for three consecutive days incurring a large expenditure for her. Mentioning all this she refuses to pay P and claims the Necklace back. Which among the following is the most appropriate answer to this?
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.
Mark the best option:
Principle: A contract is said to be induced by "undue influence" where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other. Such a contract is void.
Facts: Jasmeet is the owner of a small scale unit manufacturing detergent soap and powder. To add to the capacity of the unit he wanted to purchase some new machinery worth Rupees fifteen lacs for which he approached a bank. Taking into account the financial position of Jasmeet and a higher risk of default associated with lending to a small scale unit; the bank manager agreed to lend the sum on 18.5% interest compounded annually even as the interest rate at which the bank lent to business houses was 12.5% on an average; the sum was to be repaid in five years. Jasmeet paid the first two installments but refused to pay any further installments citing the aforementioned principle.
Decide on the question of the validity of the contract.
Which one of the following interests are not protected by the law of tort?
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principle: Vicarious liability is when employers are held liable for the torts committed by their employees during the course of employment.
Factual Situation: New Vision School opened a boarding house (Shivaji House) for boys in the year 2000 for the students having behavioral and emotional difficulties. The claimants in the instant case had resided there between 2000 to 2003, being aged 12 to 15 during that time, under the care of a warden, who was in charge of maintaining discipline and the running of the house. The warden lived in the House, with his disabled wife, and together they were the only two members of staff in the House. His duties were ensuring order, in making sure the children went to bed, went to school, engaged in evening activities, and supervising other staff. It had been alleged by some of the boys that the warden had sexually abused them, including inappropriate advances and taking trips alone with them. A criminal investigation took place some ten years later, resulting in the warden being sentenced to seven years imprisonment. Following this, the victims brought an action for personal injury against ~he employers, alleging that they were vicariously liable. Whether the employers of the warden may be held vicariously liable for their employee's intentional sexual abuse of school boys placed under his care?
PRINCIPLE Vis major or an act of God entails a sudden manoeuvre by elements of nature over which we have no control.
FACTS In a bus accident where the driver died of a sudden cardiac arrest, the legal heirs of the deceased brought a suit against the bus company for not making the driver undergo the mandatory health and fitness test before giving employment. The bus company claims a defence of 'vis major'. The defence of vis major in this case shall
Rules:
A. A person is an employee of another if the mode and the manner in which he or she carries out his work is subject to control and supervision of the latter.
B. An employer is required to provide compensation to his or her employees for any injury caused by an accident arising in the course of employment. The words ‘in the course of the employment’ mean in the course of the work which the employee is contracted to do and which is incidental to it.
Facts:
Messers. Zafar Abidi and Co. (Company) manufactures bidis with the help of persons known as ‘pattadrs’. The pattadars are supplied tobacco and leaves by the Company and are required to roll them into bidis and bring the bidis back to the Company. The pattadars are free to roll the bidis either in the factory or anywhere else they prefer. They are not bound to attend the factory for any fixed number of bidis. The Company verifies whether the bidis adhere to the specified instructions or not pays the pattadars on the basis of the number of bids that are found to be of right quality. Aashish Mathew is one of the pattadars of the Company. He was hit by a car just outside the precinct of the factory while he was heading to have lunch in a nearby food-stall. Aashish Mathew has applied for compensation from the Company.
If the pattadars were compulsorily required to work in the factory for a minimum number of hours every day, then the Company would have been liable to pay compensation to Aashish Mathew if the latter:
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: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid act or omission which he can foresee would injure his neighbour. The neighbor for this purpose is any person whom he should have in his mind as likely to be affected by his actions.
Factual Situation: Ram, while rushing to board a moving train, pushed Shyam, who was walking along with a heavy package, containing firecrackers. As a result, the package slipped from his hand, and crackers exploded injuring a boy standing close by. A suit was filed against Ram, by the boy, claiming damages. DECISION:
