All Exams >
Humanities/Arts >
Legal Studies for Class 11 >
All Questions
All questions of Classification of Laws for Humanities/Arts Exam
Principle: When a person consented to an act to be done by another, he cannot claim any damages resulting from doing that act, provided the act done is the same for which consent is given.
Facts: 'P' submitted a written consent to a surgeon 'S' for undergoing a surgical operation for removal of appendicitis. The surgeon while doing surgery also removed the gall bladder of 'A':- a)'P' can claim damages from 'S'.
- b)'P' is not bound to pay expenses of the surgery.
- c)'P' is required to pay expenses for surgery for Appendicitis but not for Gall Bladder.
- d)'P' cannot claim damages from 'S'.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Principle: When a person consented to an act to be done by another, he cannot claim any damages resulting from doing that act, provided the act done is the same for which consent is given.
Facts: 'P' submitted a written consent to a surgeon 'S' for undergoing a surgical operation for removal of appendicitis. The surgeon while doing surgery also removed the gall bladder of 'A':
Facts: 'P' submitted a written consent to a surgeon 'S' for undergoing a surgical operation for removal of appendicitis. The surgeon while doing surgery also removed the gall bladder of 'A':
a)
'P' can claim damages from 'S'.
b)
'P' is not bound to pay expenses of the surgery.
c)
'P' is required to pay expenses for surgery for Appendicitis but not for Gall Bladder.
d)
'P' cannot claim damages from 'S'.
|
Debolina Ahuja answered |
Explanation:
Consent and Damages:
- When a person consents to an act to be done by another, they cannot claim damages resulting from that act, provided the act done is the same for which consent is given.
- In this case, P gave written consent to the surgeon S for undergoing a surgical operation for the removal of appendicitis.
Surgeon's Actions:
- While performing the surgery for appendicitis, the surgeon also removed the gall bladder of P without obtaining separate consent for this additional procedure.
Claiming Damages:
- Since the surgeon did not have consent to remove the gall bladder, P can claim damages from S for this unauthorized procedure.
- Even though P consented to the initial surgery for appendicitis, the removal of the gall bladder was not part of that consent.
Conclusion:
- Therefore, in this case, P can claim damages from the surgeon S for the unauthorized removal of the gall bladder during the surgery.
Consent and Damages:
- When a person consents to an act to be done by another, they cannot claim damages resulting from that act, provided the act done is the same for which consent is given.
- In this case, P gave written consent to the surgeon S for undergoing a surgical operation for the removal of appendicitis.
Surgeon's Actions:
- While performing the surgery for appendicitis, the surgeon also removed the gall bladder of P without obtaining separate consent for this additional procedure.
Claiming Damages:
- Since the surgeon did not have consent to remove the gall bladder, P can claim damages from S for this unauthorized procedure.
- Even though P consented to the initial surgery for appendicitis, the removal of the gall bladder was not part of that consent.
Conclusion:
- Therefore, in this case, P can claim damages from the surgeon S for the unauthorized removal of the gall bladder during the surgery.
Principle: 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.- a)'A' can make contract at any time whenever he pleases.
- b)'A' can make contract only for his own benefit.
- c)'A' can make contract when normal.
- d)'A' can never make a contract.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Principle: 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.
Facts: 'A' generally remains in the state of unsound mind and rarely becomes capable of understanding the things.
a)
'A' can make contract at any time whenever he pleases.
b)
'A' can make contract only for his own benefit.
c)
'A' can make contract when normal.
d)
'A' can never make a contract.
|
Anuj Patel answered |
Principle:
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.
---
Explanation:
Option C: A can make contract when normal.
According to the principle stated, a person who is usually of unsound mind, but occasionally normal, may make a contract when he is not of unsound mind. In this case, A is generally of unsound mind but occasionally becomes capable of understanding things. When A is in a normal state of mind, he is capable of entering into a contract. This means that A can make a contract when he is in a state of normalcy and can fully understand the terms and implications of the contract.
Therefore, option C is the correct answer as it aligns with the principle that A can make a contract when he is in a normal state of mind, despite being usually of unsound mind.
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.
---
Explanation:
Option C: A can make contract when normal.
According to the principle stated, a person who is usually of unsound mind, but occasionally normal, may make a contract when he is not of unsound mind. In this case, A is generally of unsound mind but occasionally becomes capable of understanding things. When A is in a normal state of mind, he is capable of entering into a contract. This means that A can make a contract when he is in a state of normalcy and can fully understand the terms and implications of the contract.
Therefore, option C is the correct answer as it aligns with the principle that A can make a contract when he is in a normal state of mind, despite being usually of unsound mind.
"lgnorantia juris non exusat " means ________.- a)Ignorance of the law is no excuse
- b)Ignorance of the judge is the misfortune of the innocent
- c)Ignorance of fact is no excuse in law
- d)To be ignorant of law is gross neglect of it
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
"lgnorantia juris non exusat " means ________.
a)
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
b)
Ignorance of the judge is the misfortune of the innocent
c)
Ignorance of fact is no excuse in law
d)
To be ignorant of law is gross neglect of it
|
Learning Educators answered |
This is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content.
'No fault liability' means ______________.- a)liability for damage caused through negligence
- b)liability for damage caused through fault
- c)absolute liability even without any negligence or fault
- d)freedom from liability
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
'No fault liability' means ______________.
a)
liability for damage caused through negligence
b)
liability for damage caused through fault
c)
absolute liability even without any negligence or fault
d)
freedom from liability
|
EduRev Humanities answered |
The Rule of Strict Liability also known as The Rule of No-Fault Liability which means the individual might have the liability without being at fault. The person in this case may not have done any harmful or negligent act or may have put in some positive efforts, however, the rule claims him for compensation.
Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforced only at the option of the party whose consent was not free.
Facts: A obtains the consent of 'B' to enter into an agreement by putting a gun on the head of B's girl friend.- a)'B' can enforce the agreement.
- b)'A' can enforce the agreement.
- c)'B' cannot enforce the agreement.
- d)Neither 'A' nor 'B' can enforce the agreement.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforced only at the option of the party whose consent was not free.
Facts: A obtains the consent of 'B' to enter into an agreement by putting a gun on the head of B's girl friend.
Facts: A obtains the consent of 'B' to enter into an agreement by putting a gun on the head of B's girl friend.
a)
'B' can enforce the agreement.
b)
'A' can enforce the agreement.
c)
'B' cannot enforce the agreement.
d)
Neither 'A' nor 'B' can enforce the agreement.
|
Akshat Sen answered |
Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforced only at the option of the party whose consent was not free.
Facts:
A obtains the consent of B to enter into an agreement by putting a gun on the head of B's girlfriend.
Analysis:
The principle states that an agreement can only be enforced if both parties give their free consent. In this case, A obtained B's consent by using coercion and threatening B's girlfriend's life. Coercion involves the use of force or threat to make someone agree to a contract against their will.
Explanation:
According to the principle, an agreement without free consent is not valid. In this case, B's consent was not freely given because it was obtained through coercion. A put a gun on the head of B's girlfriend, which created fear and compelled B to agree to the contract. This clearly indicates that B did not give his consent willingly.
Since B's consent was not free, he has the option to refuse to enforce the agreement. Therefore, option 'A' is incorrect. B cannot enforce the agreement because his consent was obtained by coercion and was not given freely. Therefore, option 'B' is also incorrect.
The correct answer is option 'C' - B cannot enforce the agreement. The principle clearly states that an agreement without free consent can only be enforced at the option of the party whose consent was not free. In this case, B's consent was not free as it was obtained under duress. Therefore, B has the right to refuse to enforce the agreement.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, B cannot enforce the agreement because his consent was obtained through coercion. A's use of force and threat invalidated the free consent required for a valid agreement. Therefore, the correct answer is option 'C' - B cannot enforce the agreement.
Facts:
A obtains the consent of B to enter into an agreement by putting a gun on the head of B's girlfriend.
Analysis:
The principle states that an agreement can only be enforced if both parties give their free consent. In this case, A obtained B's consent by using coercion and threatening B's girlfriend's life. Coercion involves the use of force or threat to make someone agree to a contract against their will.
Explanation:
According to the principle, an agreement without free consent is not valid. In this case, B's consent was not freely given because it was obtained through coercion. A put a gun on the head of B's girlfriend, which created fear and compelled B to agree to the contract. This clearly indicates that B did not give his consent willingly.
Since B's consent was not free, he has the option to refuse to enforce the agreement. Therefore, option 'A' is incorrect. B cannot enforce the agreement because his consent was obtained by coercion and was not given freely. Therefore, option 'B' is also incorrect.
The correct answer is option 'C' - B cannot enforce the agreement. The principle clearly states that an agreement without free consent can only be enforced at the option of the party whose consent was not free. In this case, B's consent was not free as it was obtained under duress. Therefore, B has the right to refuse to enforce the agreement.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, B cannot enforce the agreement because his consent was obtained through coercion. A's use of force and threat invalidated the free consent required for a valid agreement. Therefore, the correct answer is option 'C' - B cannot enforce the agreement.
Which of the following refers to a contract by which one party promises to save the other from loss caused to him by the conduct of the Promisor himself, or by the conduct of any other person'?- a)Contract of guarantee
- b)Contract of surety
- c)Contract of indemnity
- d)Contract of liability
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Which of the following refers to a contract by which one party promises to save the other from loss caused to him by the conduct of the Promisor himself, or by the conduct of any other person'?
a)
Contract of guarantee
b)
Contract of surety
c)
Contract of indemnity
d)
Contract of liability
|
BT Educators answered |
A contract by which one party promises to save the other from loss caused to him by the conduct of the promisor himself, or by the conduct of any other person, is called a contract of indemnity.
Consists of legal proposition(s) principle(s) (herein after referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principle may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this Section. In other words, in answering these questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles those are given herein below for every question.
Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to testy 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. It is not the objective of this section to test your knowledge of law.
Therefore, to answer a question, principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option.
Principle: A violation of a legal right of someone, whether results in a legal injury or not, gives rise to an action in tort for compensation. At the same time, an action by someone, which results in some loss or damage to somebody else is not actionable, if there is no violation of a right of that somebody.
Facts: AB Coaching Centre was a popular CLAT coaching academy with several good trainers. A lot of aspirants used to attend its coaching classes from all over and was making good profit. This was going on for the past several years. During a session, T, one of the very good and popular trainer of ABCC, has some difference of opinion with the owner of ABCC and left the coaching centre. In August 20162016, T started another Entrance Coaching Centre closer to ABCC which resulted in a substantial drop in its students and huge financial loss. The owner of ABCCABCC wants to file a case against T for the loss sustained by ABCC. What do you think is the right legal position?- a)T will be liable to compensate the loss to ABCC
- b)T has not violated any of ABCC′sABCC′s legal right though they sustained some financial loss, and not legally bound to compensate ABCC
- c)'T' should have consulted ABCC before starting his coaching centre
- d)T started the new coaching centre near ABCC intentionally, and shall be liable to compensate the loss of ABCC
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Consists of legal proposition(s) principle(s) (herein after referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principle may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this Section. In other words, in answering these questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles those are given herein below for every question.
Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to testy 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. It is not the objective of this section to test your knowledge of law.
Therefore, to answer a question, principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option.
Principle: A violation of a legal right of someone, whether results in a legal injury or not, gives rise to an action in tort for compensation. At the same time, an action by someone, which results in some loss or damage to somebody else is not actionable, if there is no violation of a right of that somebody.
Facts: AB Coaching Centre was a popular CLAT coaching academy with several good trainers. A lot of aspirants used to attend its coaching classes from all over and was making good profit. This was going on for the past several years. During a session, T, one of the very good and popular trainer of ABCC, has some difference of opinion with the owner of ABCC and left the coaching centre. In August 20162016, T started another Entrance Coaching Centre closer to ABCC which resulted in a substantial drop in its students and huge financial loss. The owner of ABCCABCC wants to file a case against T for the loss sustained by ABCC. What do you think is the right legal position?
Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to testy 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. It is not the objective of this section to test your knowledge of law.
Therefore, to answer a question, principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option.
Principle: A violation of a legal right of someone, whether results in a legal injury or not, gives rise to an action in tort for compensation. At the same time, an action by someone, which results in some loss or damage to somebody else is not actionable, if there is no violation of a right of that somebody.
Facts: AB Coaching Centre was a popular CLAT coaching academy with several good trainers. A lot of aspirants used to attend its coaching classes from all over and was making good profit. This was going on for the past several years. During a session, T, one of the very good and popular trainer of ABCC, has some difference of opinion with the owner of ABCC and left the coaching centre. In August 20162016, T started another Entrance Coaching Centre closer to ABCC which resulted in a substantial drop in its students and huge financial loss. The owner of ABCCABCC wants to file a case against T for the loss sustained by ABCC. What do you think is the right legal position?
a)
T will be liable to compensate the loss to ABCC
b)
T has not violated any of ABCC′sABCC′s legal right though they sustained some financial loss, and not legally bound to compensate ABCC
c)
'T' should have consulted ABCC before starting his coaching centre
d)
T started the new coaching centre near ABCC intentionally, and shall be liable to compensate the loss of ABCC
|
Arun Yadav answered |
T has not violated any of ABCC′s legal right though they sustained some financial loss, and not legally bound to compensate ABCC.
Because of a difference of opinion between T and the owner of ABCC, T left working for ABCC. The coaching centre experienced financial loss after T opened another Entrance Coaching Centre closer to ABCC. None of this is a violation of a legal right of ABCC and there will be no compensation.
Because of a difference of opinion between T and the owner of ABCC, T left working for ABCC. The coaching centre experienced financial loss after T opened another Entrance Coaching Centre closer to ABCC. None of this is a violation of a legal right of ABCC and there will be no compensation.
Judges for the International Court of Jutice is elected for _________years.- a)5
- b)10
- c)9
- d)6
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Judges for the International Court of Jutice is elected for _________years.
a)
5
b)
10
c)
9
d)
6
|
|
Arun Yadav answered |
The International Court of Justice is composed of 15 judges elected to nine-year terms of office by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council.
All contracts are agreements. All agreements are accepted offers. Which of the following derivation is correct?- a)All accepted offers are contracts.
- b)All agreements are contracts.
- c)All contracts are accepted offers.
- d)None of the above.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
All contracts are agreements. All agreements are accepted offers. Which of the following derivation is correct?
a)
All accepted offers are contracts.
b)
All agreements are contracts.
c)
All contracts are accepted offers.
d)
None of the above.
|
|
Deepika Reddy answered |
Understanding the Relationships
In the context of contracts, agreements, and offers, it is essential to grasp the hierarchy and definitions of these terms.
Definitions
- Contracts: Legally binding agreements between parties.
- Agreements: Mutual understanding between parties regarding their rights and obligations.
- Accepted Offers: A proposal that has been agreed upon by the other party, leading to a binding contract.
Logical Flow
1. All Contracts are Agreements: This means that every contract must qualify as an agreement. However, not all agreements are contracts since some may lack legal enforceability.
2. All Agreements are Accepted Offers: This indicates that for an agreement to exist, there must be an accepted offer.
Analyzing the Options
- Option A: "All accepted offers are contracts."
- This is incorrect, as accepted offers can lead to agreements that may not meet all contract requirements.
- Option B: "All agreements are contracts."
- This is also incorrect. While all contracts are agreements, not all agreements have the legal standing of contracts.
- Option C: "All contracts are accepted offers."
- This is correct. Since contracts arise from accepted offers that have been agreed upon, every contract must indeed be an accepted offer.
- Option D: "None of the above."
- This is not valid, as we have established that option C is indeed correct.
Conclusion
Therefore, the correct answer is option C: "All contracts are accepted offers," as it accurately reflects the relationship between these legal concepts. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for navigating legal agreements effectively.
In the context of contracts, agreements, and offers, it is essential to grasp the hierarchy and definitions of these terms.
Definitions
- Contracts: Legally binding agreements between parties.
- Agreements: Mutual understanding between parties regarding their rights and obligations.
- Accepted Offers: A proposal that has been agreed upon by the other party, leading to a binding contract.
Logical Flow
1. All Contracts are Agreements: This means that every contract must qualify as an agreement. However, not all agreements are contracts since some may lack legal enforceability.
2. All Agreements are Accepted Offers: This indicates that for an agreement to exist, there must be an accepted offer.
Analyzing the Options
- Option A: "All accepted offers are contracts."
- This is incorrect, as accepted offers can lead to agreements that may not meet all contract requirements.
- Option B: "All agreements are contracts."
- This is also incorrect. While all contracts are agreements, not all agreements have the legal standing of contracts.
- Option C: "All contracts are accepted offers."
- This is correct. Since contracts arise from accepted offers that have been agreed upon, every contract must indeed be an accepted offer.
- Option D: "None of the above."
- This is not valid, as we have established that option C is indeed correct.
Conclusion
Therefore, the correct answer is option C: "All contracts are accepted offers," as it accurately reflects the relationship between these legal concepts. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for navigating legal agreements effectively.
Ultra vires implies?- a)A writ.
- b)Pending before court.
- c)Beyond one's power.
- d)Beyond one's knowledge.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Ultra vires implies?
a)
A writ.
b)
Pending before court.
c)
Beyond one's power.
d)
Beyond one's knowledge.
|
|
Arun Yadav answered |
Ultra vires translates to 'beyond the powers'. It is used to describe an act which requires legal authority or power but is then completed outside of or without the requisite authority.
This section consists of fifty (50) questions. Each question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principles') 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 for the purposes of this section. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principles except the principles that are given here in below for every 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 towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the "most reasonable conclusion" arrived at may be unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the objective of this section to test your knowledge of law.
Principle: Mere silence as unfairly, hurts B, A commits no offence decision of a person to enter into a contract does not amount of fraud, unless his silence is in itself equivalent to speech.
Facts: A sells to B a horse which A knows to be of unsound mind. B says to A that if A does not say anything about the state of mind of horse, then B shells presume that the horse is of sound mind. A says nothing to B about the mental condition of horse.- a)A has committed fraud
- b)A has committed misrepresentation
- c)There cannot be a fraud because A says nothing about the mental condition of the horse
- d)There cannot be a fraud because B did not ask A whether the horse is of sound mind
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
This section consists of fifty (50) questions. Each question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principles') 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 for the purposes of this section. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principles except the principles that are given here in below for every 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 towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the "most reasonable conclusion" arrived at may be unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the objective of this section to test your knowledge of law.
Principle: Mere silence as unfairly, hurts B, A commits no offence decision of a person to enter into a contract does not amount of fraud, unless his silence is in itself equivalent to speech.
Facts: A sells to B a horse which A knows to be of unsound mind. B says to A that if A does not say anything about the state of mind of horse, then B shells presume that the horse is of sound mind. A says nothing to B about the mental condition of horse.
Principle: Mere silence as unfairly, hurts B, A commits no offence decision of a person to enter into a contract does not amount of fraud, unless his silence is in itself equivalent to speech.
Facts: A sells to B a horse which A knows to be of unsound mind. B says to A that if A does not say anything about the state of mind of horse, then B shells presume that the horse is of sound mind. A says nothing to B about the mental condition of horse.
a)
A has committed fraud
b)
A has committed misrepresentation
c)
There cannot be a fraud because A says nothing about the mental condition of the horse
d)
There cannot be a fraud because B did not ask A whether the horse is of sound mind
|
Ss Study Center answered |
According to the facts provided we know that B specifically say to A that if he does not say anything about the state of mind of horse, the B shall presume that horse is of sound mind.
Thus 'A"s silence is equivalent to speech and will amount to fraud under section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 as is also enumerate by the above principle.
Thus 'A"s silence is equivalent to speech and will amount to fraud under section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 as is also enumerate by the above principle.
A previous judgement cited by the court to decide on a similar set of facts:- a)Precedent
- b)Case
- c)Obiter dicta
- d)Judicial dicta
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
A previous judgement cited by the court to decide on a similar set of facts:
a)
Precedent
b)
Case
c)
Obiter dicta
d)
Judicial dicta
|
|
BT Educators answered |
In simple terms, a judicial precedent is a judgment of a court of law in India which is cited as an authority to decide a similar set of facts and which can be used by the courts as a source for future decision making.
Principle: When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have made a proposal.
Factual Situation: Xavier telegrammed to William. " Will you sell me your house? Telegram the lowest cash price." William also replied by Telegram" Lowest price for my house is Rs.30h. Xavier immediately sent his reply consenting to William's telegram by saying "I agree to buy your house for Rs.30 asked by you." William refused to sell his house.- a)William cannot refuse to sell the house because it was contract has already been made
- b)William can refuse to sell the house because it was only invitation to offer and not the real offer
- c)It was not a valid offer because willingness to enter into a contract was absent
- d)None of the above
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Principle: When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have made a proposal.
Factual Situation: Xavier telegrammed to William. " Will you sell me your house? Telegram the lowest cash price." William also replied by Telegram" Lowest price for my house is Rs.30h. Xavier immediately sent his reply consenting to William's telegram by saying "I agree to buy your house for Rs.30 asked by you." William refused to sell his house.
Factual Situation: Xavier telegrammed to William. " Will you sell me your house? Telegram the lowest cash price." William also replied by Telegram" Lowest price for my house is Rs.30h. Xavier immediately sent his reply consenting to William's telegram by saying "I agree to buy your house for Rs.30 asked by you." William refused to sell his house.
a)
William cannot refuse to sell the house because it was contract has already been made
b)
William can refuse to sell the house because it was only invitation to offer and not the real offer
c)
It was not a valid offer because willingness to enter into a contract was absent
d)
None of the above
|
|
Arun Yadav answered |
(b) Option (b) is correct, as Xavier's comminication is informal and his telegram saying "I agree to buy your house for 3030 lakhs as asked by you" will be considered as invitation to offer and not as an acceptance of an offer. Thus there is no legally binding contract between them.
(a) Option is incorrect. Under the given situation William is not bound to sell his house to Xavier as telegram by William stating lowest price of his house is just informal quote of the cost of house and will not be considered as an offer in the eyes of Law. When there is no offer the question of its acceptance does not arise hence there is no contract between Willian and Xavier.
(c) Option (c) is incorrect. The question of willingness to enter into a contract does not arise as it is not an offer but just an invitation to offer.
(d) is inapplicable.
(a) Option is incorrect. Under the given situation William is not bound to sell his house to Xavier as telegram by William stating lowest price of his house is just informal quote of the cost of house and will not be considered as an offer in the eyes of Law. When there is no offer the question of its acceptance does not arise hence there is no contract between Willian and Xavier.
(c) Option (c) is incorrect. The question of willingness to enter into a contract does not arise as it is not an offer but just an invitation to offer.
(d) is inapplicable.
Conspiracy needs, at least ________ person/people.- a)One
- b)Two
- c)Three
- d)Five
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Conspiracy needs, at least ________ person/people.
a)
One
b)
Two
c)
Three
d)
Five
|
|
EduRev Humanities answered |
A punishable conspiracy exists when at least two people form an agreement to commit a crime, and at least one of them does some act in furtherance to committing the crime.
Assertion: Every contract must be supported by a consideration.
Reason: A contract without a consideration is void.- a)Both Assertion and Reason are correct and Reason is the correct explanation for AssertionCorrect Answer
- b)Both Assertion and Reason are correct but Reason is not the correct explanation for AssertionYour Answer
- c)Assertion is correct but Reason is incorrect
- d)Assertion is incorrect but Reason is correct
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Assertion: Every contract must be supported by a consideration.
Reason: A contract without a consideration is void.
Reason: A contract without a consideration is void.
a)
Both Assertion and Reason are correct and Reason is the correct explanation for AssertionCorrect Answer
b)
Both Assertion and Reason are correct but Reason is not the correct explanation for AssertionYour Answer
c)
Assertion is correct but Reason is incorrect
d)
Assertion is incorrect but Reason is correct
|
Aditya Choudhary answered |
Understanding Contracts and Consideration
In legal terms, a contract is an agreement between parties that creates mutual obligations enforceable by law. One of the fundamental principles of contract law is the necessity of consideration.
Assertion: Every Contract Must Be Supported by Consideration
- Consideration refers to something of value that is exchanged between the parties involved in a contract.
- It can be money, services, goods, or a promise to act or refrain from acting.
- Without consideration, a contract is generally not enforceable, as it lacks the necessary element to establish a legal obligation.
Reason: A Contract Without Consideration is Void
- A contract that lacks consideration is considered void, meaning it has no legal effect.
- This principle ensures that both parties have a stake in the agreement, which promotes fairness and prevents one-sided contracts.
- Courts typically do not enforce agreements that are purely gratuitous (i.e., without consideration).
Conclusion: Relationship Between Assertion and Reason
- Both the assertion and the reason are indeed correct.
- The assertion states a fundamental requirement for contracts, while the reason explains why that requirement exists.
- Thus, the reason provides a valid explanation for the assertion, confirming that consideration is essential for the validity of a contract.
In summary, the relationship between the assertion and the reason illustrates the legal principle that consideration is crucial for any enforceable contract, making option 'A' the correct answer.
In legal terms, a contract is an agreement between parties that creates mutual obligations enforceable by law. One of the fundamental principles of contract law is the necessity of consideration.
Assertion: Every Contract Must Be Supported by Consideration
- Consideration refers to something of value that is exchanged between the parties involved in a contract.
- It can be money, services, goods, or a promise to act or refrain from acting.
- Without consideration, a contract is generally not enforceable, as it lacks the necessary element to establish a legal obligation.
Reason: A Contract Without Consideration is Void
- A contract that lacks consideration is considered void, meaning it has no legal effect.
- This principle ensures that both parties have a stake in the agreement, which promotes fairness and prevents one-sided contracts.
- Courts typically do not enforce agreements that are purely gratuitous (i.e., without consideration).
Conclusion: Relationship Between Assertion and Reason
- Both the assertion and the reason are indeed correct.
- The assertion states a fundamental requirement for contracts, while the reason explains why that requirement exists.
- Thus, the reason provides a valid explanation for the assertion, confirming that consideration is essential for the validity of a contract.
In summary, the relationship between the assertion and the reason illustrates the legal principle that consideration is crucial for any enforceable contract, making option 'A' the correct answer.
A person who take as proceedings against the accused on the behalf of the state is the __________.- a)judge
- b)lawyer
- c)plantiff
- d)prosecutor
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
A person who take as proceedings against the accused on the behalf of the state is the __________.
a)
judge
b)
lawyer
c)
plantiff
d)
prosecutor
|
|
Ss Study Center answered |
A prosecutor is a legal representative of the prosecution in states with either the common law adversarial system or the civil law inquisitorial system.
Fiduciary relationship is a relationship based on __________.- a)contract
- b)trust
- c)blood relationship
- d)money
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Fiduciary relationship is a relationship based on __________.
a)
contract
b)
trust
c)
blood relationship
d)
money
|
|
BT Educators answered |
An equally important characteristic for the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the information for using it for his benefit. It is true that such a relationship is based on trust.
Chapter doubts & questions for Classification of Laws - Legal Studies for Class 11 2025 is part of Humanities/Arts exam preparation. The chapters have been prepared according to the Humanities/Arts exam syllabus. The Chapter doubts & questions, notes, tests & MCQs are made for Humanities/Arts 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, notes, meanings, examples, exercises, MCQs and online tests here.
Chapter doubts & questions of Classification of Laws - Legal Studies for Class 11 in English & Hindi are available as part of Humanities/Arts exam.
Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Humanities/Arts Exam by signing up for free.
Legal Studies for Class 11
67 videos|102 docs|17 tests
|
|
© EduRev
|
Education Revolution
|
|
Signup to see your scores
go up
within 7 days!
within 7 days!
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup