Legal Mock Test - 18


40 Questions MCQ Test Mock Test Series for CLAT 2020 | Legal Mock Test - 18


Description
This mock test of Legal Mock Test - 18 for CLAT helps you for every CLAT entrance exam. This contains 40 Multiple Choice Questions for CLAT Legal Mock Test - 18 (mcq) to study with solutions a complete question bank. The solved questions answers in this Legal Mock Test - 18 quiz give you a good mix of easy questions and tough questions. CLAT students definitely take this Legal Mock Test - 18 exercise for a better result in the exam. You can find other Legal Mock Test - 18 extra questions, long questions & short questions for CLAT on EduRev as well by searching above.
QUESTION: 1

Principle: Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.
Facts: ‘X’ takes a pin from Y’s drawer without Y’s consent to drape a saree for his friend.
Decide as a judge.

Solution:

X has committed no offence as just taking a pin from Y’s drawer amounts to no offence at all in the eyes of law 

QUESTION: 2

Legal Principle: The notice for auction or sale of goods is only an invitation to offer, and not an offer in itself under the law of contract.
Facts of the Problem: Uday puts up an advertisement in front of his house of selling the house at the price of Rs. 50 lakhs. Saif sees that advertisement and goes to Uday with the money to buy the house. Uday refuses to sell the house to Saif. Saif sues Uday for the breach of the contract. Decide?

Solution:

In the instant case, the advertisement for the sale of the house by Udau was not an offer to the contract. It was merely an invitation to sell. The legal position is that the notice for auction or sale of goods is only an invitation to offer, and not an offer in itself under the law of contract. Thus, no contract as made between Saif and Uday for the sale of the house and consequently, no question of awarding any damages for the breach of the contract arises.

QUESTION: 3

Which of the following is entrusted with a statutory duty of laying down the standards of professional conduct and etiquette for advocates in India?

Solution:
QUESTION: 4

Principle: Only Parliament or State Legislatures have the authority to enact laws on their own. No law made by the State can take away a person’s fundamental right.
Facts: Parliament enacted a law, which according to a group of lawyers is violating the fundamental rights of traders. A group of lawyers files a writ petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the statute seeking relief to quash the statute and further direct Parliament to enact a new law.

Solution:

As the court has the power of judicial review examine constuitinal validity of the law enacted by the parliament. It can hold the said laws unconstitutional if it violates any provision.

QUESTION: 5

Who is the Legal Advisor to the Government of a State in India?

Solution:

In India, an advocate general is a legal advisor to a state government. The post is created by the Constitution of India and corresponds to that of Attorney General of India at the central-level. The Governor of each state shall appoint a person who is qualified to be appointed judges in high cour.

QUESTION: 6

Passage​: The Nirbhaya case constitutes a crime which fits into the category of the ‘rarest of the rare’ cases because it violated collective conscience. The death penalty, as an exceptional punishment, follows from the judgment that the case fit the criteria of the ‘rarest of the rare’. Ideally an exception should be unknown until it occurs: it is exceptional because it is not documented under the rule.
Conversely, once an exception has been codified through law, it loses its exceptional character. Hence ideally, there can be no pre-existing category of the ‘rarest of the rare’.
Judges already know what these ‘exceptions’ are going to be because they understand exceptions for a category like ‘murder’.
The ‘rarest of the rare’ proves to be an empty, floating category which seems to stand at once inside and outside the law, due to its ability to accommodate exceptionality. In the Nirbhaya judgment, the Supreme Court said that the ‘rarest of the rare’ case is one in which “the crime is committed… may result in intense and extreme indignation of the community and shock the collective conscience of the society”.
The category of the ‘rarest of the rare’ is always evolving. It is the evaluation of certain cases that makes them fit into the category of the ‘rarest of the rare’, and not the nature of the crimes as such. In such cases, the legal judgment says that the judicial power is obligated to the collective to repair the moral fabric of society which the crime has torn.

Q. Why does the Nirbhaya case fit into the category of “Rarest of the rare”?

Solution:

The nirbhaya rape case constructs in a crime of the category of rarest of the rare category because the incident shook the entire world and collective conscience.

QUESTION: 7

Passage​: The Nirbhaya case constitutes a crime which fits into the category of the ‘rarest of the rare’ cases because it violated collective conscience. The death penalty, as an exceptional punishment, follows from the judgment that the case fit the criteria of the ‘rarest of the rare’. Ideally an exception should be unknown until it occurs: it is exceptional because it is not documented under the rule.
Conversely, once an exception has been codified through law, it loses its exceptional character. Hence ideally, there can be no pre-existing category of the ‘rarest of the rare’.
Judges already know what these ‘exceptions’ are going to be because they understand exceptions for a category like ‘murder’.
The ‘rarest of the rare’ proves to be an empty, floating category which seems to stand at once inside and outside the law, due to its ability to accommodate exceptionality. In the Nirbhaya judgment, the Supreme Court said that the ‘rarest of the rare’ case is one in which “the crime is committed… may result in intense and extreme indignation of the community and shock the collective conscience of the society”.
The category of the ‘rarest of the rare’ is always evolving. It is the evaluation of certain cases that makes them fit into the category of the ‘rarest of the rare’, and not the nature of the crimes as such. In such cases, the legal judgment says that the judicial power is obligated to the collective to repair the moral fabric of society which the crime has torn.

Q. In the last line of the extract, what does the term “collective” mean?

Solution:
QUESTION: 8

Passage​: The Nirbhaya case constitutes a crime which fits into the category of the ‘rarest of the rare’ cases because it violated collective conscience. The death penalty, as an exceptional punishment, follows from the judgment that the case fit the criteria of the ‘rarest of the rare’. Ideally an exception should be unknown until it occurs: it is exceptional because it is not documented under the rule.
Conversely, once an exception has been codified through law, it loses its exceptional character. Hence ideally, there can be no pre-existing category of the ‘rarest of the rare’.
Judges already know what these ‘exceptions’ are going to be because they understand exceptions for a category like ‘murder’.
The ‘rarest of the rare’ proves to be an empty, floating category which seems to stand at once inside and outside the law, due to its ability to accommodate exceptionality. In the Nirbhaya judgment, the Supreme Court said that the ‘rarest of the rare’ case is one in which “the crime is committed… may result in intense and extreme indignation of the community and shock the collective conscience of the society”.
The category of the ‘rarest of the rare’ is always evolving. It is the evaluation of certain cases that makes them fit into the category of the ‘rarest of the rare’, and not the nature of the crimes as such. In such cases, the legal judgment says that the judicial power is obligated to the collective to repair the moral fabric of society which the crime has torn.

Q. What makes the “Rarest of the Rare” a floating category?

Solution:

The rarest of the rare in the law is the category which proves to be empty floating which seems to stand at once inside and outside the law due to its ability and accommodate exceptionally.

QUESTION: 9

With which of the following issues did D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal deal with?

Solution:

In this case, the main parties were Shri DK Basu and the State of West Bengal. This case revolved around the increasing toll of custodial torture and deaths in the lock-ups. It is one of the landmark judgments wherein the Apex Court of India laid down some propositions regarding the arrest of a person.

QUESTION: 10

Sajjan Singh, advanced money to his stepson, Ghantilal while Ghantilal was a minor. Ghantilal, however, looks upon Sajjan Singh as his own father. When Ghantilal came of age, Sajjan Singh obtained, by misuse of parental influence, from Ghantilal, a bond for a greater amount than the sum due in respect of the advance. The contract clearly appears to be unconscionable. Upon whom will the burden of proof rest to prove the element of undue influence?
Principle: A contract is said to be induced by undue influence where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.

Solution:

Although Ghantilal is a step son but he treats sajjan singh as his own father taking the benefit of this feeling sajjan singh obtained a bond of greater amount. It Is Sajaan singh who is dominating position and he has actually used this position upon his son. 

QUESTION: 11

Legal Principle I: Any person may use reasonable force in order to protect his property or person.
Legal Principle II: The force employed must be proportionate to the apprehended danger.
Facts: Karan was walking on a isolated path. Maninder came with a knife and told Karan, ‘Your life or your purse.’ Karan pulled out his revolver. On seeing it, Maninder ran. Karan shot Manider in his legs.
Decide as a judge.

Solution:

The force employed was way more than the danger level as  started to run away from . As the threat was reduced and was continuously reducing, there was no need to shoot  in the Legs. 

QUESTION: 12

Legal Principle: A contract with a minor would be void if the other party knew about the minority.
Facts of the Problem: Hitesh is a leading seller of the computer hardware items in the city. His sixteen years old son has Rohan as his best friend. Rohan is also of the same age. Hitesh knowing the age of Rohan entered into a contract with him for a set of laptops for a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs to him. When Hitesh sent the consignment of the laptops, Rohan refused to take them and dishonoured the contract. Hitesh sues Rohan for the damages suffered by him. Decide the legal outcome of the situation?

Solution:

In the present case, Hitesh entered into a contract with Rohan despite knowing that Rohan was a minor at the time of entering into the contract. Hitesh would not be able to get the required damages as the fact that Rohan is a minor, renders the contract void. Thus, not damages could be attained from a contract which is void ab initio.

QUESTION: 13

What does the legal term Caveat Emptor refer to?

Solution:

Caveat emptor is a Latin term that means "let the buyer beware." Similar to the phrase "sold as is," this term means that the buyer assumes the risk that a product may fail to meet expectations or have defects.

QUESTION: 14

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.
Fact: Ramchandra telegraphed to Shyam Sunder, writing: “Will you sell me your Rolls Royce car? Telegram the lowest cash price.” Shyam Sunder also replied by telegram: “Lowest price for car is Rs. 20 lakh.” Ramanuj immediately sent his consent through telegram stating: “I agree to buy the car for Rs. 20 lakh asked by you.” Shyam Sunder refused to sell the car.

Solution:
QUESTION: 15

Avantik gives his gold chain to Nikhil, a jeweller, for repairs. Nikhil carries it to his shop. After the gold chain have been repaired, Avantik defaults on the payment. Nikhil refuses to deliver back the gold chain, retains them lawfully as a security for the debt. Avantik, who was aware that Nikhil was retaining the gold chain as a security for his debt, enters the shop openly, and takes the gold chain by force out of Nikhil’s possession, and takes it away. Has Avantik committed theft?

Solution:

Avantik cannot be  held for committing theft as one of the conditions for theft is use of force is not present. Where as the avantik has taken the chain forcibly from the Nikhil so his act is not fit in any of the option.

QUESTION: 16

The marriage of a 15 year old girl with a 45 year old man is -

Solution:
QUESTION: 17

Right to education is a fundamental right emanating from right to:

Solution:

Constitutional 86th Amendment Act, 2002 added Article 21A. The right to education is a fundamental right to freedom under Article 21A. The Article provides that "the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years.

QUESTION: 18

Principle: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’ s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.
Anjali, embarking on a one-month trip to Venice, entrusts her Pomeranian to Tina, the owner of a kennel, till Anjali returns from her vacations. Anjali pays Tina to take care of her Pomeranian. Tina carries the Pomeranian to a pet-shop owner, and sells it. Has Tina committed theft?

Solution:

One of the essential elements of theft is removing the property out of the possession of owner. Hee The dog was already in possesion of tina so no offence of thet is made out. It is criminal breach of trust.

QUESTION: 19

Prateek, who is Prakha’s younger brother, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill Sachan, who is Prakha’s boyfriend. Prakha, not knowing how to react, and seeing Sachan helpless and on the verge of being murdered, hits on Prateek’s head with an antique metal vase. Prateek dies on the spot. Can Prakha claim the right of private defence of body?
Principle 1: Every person has a right to defend his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
Principle 2: The right of private defence of the body extends to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence reasonably causes the apprehension that death, or grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault. Also, if the assault is with the intention of committing rape, gratifying unnatural lust, kidnapping or abducting, or wrongfully confining a person under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release, he will have the right of private defence of the body extending to causing of death.
Principle 3: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act.

Solution:

Because Prateek made an attempt to kill sachin and in order to save the life of Parteek Prakha hit her brother. His brother may be in madness but here we are emphasing about the right to private defence to Prakha.

QUESTION: 20

Time taken by the constituent Assembly to prepare Constitution is:

Solution:

The 389 member Constituent Assembly took almost three years (two years, eleven months and eighteen days to be precise) to complete its historic task of drafting the Constitution for independent India, during which, it held eleven sessions over 165 days.

QUESTION: 21

Passage​: In the wake of the current coronavirus outbreak, most businesses are looking out to re-align themselves with the economic disparity that is likely to arise. In fact, even the Union of India through Ministry of Finance has recently issued a clarification that coronavirus will be considered as a case of natural calamity and as such covered under the force majeure clause available to be invoked wherever necessary and applicable.
What is force majeure or vis major? It means superior force or chance occurrence. As the term and its meaning suggest, it is an event that the contracting parties could not have contemplated at the time of acceptance of contracts.
In India, primarily Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act deals with this situation. This article deals with the distinction between the English and Indian law a little later, however, we straightaway come to Section 56, which reads “Contract to do act afterwards becoming impossible or unlawful. – A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful. ” The doctrine of frustration with its limited applicability was developed in Taylor Vs. Caldwell [1863] for the first time, wherein Justice Blackburn reasoned that the rule of absolute liability only applied to positive, definite contracts, not to those in which there was an express or implied condition underlying the contract.
As far as Indian law is concerned, Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is absolutely clear that an act, after the contract is made, becomes impossible to perform or by reason of some event which a promisor/a party could not prevent becomes void and is not capable of performance.
In this regard, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 56 to mean that an act must result in an impossibility of performance, or the performance of an act may not be literally impossible but it may be impracticable and useless from the point of view of the object and purpose which the parties had in view; and if an untoward event or change of circumstances totally upsets the very foundation upon which the parties rested their bargain, it can very well be said that the party finds it impossible to do the act which he promised to do.
From the above, it is clear that a force majeure event must lead to an impossibility and any hardship, inconvenience or material loss (except if the termination can be shown to be just and fair) cannot be considered as a force majeure event. Hence, a change in policy by no means can be considered as a force majeure or an impossible event.

Q. Alia entered into a contract with Katrina for supplying sweets to Alia on her wedding day.
On the day of the wedding, when eating one of Katrina’s sweet made with almonds, Alia fell ill since she was allergic to almonds. As per the defense of vis major in the passage, can Alia sue Katrina?

Solution:

It is not common to use almonds in almost every sweet if alia was allergic she should have specifically pointed out to katrina at the time of offer. Force mejure has no concern with situation in hand.

QUESTION: 22

Passage​: In the wake of the current coronavirus outbreak, most businesses are looking out to re-align themselves with the economic disparity that is likely to arise. In fact, even the Union of India through Ministry of Finance has recently issued a clarification that coronavirus will be considered as a case of natural calamity and as such covered under the force majeure clause available to be invoked wherever necessary and applicable.
What is force majeure or vis major? It means superior force or chance occurrence. As the term and its meaning suggest, it is an event that the contracting parties could not have contemplated at the time of acceptance of contracts.
In India, primarily Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act deals with this situation. This article deals with the distinction between the English and Indian law a little later, however, we straightaway come to Section 56, which reads “Contract to do act afterwards becoming impossible or unlawful. – A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful. ” The doctrine of frustration with its limited applicability was developed in Taylor Vs. Caldwell [1863] for the first time, wherein Justice Blackburn reasoned that the rule of absolute liability only applied to positive, definite contracts, not to those in which there was an express or implied condition underlying the contract.
As far as Indian law is concerned, Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is absolutely clear that an act, after the contract is made, becomes impossible to perform or by reason of some event which a promisor/a party could not prevent becomes void and is not capable of performance.
In this regard, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 56 to mean that an act must result in an impossibility of performance, or the performance of an act may not be literally impossible but it may be impracticable and useless from the point of view of the object and purpose which the parties had in view; and if an untoward event or change of circumstances totally upsets the very foundation upon which the parties rested their bargain, it can very well be said that the party finds it impossible to do the act which he promised to do.
From the above, it is clear that a force majeure event must lead to an impossibility and any hardship, inconvenience or material loss (except if the termination can be shown to be just and fair) cannot be considered as a force majeure event. Hence, a change in policy by no means can be considered as a force majeure or an impossible event.

Q. Bappi enters into a contract with Mr. Lahiri on 12 th January under which he would supply gold and silver bars to Bappi. Later, Mr. Lahiri came to know that on 10 th January the Government had banned sale of gold bars. Mr. Lahiri wants to terminate the contract. Can he legally do so?

Solution:

The ban is imposed only Qua gold bars and so lehri is free to supply silver bars the naure of contract is such that part/partial performance can be done.

QUESTION: 23

Passage​: In the wake of the current coronavirus outbreak, most businesses are looking out to re-align themselves with the economic disparity that is likely to arise. In fact, even the Union of India through Ministry of Finance has recently issued a clarification that coronavirus will be considered as a case of natural calamity and as such covered under the force majeure clause available to be invoked wherever necessary and applicable.
What is force majeure or vis major? It means superior force or chance occurrence. As the term and its meaning suggest, it is an event that the contracting parties could not have contemplated at the time of acceptance of contracts.
In India, primarily Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act deals with this situation. This article deals with the distinction between the English and Indian law a little later, however, we straightaway come to Section 56, which reads “Contract to do act afterwards becoming impossible or unlawful. – A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful. ” The doctrine of frustration with its limited applicability was developed in Taylor Vs. Caldwell [1863] for the first time, wherein Justice Blackburn reasoned that the rule of absolute liability only applied to positive, definite contracts, not to those in which there was an express or implied condition underlying the contract.
As far as Indian law is concerned, Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is absolutely clear that an act, after the contract is made, becomes impossible to perform or by reason of some event which a promisor/a party could not prevent becomes void and is not capable of performance.
In this regard, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 56 to mean that an act must result in an impossibility of performance, or the performance of an act may not be literally impossible but it may be impracticable and useless from the point of view of the object and purpose which the parties had in view; and if an untoward event or change of circumstances totally upsets the very foundation upon which the parties rested their bargain, it can very well be said that the party finds it impossible to do the act which he promised to do.
From the above, it is clear that a force majeure event must lead to an impossibility and any hardship, inconvenience or material loss (except if the termination can be shown to be just and fair) cannot be considered as a force majeure event. Hence, a change in policy by no means can be considered as a force majeure or an impossible event.

Q. A’s ship had a hole in its hull. To repair it, A contracted with B to supply him 10 tons of iron within 7 days. But, 3 days after the contract, there was a storm and unable to withstand it, the ship sank. B refrained from supplying the iron as the ship itself had sunk. A, however, wants to sue B for non-performance of contract. Which of the following would most weaken A’s stance?

Solution:

As supposed to supply the iron as ordered by a for repair. Since the ship itsel is not existing supply of iron would be useless. This is the defence available to B and therefore would weaken the case of a.

QUESTION: 24

Passage​: In the wake of the current coronavirus outbreak, most businesses are looking out to re-align themselves with the economic disparity that is likely to arise. In fact, even the Union of India through Ministry of Finance has recently issued a clarification that coronavirus will be considered as a case of natural calamity and as such covered under the force majeure clause available to be invoked wherever necessary and applicable.
What is force majeure or vis major? It means superior force or chance occurrence. As the term and its meaning suggest, it is an event that the contracting parties could not have contemplated at the time of acceptance of contracts.
In India, primarily Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act deals with this situation. This article deals with the distinction between the English and Indian law a little later, however, we straightaway come to Section 56, which reads “Contract to do act afterwards becoming impossible or unlawful. – A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful. ” The doctrine of frustration with its limited applicability was developed in Taylor Vs. Caldwell [1863] for the first time, wherein Justice Blackburn reasoned that the rule of absolute liability only applied to positive, definite contracts, not to those in which there was an express or implied condition underlying the contract.
As far as Indian law is concerned, Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is absolutely clear that an act, after the contract is made, becomes impossible to perform or by reason of some event which a promisor/a party could not prevent becomes void and is not capable of performance.
In this regard, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 56 to mean that an act must result in an impossibility of performance, or the performance of an act may not be literally impossible but it may be impracticable and useless from the point of view of the object and purpose which the parties had in view; and if an untoward event or change of circumstances totally upsets the very foundation upon which the parties rested their bargain, it can very well be said that the party finds it impossible to do the act which he promised to do.
From the above, it is clear that a force majeure event must lead to an impossibility and any hardship, inconvenience or material loss (except if the termination can be shown to be just and fair) cannot be considered as a force majeure event. Hence, a change in policy by no means can be considered as a force majeure or an impossible event.

Q. Nattu was a newspaper vendor. He had a contract with Mr. Batuklal for delivering newspapers. Every morning Nattu would deliver newspapers to him on his cycle. One day, during the rainy season, it was raining cats and dogs. The papers got soggy and even, Nattu’s cycle got punctured. He was unable to deliver the newspaper that day. Can Mr. Batuklal sue Nattu for violating contract?

Solution:

Nattu was deleviring newspapers on each and every day not on the day it was raining heavily ans his cycle also broke down there is no reason that battulal can sue nattu.

QUESTION: 25

Passage​: In the wake of the current coronavirus outbreak, most businesses are looking out to re-align themselves with the economic disparity that is likely to arise. In fact, even the Union of India through Ministry of Finance has recently issued a clarification that coronavirus will be considered as a case of natural calamity and as such covered under the force majeure clause available to be invoked wherever necessary and applicable.
What is force majeure or vis major? It means superior force or chance occurrence. As the term and its meaning suggest, it is an event that the contracting parties could not have contemplated at the time of acceptance of contracts.
In India, primarily Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act deals with this situation. This article deals with the distinction between the English and Indian law a little later, however, we straightaway come to Section 56, which reads “Contract to do act afterwards becoming impossible or unlawful. – A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful. ” The doctrine of frustration with its limited applicability was developed in Taylor Vs. Caldwell [1863] for the first time, wherein Justice Blackburn reasoned that the rule of absolute liability only applied to positive, definite contracts, not to those in which there was an express or implied condition underlying the contract.
As far as Indian law is concerned, Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is absolutely clear that an act, after the contract is made, becomes impossible to perform or by reason of some event which a promisor/a party could not prevent becomes void and is not capable of performance.
In this regard, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 56 to mean that an act must result in an impossibility of performance, or the performance of an act may not be literally impossible but it may be impracticable and useless from the point of view of the object and purpose which the parties had in view; and if an untoward event or change of circumstances totally upsets the very foundation upon which the parties rested their bargain, it can very well be said that the party finds it impossible to do the act which he promised to do.
From the above, it is clear that a force majeure event must lead to an impossibility and any hardship, inconvenience or material loss (except if the termination can be shown to be just and fair) cannot be considered as a force majeure event. Hence, a change in policy by no means can be considered as a force majeure or an impossible event.

Q. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the Government’s decision to include coronavirus as a force majeure?

Solution:

It is something which occurs due to superior and a chance occurance leading to an impossibity in perofrmance of contract. Corona virus is already set in and it is no more a chance occurence.

QUESTION: 26

What is the meaning of the maxim, “ex turpi causa non oritur actio”?

Solution:

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio (Latin "from a dishonorable cause an action does not arise") is a legal doctrine which states that a plaintiff will be unable to pursue legal remedy if it arises in connection with his own illegal act. Particularly relevant in the law of contract, tort and trusts,

QUESTION: 27

The Government imposed a cap on the number of text messages sent per day, from every sim card, to 20, with immediate effect. These restrictions are to remain in force for 15 days. This action was taken against the backdrop of the exodus of north-eastern people from major cities of the country following a tide of rumours spread by text and multimedia messages that people hailing from the north-eastern states would be attacked to avenge a recent ethnic violence in one of the north-eastern states. Companies that were completely dependent upon this mode of communication for customer outreach protested against this cap on messages saying that it was infringing upon their freedom of speech and expression. Decide if it is an infringement on the freedom of speech and expression of the citizens.
Principle: All citizens shall have the right
(i) to freedom of speech and expression;
(ii) to assemble peacefully and without arms;
(iii) to form associations or unions;
(iv) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(v) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
(vi) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

However, the exercise of these rights is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the State.

Solution:

The ban is temporary and due to the sensitive situation arisen in the country for which the state is to take care. It is a reasonable restrction imposed by the state.

QUESTION: 28

Ranveer, a con-man by profession, was sitting in his lawn with some stolen books by William Shakespeare. Suddenly, his neighbour, Anushka, entered and tried to snatch away those books from him saying that they belong to her. As it turns out, she was right. Still, Ranveer sues Anushka for trespass to goods. Will he succeed?
Principle: Interference with someone’s possession or enjoyment of movable property constitutes the tort of trespass of goods.

Solution:

Raneer was sitting inhis lawn altough books belong to Anshuka butpresently in possesion of Ranveer. Anshuka could avail any other remedy to get her back her books but her act in Question is tortus.

QUESTION: 29

In addition to the Speaker, the Lok Sabha has a Deputy Speaker who is:

Solution:

The Speaker is answerable to the House. Both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker may be removed by a resolution passed by the majority of the members. Lok Sabha Speaker can be elected by President on nomination basis All bill passed requires his or her signature to go to the Rajya Sabha for its consideration

QUESTION: 30

In which landmark case the Supreme Court held that the Second marriage of Hindu man is invalid even if he converts to Islam before marriage?

Solution:

The SUPREME Court held that the first marriage would have to be dissolved under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The man’s first marriage would therefore, still be valid and under Hindu law, his second marriage, solemnized after his conversion, would be illegal under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

QUESTION: 31

Principle: Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person's consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit: 
PROVIDED 
First: That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death, or to the attempting to cause death; 
Secondly: That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;
Thirdly: That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of hurt, or to the attempting to cause hurt, for any purpose other than preventing of death or hurt;
Fourthly: That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.

Facts: Z is carried off by a tiger. A fired at the tiger knowing it to be likely that the shot may kill Z, but not intending to kill Z, and in good faith intending Z's benefit. A's ball give Z a mortal wound.

Solution:

Because as per case at hand as per firing the shot a knew it may kill Z. And this is the expection second this benefit is not available.

QUESTION: 32

Principle: Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person's consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit: 
PROVIDED 
First: That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death, or to the attempting to cause death; 
Secondly: That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;
Thirdly: That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of hurt, or to the attempting to cause hurt, for any purpose other than preventing of death or hurt;
Fourthly: That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.

Facts: A, a surgeon, sees a child suffer an accident which is likely to prove fatal unless an operation be immediately performed. There is no time to apply to the child's guardian. A performs the operation in spite of the entreaties of the child, intending of good faith, the child's benefit.

Solution:

The surgeon operated upon the child to save his life there was no time to look for his parents.

QUESTION: 33

Principle: Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person's consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit: 
PROVIDED 
First: That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death, or to the attempting to cause death; 
Secondly: That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;
Thirdly: That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of hurt, or to the attempting to cause hurt, for any purpose other than preventing of death or hurt;
Fourthly-- That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.

Facts: A is in a house which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket. A drops the child from the house top, knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child, but not intending to kill the child, and intending in good faith, the child's benefit. Here, even if the child is killed by the fall.

Solution:

In order to save the life a threw the child. People were holding the blanket which could be a safeguard for protection of the child.

QUESTION: 34

Principle: Nothing which is not intended to cause death, or grievous hurt, and which is not known by the doer to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, to any person, above eighteen years of age, who has given consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm; or by reason of any harm which it may be known by the doer to be likely to cause to any such person who has consented to take the risk of that harm.
Facts: A and Z agree to fence with each other for amusement. In the course of such fencing, may be caused without foul play; and if A, while playing fairly, hurts Z 

Solution:

As per the case in hand both have agreed for fencing and if someone is hurt in the game one should not be held liable as consent was being given however it is to be shown that the person to whom hurt is caused is above 18 years.

QUESTION: 35

Passage​: Many commentators say the failure of Yes Bank points to failures of regulation and supervision on the part of the Reserve Bank of India (the “RBI”). Yes Bank suffered from excessive exposure to some groups. With effect from 1 April 2019, the RBI has put in place a Large Exposure Framework that limits exposure to individual companies and groups. Perhaps such a policy might have come earlier. It does appear now that risk management in banks is too important to be left to the boards. The RBI has also been faulted for ignoring excessive loan growth at Yes Bank. It is hard to say what constitutes excessive growth. Loan growth of around 30%–35% per annum at Yes Bank may seem high. However, this growth happened on a low base and at a time when private banks were gaining market share at the expense of Public Sector Banks (“PSBs”) whose own loan growth was tardy. The RBI does comment on asset quality in its annual financial inspection report. However, for the RBI to question loan growth at a given bank would constitute micromanagement of a new order. 

Q. Based on their fund infusion, Yes Bank became an Associate Bank of which of the Banks listed below? 

Solution:
QUESTION: 36

Passage​: Many commentators say the failure of Yes Bank points to failures of regulation and supervision on the part of the Reserve Bank of India (the “RBI”). Yes Bank suffered from excessive exposure to some groups. With effect from 1 April 2019, the RBI has put in place a Large Exposure Framework that limits exposure to individual companies and groups. Perhaps such a policy might have come earlier. It does appear now that risk management in banks is too important to be left to the boards. The RBI has also been faulted for ignoring excessive loan growth at Yes Bank. It is hard to say what constitutes excessive growth. Loan growth of around 30%–35% per annum at Yes Bank may seem high. However, this growth happened on a low base and at a time when private banks were gaining market share at the expense of Public Sector Banks (“PSBs”) whose own loan growth was tardy. The RBI does comment on asset quality in its annual financial inspection report. However, for the RBI to question loan growth at a given bank would constitute micromanagement of a new order. 

Q. Who among the following was the promoter and former Managing Director of Yes Bank? 

Solution:
QUESTION: 37

Passage​: Many commentators say the failure of Yes Bank points to failures of regulation and supervision on the part of the Reserve Bank of India (the “RBI”). Yes Bank suffered from excessive exposure to some groups. With effect from 1 April 2019, the RBI has put in place a Large Exposure Framework that limits exposure to individual companies and groups. Perhaps such a policy might have come earlier. It does appear now that risk management in banks is too important to be left to the boards.   The RBI has also been faulted for ignoring excessive loan growth at Yes Bank. It is hard to say what constitutes excessive growth. Loan growth of around 30%–35% per annum at Yes Bank may seem high. However, this growth happened on a low base and at a time when private banks were gaining market share at the expense of Public Sector Banks (“PSBs”) whose own loan growth was tardy. The RBI does comment on asset quality in its annual financial inspection report. However, for the RBI to question loan growth at a given bank would constitute micromanagement of a new order. 

Q. Who among the following is the present C.E.O. of Yes Bank? 

Solution:
QUESTION: 38

Passage​: Many commentators say the failure of Yes Bank points to failures of regulation and supervision on the part of the Reserve Bank of India (the “RBI”). Yes Bank suffered from excessive exposure to some groups. With effect from 1 April 2019, the RBI has put in place a Large Exposure Framework that limits exposure to individual companies and groups. Perhaps such a policy might have come earlier. It does appear now that risk management in banks is too important to be left to the boards. The RBI has also been faulted for ignoring excessive loan growth at Yes Bank. It is hard to say what constitutes excessive growth. Loan growth of around 30%–35% per annum at Yes Bank may seem high. However, this growth happened on a low base and at a time when private banks were gaining market share at the expense of Public Sector Banks (“PSBs”) whose own loan growth was tardy. The RBI does comment on asset quality in its annual financial inspection report. However, for the RBI to question loan growth at a given bank would constitute micromanagement of a new order. 

Q. Which of the following is a public bank?

Solution:
QUESTION: 39

Defamation infringes a person’s right to

Solution:

A defamation as a tort is only a wrong if the defamation is of nature which harms the reputation of a person who is alive. The term "defamation" is an all - encompassing term that covers any statement that hurts someone's reputation. If the statement is made in writing and published, the defamation is called 'libel'. If the hurtful statement is spoken, the statement is called 'slander'.

QUESTION: 40

The act of unlawfully entering into another’s property

Solution:

The act of unlawfully entering into another's property constitutes. Trespass.

Related tests