Special Content

Volume-4, 28 April-4 May, 2018

Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) Exam-2016

Follow the instructions carefully and choose the most appropriate option:
Question number 1-16 in this section consist of legal proposition(s) (hereinafter referrred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purpose of this section. In other words, in answering the following questions. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason.           
To answer a question, the given principle is to be applied to the given facts so as to arrive at most reasonable conclusion.
Q.1Principle: Acceptance of proposal must be the exact mirror image of the proposal.
Facts: 'A' made a proposal to 'B' to sell a chair for Rs. 500. 'B' expressed his desire to buy the said chair for Rs. 400.
1. It is not clear whether A made a proposal to 'B'.
2. 'B' has accepted the proposal of 'A'.
3. 'B' has not accepted the proposal   of 'A'.
4. It is not clear whether 'B' has accepted the proposal of 'A' or not.
Q.2Principle: Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the decision of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud.
Facts: 'A' sells to 'B' (A's daughter who is minor) a horse which 'A' knows to be unsound. 'A' says nothing to 'B' about the unsoundness of the horse.
1. 'B' can take plea of fraud because she is minor.
2. There can not be a contract between a father and daughter.
3. 'A' has not committed fraud.
4. 'A' has committed fraud.
Q.3Principle: A person, who is usually of unsound mind, but occasionally normal, may make a contract when he is not of unsound mind.
Facts: 'A' generally remains in the state of unsound mind and rarely becomes capable of understanding the things.
1. 'A' can make a contract when normal.
2. 'A' can make a contract only for his own benefit.
3. 'A' can never make a contract.
4. 'A' can make a contract at any time whenever he pleases.
Q.4Principle: In case where there is an infringement of legal right even without any actual loss or damage, the person whose right is Infringed has a cause of action.
Facts: 'P' was wrongfully prevented by the Returning officer from exercising his vote in an assembly election. Still he ('P') brought an action claiming damages. Which of the following derivations is correct?
1. 'P' would succeed in his action, as it is mandatory to cast vote.
2.'P' would succeed in his action, as he was wrongfully prevented from exercising his legal right of voting in that election.
3. 'P' would not succeed in his action, as he did not suffer any loss in that election.
4. 'P' would not succeed in his action, as the candidate for whom he wanted to give his vote won the election.
Q.5Principle: There are certain acts which, though harmful, are not wrongful in law; therefore, do not give legal right to bring action in law, to the person who suffers from such acts.
Facts: 'Prakash' has a rice mill. His neighbour, Shanti, sets up another rice mill and offers a tough competition to Prakash. As a consequence, Prakash's profits fall down. He brings a suit against Shanti for damages.
1. Prakash can succeed in his claim as it is a case of actual damages.
2. Prakash cannot succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of damage without infringement of any legal right.
3. Prakash may succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of loss to his business.
4.Prakash can succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of damage as a result of infringement of his legal right.
Q.6Principle: A condition to a contract can also be complied with after the happening of the event to which such a condition is attached.
Facts: 'A' promises to pay Rs. 5000 to 'B' on the condition that he shall marry with the consent of 'C', 'D' and 'E'. 'B' marries without the consent of 'C', 'D' and 'E', but obtains their consent after the marriage.
1. 'B's marriage is not valid.
2. 'B' has not fulfilled the condition.
3. The condition is illegal
4. 'B' has fulfilled the condition.
Q.7Principle: Killing is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by intense and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation.
Facts: 'A', a man found his girl friend sleeping, in her own bed room, with another man named 'B'. 'A' did not do anything but went to his home, picked a gun and cartridges, returned to the girl friend's bed room with loaded gun but found the place empty. After fifteen days he saw his girl friend dining in a restaurant. Without waiting for even a second, 'A' fired five bullets at his girl friend who died on the spot.
1. 'A' could have killed 'B' instead of his girl friend.
2. 'A' could have killed both 'B' and his girl friend.
3. 'A' did not kill his girl friend under intense and sudden provocation.
4. 'A' killed his girl friend under intense and sudden provocation.
Q.8Principle: Whoever by words or writing conveys to others any imputation concerning any person's reputation is said to defame that person.
Facts: During a marriage ceremony, 'A' circulated a pamphlet saying that 'S', sister of the bride, is a thief, she has stolen the shoes of the bridegroom.
1. 'A' has defamed the bridegroom.
2. 'A' defamed the bride.
3. 'A' has defamed 'S'.
4. 'A' did not defame 'S' as he never intended it.
Q.9Principle: Causing of an effect partly by an act and partly by an omission is an offence.
Facts: 'A' confined her daughter 'D' in a room. 'A' also did not provide any food to her daughter 'D'. Consequently, 'D' died of starvation.
1. 'A' committed the offence of confining 'D'.
2. 'A' committed the offence of causing death of 'D'.
3. 'A' committed no offence.
4. 'A' committed the offence of not providing food to 'D'.
Q.10Principle: Whoever does not arrest the killer and report the matter to the concerned authorities commits an offence.
Facts: 'A', a woman, sees 'B' , another woman, killing a third woman 'C'. 'A' neither attempted to arrest 'B' nor informed the concerned authorities.
1. 'A' has not committed an offence.
2. 'A' has committed an offence.
3. 'B' has not committed an offence.
4. 'B' has committed an offence.
Q.11Principle: False imprisonment is a tort (wrong) which means the total restraint of a person's liberty without lawful justification.
Facts: A part of a public road had been closed for spectators of a boat race. 'P' wanted to enter but he was prevented by 'D' and other policemen because he had not paid the admission fee. 'P' was able to enter the enclosure by other means but was unable to go where he wanted to go. The policemen refused access to where he wanted to go but allowed him to remain where he was or to go back. 'P' remained within the enclosure and refused to leave. Subsequently, 'P' sued 'D' for false imprisonment.
1.It was a case of false imprisonment, but 'D' could not be made liable for it.
2. 'D' could not be made liable for false imprisonment as he has not touched him.
3. 'D' could be made liable for false imprisonment, as he did restrict P's movements.
4. 'D' could not be made liable for false imprisonment, as he did not totally restrict P's movements.
Q.12Principle: An independent contractor is one who is employed to do some work of his employer. He is engaged under a contract for services. He undertakes to produce a given result, and in the actual execution of the work, he is not under the direct control or following directions of his employer. He may use his own discretion in execution of the work assigned. In general, an employer is not liable for the torts (wrongful acts) of his independent contractor. But, the employer may be held liable if he directs him to do some careless acts.
Facts: Ramesh hired a taxi-cab to go to Delhi Airport. As he started late from his home, he kept on urging the taxi-driver to drive at a high speed and driver followed the directions; and ultimately due to high speed an accident took place causing injuries to a person.
1. Ramesh would be held liable for damages as he exercised the control by giving directions to the driver.
2. Ramesh would not be held liable for damages because the driver was an independent contractor and not his servant.
3. Ramesh would not be held liable for damages because Ramesh did not know the consequences of such rash driving.
4. Ramesh would not be liable as car was not owned by him.
Q.13Principle: Nothing is an offence, which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.
Facts: 'A' takes up a gun, not knowing whether it is loaded or not, points it playfully at 'B' and pulls the trigger. Consequently, 'B' falls dead.
1. 'B's death is not accidental, as there was want of proper care and caution on the part of 'A'.
2. 'B's death is accidental, as 'A' had no intention to kill 'B'.
3. 'B's death is accidental, as 'A' was just pointing the gun playfully at 'B'.
4. 'B's death is accidental, as 'A' did not have the knowledge that the gun is loaded.
Q.14Principle: An agreement may be entered into orally or in writing, or by conduct.
Facts: 'A' went to the shop of 'B' and picked a toothbrush and gave a cheque of Rupees twenty to 'B' and left the shop.
1. Payment of toothbrush cannot be made through a cheque.
2. 'A' did not enter into an agreement with 'B'.
3. 'A' should have carried a currency note of Rupees twenty to make the payment.
4. There was an agreement between 'A' and 'B'.
Q.15Principle: Law never enforces an impossible promise.
Facts: 'A' made a promise to 'B' to discover treasure by magic.
1. Law will not enforce the promise .
2. Law will enforce the promise.
3. Law will enforce the promise only at the option of 'A'.
4. Law will enforce the promise only at the option of 'B'.
Q.16Principle: Consent is a good defence for civil action in tort. But consent must include both knowledge of risk and assumption of risk, i.e, readiness to bear harm.
Facts: A lady passenger was aware that the driver of the cab, in which she opted to travel was little intoxicated. The cab met with an accident and lady got injured.
1. Driver can take the plea that he was lightly intoxicated.
2. Lady is not entitled to claim compensation as she had knowledge of the risk.
3. Lady is entitled to claim compensation as she only knew about risk and there was no assumption of risk.
4. Lady can refuse to pay the fare as she had suffered injuries.
(Answer Key Shall be published in the Next Issue)