Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
The question consists of legal propositions/principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principles may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true. In other words, in answering the following question, you must not rely on any principles except the principle that is given hereinbelow for the question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest in the study of law, research aptitude, and problem-solving ability.
Principle: A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time, when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interest.
Facts: X, who is usually of sound mind but occasionally of unsound mind enters into a contract with Y when he (X) is of unsound mind. Y came to know about this fact afterward and now wants to file a suit against X.
Options
X cannot enter into a contract because he is of unsound mind when he entered into a contract
X can enter into a contract but the burden is on the other party to prove that he was of unsound mind at the time of contract
X can either into a contract but the burden is on X to prove that he was of sound mind at the time of contract
None of the above
Advertisements
Solution
X cannot enter into a contract because he is of unsound mind when he entered into a contract
Explanation:
According to the principle, a person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract, if he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment, in this case, X is usually of sound mind but occasionally of unsound mind enters into a contract with Y when he (X) is of unsound mind. So, according to the principle X is not competent to enter into a contract with Y, because of unsoundness of mind.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
In this Question, problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question.
Rules
A. The act of using threats to force another person to enter into a contract is called coercion.
B. The act of using influence on another and taking undue advantage of that person is called undue influence.
C. In order to prove coercion, the existence of the use of threat, in any form and manner, is necessary. If coercion is proved, the person who has been so threatened can refuse to abide by the contract.
D. In order to prove undue-influence, there has to be a pre-existing relationship between the parties to a contract. The relationship has to be of such a nature that one is in a position to influence the other. If it is proven that there has been undue influence, the party who has been so influenced need not enforce the contract or perform his obligations under the contract.
Facts
Aadil and Baalu are best friends. Aadil is the son of a multi-millionaire business person, Chulbal who owns Maakhan Pharmaceuticals. Baalu is the son of a bank employee, Dhanraj. One day, Aadil is abducted from his office by Baalu. Chulbul receives a phone call from Dhamaj telling him that if he does not make Baalu the CEO of NIaakhan Pharmaceuticals, Aadil will be killed. Chulbul reluctantly agrees to make the Baalu the CEO. Subsequently, Chulbul and Baalu sign an employment contract. However, as soon as Aadil is released and safely returns home, Chulbul tells Baala that he shall not enforce the employment contract. Baalu and Dhanraj are not sure as to what is to be done next.
As per the rules and the given facts, who coerces whom:
In this Question problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question. In answering the following question, you should not rely on any rule(s) except the rule(s) that are supplied for problem. Further, you should not assume any fact other than 'those stated in the problem. The aim is to test your ability to properly apply a rule to a given set of facts, even when the result is absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the aim to test any knowledge of law you may already possess.
Rule:
Whoever finds an unattended object can keep it unless the true owner claims that object. This does not affect the property owner's right to the ownership of the property on which the object is found. The right to ownership of a property does not include the right to ownership of unattended objects on that property.
Facts:
Elizabeth is the CEO of a global management services company in Chennai and is on her way to Ranchi to deliver the convocation address at India's leading business school on the outskirts of Ranchi. Flying business class on Dolphin Airlines, she is entitled to use the lounge owned by the airline in Chennai Airport while waiting for her flight. She finds a diamond ear-ring on the floor of the lounge and gives it to the staff of Dolphin Airlines expressly stating that in the event of nobody claiming the ear-ring within six months, she would claim it back. The airline sells the ear-ring after eight months and Elizabeth files a case to recover the value of the ear-ring from the airline when she is informed about its sale. To the original fact scenario, the following fact is added: In the lounge there are numerous signboards which proclaim 'Any unattended item will be confiscated by Dolphin Airlines'. In this case, you would:
Principles:
• A person is said to abet the doing of a thing when he instigates any other person to do that thing.
• Mere acquiescence, however, does not amount to instigation.
Facts: 'A' says to 'B': I am going to kill 'C'." And, 'B' replies: "Do as you wish and take the consequences"; whereafter 'A' kills 'C'.
Principle: Intentional application of force to another person is actionable in law.
Facts: 'P' and 'D' are unknown to each other. When 'P' is about to sit on a chair, 'D' intentionally pulls it away as a result of which 'P' falls on to the floor and is injured.
Choose the most appropriate option:
'persona non grata' means-
Choose the most appropriate option:
'Audi alteram partem' means
Legal phrase is followed by four meanings. Choose the most appropriate option:
Turpis arbiter’ means:
In ‘quid-pro-quo’, quo stands for
Berne Convention was first established in
Time Of Payment Of Wages is covered under section ____ of Payment of Wages Act
