Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Principle: Whoever attempts to commit the offense of cheating, commits an offense.
Facts: A with an intention to defraud B, obtain from him an amount of Rs. 500.
Options
A has committed no offence
A has committed the offence of cheating
A has attempted to commit the offence of cheating
A has attempted to commit and has committed the offence of cheating
Advertisements
Solution
A has committed the offense of cheating
Explanation:
A has committed the offence of cheating. The principle clearly states that someone who attempts to commit an offence of cheating commits a fraud. The fact given is that A obtains from B a sum of Rs.500 with the intention to defraud B. Here the intention to defraud B is an attempt to commit the offence of cheating.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principle: Nothing is an offense if it is done under intoxication and the person committing the offense was incapable to understand the nature of the Act. Intoxication should be without the knowledge or against the will of the person.
Facts: A, B and C were having a party in Bar where A persuaded B and C to take alcoholic drinks. On the persistent persuasion B and C also consumed alcohol along with A. B and C had never consumed alcohol before. After intoxication, there was some argument between B and C where C pushed B with full force causing serious injury to B.
Mark the best option:
Principles: Qui facit per alium facit per se, " he who does things through others does it himself"
Facts: Nisha owner of a car asked her friend Saurabh to take her car and drive the same to her office. As he car near her office, it hit a pedestrian Srikant, who was injured seriously. Srikant files a case against Nisha.
Decide Nisha's liability.
What is the essential difference that makes the crime of assault differ from the tort of assault?
This tort occurs most often in society.
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
Principle: Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by an omission to do something which a reasonable person would do or an act which a prudent and reasonable person would not do. An action for negligence proceeds upon the principle that the person has an obligation or duty on the part of the defendant, which he/she breaches, leading to damage.
A, a surgeon operated on B. Subsequent to the operation, B complained of pain in his abdomen. On examination, it was discovered that A had left a mop in B ' s stomach while Operating.
Principle: A master shall be responsible for the wrongful acts of his servants in the course of his employment.
Facts: The Syndicate Bank was running a small savings scheme under which its authorized agents would go round and collect small savings from several people on daily basis. These agents would get commission, on the deposits so collected. Ananth was one such agent, collecting deposits from factory workers engaged on daily wages. Though he regularly carried on his business for sometime, slowly he started appropriating deposits for his personal use and one day he just disappeared. One Fatima, who had been handing over her savings to him found that nearly for a month before his disappearance, he was not depositing her savings at all. The Bank, when approached, took the stand that Ananth was not its regular and paid employee and therefore, it was not responsible for his misconduct. She files a suit against the Bank
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: Master/Principal is vicariously liable for the tort committed by a servant/agent, in the performance of his duties as a servant/agent.
Factual situation: The plaintiff a bullion merchant was arrested by the police on a charge of purchasing stolen goods. Some of the gold and silver ornaments were seized for the plaintiff and were kept in the police station custody. The duty constable appropriated the gold ornaments and escaped to a foreign country. The plaintiff after being acquitted brought an action against the State for the compensation. In this case, compensation is 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.
Principle: Vicarious liability is the liability of the Master or Principal for the tort committed by his servant or agent, provided the tort is committed in the course of employment. The Master or Principal is not liable for private wrongs of the servant/agent.
Facts: 'X' hands over some cash money at his house to 'Y', who is his (X's) neighbour and is also cashier in a bank, to be deposited in A's account in the bank. Instead of depositing the money, 'Y' misappropriates it.
Which of the following statements depicts the correct legal position in this given situation?
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
1. The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
3. Volenti non-fit injuria is a defence to action in negligence.
Facts:
X purchased a disused cinema with the intention of turning it into a Multiplex. Six weeks after, X entered the building for the first time, it was set on fire by intruders and destroyed. As a result, the adjacent buildings were also affected and damaged. The cinema building was a target for vandals and children who often played there, but X had had no knowledge of previous attempts to start a fire at the cinema buildings. The owners of the adjacent buildings brought an action for negligence against X on grounds that X failed to take reasonable care for the safety of the buildings by not keeping the cinema locked, making regular inspections and employing a caretaker. Decide whether the occupier of a property owes a duty of care to the adjoining occupiers in respect of acts of trespass on his property resulting in damage to the adjoining properties?
