English

AILET entrance exam Question Bank Solutions

Advertisements
[object Object]
[object Object]
Subjects
Popular subjects
Topics

Please select a subject first

Advertisements
Advertisements
< prev  3241 to 3260 of 5721  next > 

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: An unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over, or in connection with it, is a nuisance in law of tort.

Facts: During the scarcity of onions, long queues were made outside the defendant's shop who has a license to sell fruits and vegetables used to sell only 1 kg of onion per ration card. The queues extended on to the highway and also caused some obstruction to the neighboring shops. The neighboring shopkeepers filed a suit for nuisance against the defendant.
Which one of the following decisions will be correct in this suit?

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

PRINCIPLE An owner of land has the right to use the land in any manner he or she desires. The owner of the land also owns the space above and the depths below it.

FACTS Ramesh owns an acre of land on the outskirts of Sullurpeta, Andhra Pradesh. The Government of India launches its satellites into space frequently from Sriharikota, near Sullurpeta. The Government of India does not deny that once the satellite launch has travelled the distance of almost 7000 kilometres it passes over Ramesh's property. Ramesh files a case claiming that the Government of India has violated his property rights by routing its satellite over his property, albeit 7000 kilometers directly above it.

Applying the principle to the case you would decide

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

Advertisements

PRINCIPLE Trespass is the unauthorized entry through the person or tangible object into the property of another. The rights of property exist on the surface, aerially and in the subterrain.

FACTS Kumari and Shravan lived in houses interspersed by the plot of Shantanu. Kumari and Shravan set-up a walkie talkie connection by setting up their transmitte~s facing each other. When Shantanu came to know about the arrangement, he filed a suit of trespass stating that the same was a case of trespass as signals could reach each other only by crossing his plot.

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

PRINCIPLE Assault is the use of words or gestures inducing a threat of force or danger to the person.

FACTS X and Y being friends were comparing stalwarts of their favourite football teams. X egged Y to go on and without realising it converted into a verbal sling fest and reduced to angry expletives. X and Y decided to file suits of verbal assault against each other.

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

PRINCIPLE Nuisance is the interference in the enjoyment of the property.

FACTS Pizzeria, a small cafeteria selling namesake used to run a wood-fired oven. The resulting smoke caused a lot of smoke in the neighbourhood and there were a number of complaints from the locals who had not witnessed such an oven. The food inspector taking cognizance of these reports asked the restaurant to shut down the oven. The owner who had earlier ran a similar establishment in Italy did not comply. Is Pizzeria committing a nuisance?

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

PRINCIPLE The use of force with the intent to cause harm, or annoy or induce· fear is termed as the Torts of battery.

FACTS A group of construction workers was negligently handling bricks bycatch and throw. Simmons was passing by the site where one such brick fell on Simmons and he brought a case of battery against the contractor under whose employment the workmen were carrying out the construction.

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

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

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

PRINCIPLE Res ipsa loquitur reverses the burden of proof, creating a rebuttable presumption of the guilt of the defendant in situations where the default of the defendant seems apparent.

FACTS X, a truck driver, crashed into Y for no fault of his while trying to save Z, a student who was loitering in school uniform. Based on the facts above, Y inquires the presumption of negligence shall be in favour of

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

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

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

PRINCIPLE A person is not liable for every harm which comes from the act but is only liable for those harms which can be reasonably foreseen at the time of the injury.

FACTS Sumati, who was being threatened by armed robbery pulled the railway chain. The engine driver recorded the chain pulling but did not stop thinking it to be the work of mischievous passengers wishing to alight before the station. As a result, no help came to Sumati, who was robbed and injured. The suit brought by her was resisted by the railways. As a judge, you would

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

PRINCIPLE Mere delegation does not transfer authority unless there is an actual transference of the power to control the actions of the servant.

FACTS The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation set-up a link transport service permitting passengers to use buses to the end destinations. These buses and drivers were provided on contract to the Metro Corporation by the Delhi Bus Company and the drivers were trained, supervised and instructed into the routes and manner of driving by employees of the corporation. When a passenger X, had boarded one such bus and was involved in an accident on account of the bus driver; he wants to know against whom should he file the suit under the principle of vicarious liability.

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

PRINCIPLE Where a dangerous article escapes, the owner shall be strictly liable for the harm which comes without being at fault.

FACTS Bhopal Gas Co. was in the business of manufacturing chemicals that produced a large amount of toxic residue. As per procedure, they used to store the waste in insulated boxes and hand it over to the collecting van of the municipal corporation once a week. After one such collection, the van driver drove negligently resulting in the escape and spilling of the contents of one of the waste barrels. Is Bhopal Gas Co. liable?

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

PRINCIPLE The Right to private defence entitles you the licence of force in the failure of other options to the extent of harm faced and proportionate resistance likewise.

FACTS X had a snake farm where he used to ·extract venom from the snakes and sell them for medicinal uses. One such neutralised snake entered into Y's property and into his child's nursery. On being tried to be removed the snake got aggravated and was therefore killed by Y's servant. In a suit brought by X against Y.

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

PRINCIPLE A principal is liable for such acts as committed in the course of an agency but is not liable for such acts as committed outside the course of the agency.

FACTS ABC, a partnership between A, B and C maintained a bank account with XYZ. As per the standing arrangement with the bank, signatures of at least two partners were required for the withdrawal of the money from the partnership account. B forged the signatures of A, which were exactly alike and withdrew a large amount of money and disappeared. In a suit brought by A and C 

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

PRINCIPLE The test as to whether the act done by an officer or agency of the state is a sovereign function or a function done ordinarily is dependent on the fact that an alternative person may also carry out the latter, but the former may only be carried out by the state.

FACTS In a boundary settlement dispute between India and Bangladesh, a certain territory was exchanged in pursuit of a treaty agreement. X's land which lay in the Indian enclave thus got transferred to Bangladesh, which did not recognise his proprietary rights. In a suit against the Indian Government, the likely outcome is

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

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

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

PRINCIPLE An unlawful action is sufficient to establish an actionable claim under the law of torts and the court need not go into the motivations behind such unlawful action.

FACTS Z, a reporter, had approached A, a famous politician, several times for an interview. Z knew that A was having an affair with his secretary. Frustrated and vengeful, z ran a cover story about the affair disclosing all the information and evidence of the affair. A in tum sued Z for defamation, stating the action was based on vendetta and malice on account of his refusal to give Z an interview. The suit against Z shall

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

When the master is held liable for the wrongful acts of his servant, the liability is

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

LEGAL PRINCIPLE 'Consent' defined as - Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense.

What does 'consent' include?

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined

LEGAL PRINCIPLE 'Free consent' defined as - Consent is said to free when it is not caused by

I. coercion as defined in Section 15
II. under influence, as defined in Section 16
III. fraud, as defined in Section 17, or
Iv. misrepresentation, as defined in Section 18
v. mistake, subject to the provisions of Sections 20, 21 and 22 Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, under the influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. 'Fraud' is defined in which Section?

[1] Legal Reasoning
Chapter: [1] Legal Reasoning
Concept: undefined >> undefined
< prev  3241 to 3260 of 5721  next > 
Advertisements
Share
Notifications

Englishहिंदीमराठी


      Forgot password?
Use app×