Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: There are legal provisions to give authority to a person to use necessary force against an assailant or wrongdoer for the purpose of protecting one’s own body and property as also another’s body and property when immediate aid from the state machinery is not readily available; and in so doing he is not answerable in law for his deeds.
Facts: X, a rich man was taking his morning walk. Due to the threat of robbers in the locality, he was carrying his pistol also. In the opposite direction, another person was coming with a ferocious-looking dog. All of a sudden, the dog which was on a chain held by the owner, started barking at X. The owner of the dog called the dog to be calm. Th ey crossed each other without any problem. But suddenly, the dog started barking again from a distance. X immediately took out his pistol. By seeing the pistol the dog stopped barking and started walking with the owner. However, X shot at the dog which died instantly. The owner of the dog files a complaint against X, which in due course reached the Magistrate Court. X pleads the right of private defense. Decide
Options
There was no imminent danger to X as the dog stopped barking and was walking with the owner. Hence, shooting it amounted to excessive use of the right of private defense and hence liable for killing the dog.
The right of private defence is available to persons against assailants or wrongdoers only and a dog does not fall in this category.
Shooting a fierce dog is not to be brought under the criminal law. So the case should be dismissed.
As there was no guarantee that the dog would not bark again, shooting it was a precautionary measure and hence within the right available to X under law.
Advertisements
Solution
There was no imminent danger to X as the dog stopped barking and was walking with the owner. Hence, shooting it amounted to excessive use of the right of private defense and hence liable for killing the dog.
Explanation:
There was no imminent danger to X as the dog stopped barking and was walking with the owner. Hence, shooting it amounted to excessive use of the right to private defense and hence liable for killing the dog. The principle provides that a person can use force against an assailant or wrongdoer in self- defense when imminent danger is present. The right to private defense can only be exercised when the circumstances justify it and not otherwise.
In the given question, the dog stopped barking after which X used his gun to kill the dog. Therefore, the force used by X was excessive and unnecessary.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: An offer made by one party when accepted by another makes it a contract.
Transactions:
1. P offered to sell his house for Rs. 20 lakhs to R; R told P that he was interested to buy a house for 15 lakhs only.
2. C was looking for a house for not more than 25 lakhs; P informed C that his house was available for 20 lakhs.
3. K wanted to buy some old furniture; L told K that he would sell his furniture for Rs. 10, 000.
4. R advertised to sell his old car for a price of Rs. Three lakhs; S found the advertisement and offered to buy it for Rs. 2 lakhs 50 thousand; R agrees to sell it to S.
Which among the above is actually a contract?
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.
Legal Principle: An employer is liable for the act of his servant performed during the course of employment.
Fact Situation: While working as a driver for Verma, Alok sometimes used to earn some side income by carrying parcels for others in Verma’s car without his knowledge or permission. While going to pick Verma from the airport one day, Alok stopped to deliver a parcel he was carrying with him. While he was delivering the parcel, which unknown to him was one of contraband goods, the police arrested Alok.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Legal Principle: The Latin maxim nemo bis punitur pro eodem delictomeans that nobody can be punished twice for the same offence.
Fact Situation: Sajan, a petty thief, is caught and thrashed thoroughly by the people before being handed over to the police. Sajan pleads before the magistrate that since he was already thrashed by the people he should not be again punished by the State.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
PRINCIPLE A master is liable for the acts of his servant, a principal is liable for the acts of the agent, but a hirer of services is not liable for the acts of the independent contractor.
FACTS While implementing the request of Mr. Sampat, the confectioner at Ghantewali and Co. made the oil extra hot to make him a batch of extra crispy banana fritters, the oil sizzled on impact and burnt Dadabhoy who was standing nearby. He wants to know as to whom he should sue
PRINCIPLE A master is liable for the acts of servant done in the course of employment.
FACTS A nurse was deployed for the care of an old invalid suffering a very painful and terminal illness in a hospice. A visiting doctor used to come in every week and prescribe certain medications. In order to alleviate the pain, she used to slip in certain narcotic drugs to the patient with whom she had developed a friendly relationship. The narcotics eventually reacted with the drugs of the doctor's prescription thereby inducing a fatal cardiac arrest in the patient. In a suit brought by the legal heirs of the patient, the suit shall
PRINCIPLE A person is entitled to protect his property by using lawful means.
FACTS Ramlal is growing valuable vegetables and fruits on his farm and he has fenced the farm to prevent the cattle from entering into it. In addition, he has kept a ferocious dog to chase away intruding urchins and catties. Some children were playing in a nearby playground and the ball slipped into the farm. A boy running after the ball came near the fence and shouted for the ball. But when there was no response, he managed to creep into the farm to get the ball. The dog which was surreptitiously waiting attacked the boy and badly mauled him. The boy's parents filed a suit against Ramlal.
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 master shall be liable for the fraudulent acts of his servants committed in the course of employment.
2. Whether an act is committed in the course of employment has to be judged in the context of the case.
3. Both master and third parties must exercise reasonable care in this regard.
Facts:
Rama Bhai was an uneducated widow and she opened a'S.B. account with Syndicate Bank with the help of her nephew by name Keshav who was at that time working as a clerk in the Bank. 'Keshav used to deposit the money of Rama Bhai from time to time' and get the entries done in the passbook. After a year or so, Keshav was dismissed from the service by the Bank. Being unaware of this fact, Rama Bhai continued to hand over her savings to him and Keshav misappropriated them. Rama Bhai realized this only when Keshav disappeared from, the scene one day and she sought compensation from the Bank.
Possible Decisions
(a) Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
(b) Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
(c) Rama Bhai cannot blame others for her negligence.
Possible Reasons
(i) Keshav was not an employee of the Bank when the fraud" was committed.
(ii) The Bank was not aware of the special arrangement between Rama Bhai and Keshay.
(iii) It is the Bank's duty to take care of vulnerable customers.
(iv) Rama Bhai should have checked about Keshav in her own interest. Your decision with the reason
Principle: Trespass to land is the wrongful and unwarranted entry upon the land of another. A purchased a ticket to watch a movie in a theatre. After the show got over, A refused to leave the theatre. The owner of the theatre sues A for trespass
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: Master is liable for the wrongful acts committed by his servant; provided the acts are committed during the course of employment. However, the master is not liable if the wrongful act committed by his servant has no connection, whatsoever, with the servant's contract of employment.
Facts: D' is a driver employed by 'M', who is the owner of a company. During lunchtime, 'D' goes to a closeby tea shop to have a cup of tea. There he ('D') picks up a fight with the tea shop owner ('T'), which resulted in some damage to his shop. 'T' wants to sue' for claiming compensation for the damage caused by the fight. Which of the following derivations is correct?
