English

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. - Mathematics

Advertisements
Advertisements

Question

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. 

Options

  • B can bring legal action against A. 

  • B cannot bring any legal action against A. 

  • A can bring legal action against B. 

  • A and B can initiate appropriate legal proceedings against each other. 

MCQ
Advertisements

Solution

B cannot bring any legal action against A. 

Explanation:

According to Section 24 of the Indian Contract Act defines that agreement is void if considerations and objects in part is unlawful. If any part of a single consideration for one or more objects, or anyone or any part of any one of several considerations for a  single object, is unlawful, the agreement is void.  The reasonable conclusion is drawn that B cannot bring any legal proceeding against A is the correct answer.   

shaalaa.com
Law of Torts (Entrance Exams)
  Is there an error in this question or solution?
2018-2019 (May) Set 1

RELATED QUESTIONS

Principle: Copyright law protects only work. 'Work' means cinematographic film but does not include performance by an actor in a cinematographic film.

Facts: Alia Bhatt acted in a movie.


The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:

Principle: Negligence is actionable in law. In simple terms, negligence is the failure to take proper care over something.

Facts: A, a doctor, conducted a hysterectomy sincerely on B and left a small cotton swab inside the abdomen. As a consequence of which B developed some medical problems and had to undergo another surgery. Is A liable?


The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option

Principle: When a person consented to an act to be done by another, he cannot claim any damages resulting from doing that act, provided the act done is the same for which consent is given.

Facts: 'P' submitted written consent to a surgeon 'S' for undergoing a surgical operation for removal of appendicitis. The surgeon while doing  surgery also removed the gall bladder of 'A':


Unliquidated damage stands for


PRINCIPLE Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is to defame that person.

FACTS In a community, there is a custom of stealing shoes of the bridegroom during the marriage ceremony. The shoes of the bridegroom were stolen by 'Y'. 'A' announced that 'Z' has stolen the shoes. Everyone present in the marriage party started staring at 'Z' with great surprise. 'Z' felt very ashamed.


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.


Which follow from the application of the undermentioned legal principle:

Legal Principle: The occupier of premises owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitors.

Factual Situation:
Devi who was the owner of a big home with a compound wall, constructed an underground tank to store water. This was covered by jute bags since the work was incomplete. The postman who came inside to deliver registered letter fell into this tank and hurt himself. There was also a box on the outside of the compound wall, where all the mail could be deposited. The injured man filed a suit against Devi claiming compensation.


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.

Which of the following statements can most plausibly be inferred from the application of the rules to the give facts:


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
1. No-fault liability means the liability of a person even without any negligent act on his part and even if he has taken due care and caution. 
2. If a person brings and keeps any dangerous thing on his land, then he is liable for any damage caused if the thing escapes. 
3. No one can be penalized for an Act of God which is unforeseeable and unpredictable. 

Factual Situation: B Owned and managed a company supplying electricity to the nearby locality. On a particular windy and stormy day, one of the wires snapped and was hanging down A, a cyclist who was driving in the night,  saw the wire from a distance. There was a nearby street light with low visibility. He came in contact with the wire and was electrocuted immediately. His heirs sued A on the ground of strict liability. Decide. DECISION:  


Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:

Legal Principles:
The tort of negligent misstatement is defined as an inaccurate statement made honestly but carelessly usually in the form of advice given by a party with special skill/knowledge to a party that doesn’t possess this skill or knowledge.

Facts: 
X and Y Co. were advertising agents placing contracts on behalf of a client on credit terms, X and Y Co. would be personally liable should the client default. To protect themselves, the X and Y asked their bankers to obtain a credit reference from K and L, the client’s bankers. The reference (given both orally and then in writing) was given gratis and was favorable, but also contained an exclusion clause to the effect that the information was given ‘without responsibility on the part of this Bank or its officials’. X and Y relied upon this reference and subsequently suffered financial loss when the client went into liquidation. X and Y sued K and L Co. for negligence, claiming that the information was given negligently and was misleading. K and L argued there was no duty of care owed regarding the statements. Decide.


Share
Notifications

Englishहिंदीमराठी


      Forgot password?
Use app×