Legal Reasoning Test-1


30 Questions MCQ Test Legal Reasoning for CLAT | Legal Reasoning Test-1


Description
This mock test of Legal Reasoning Test-1 for CLAT helps you for every CLAT entrance exam. This contains 30 Multiple Choice Questions for CLAT Legal Reasoning Test-1 (mcq) to study with solutions a complete question bank. The solved questions answers in this Legal Reasoning Test-1 quiz give you a good mix of easy questions and tough questions. CLAT students definitely take this Legal Reasoning Test-1 exercise for a better result in the exam. You can find other Legal Reasoning Test-1 extra questions, long questions & short questions for CLAT on EduRev as well by searching above.
QUESTION: 1

Principle – Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort.

Facts – Ravi and Lakshman are not the best of friends. They have strained relations and they constantly compete against one another for better business prospects. Ravi sets up a grocery store where he sells food grains for Rs. 20 per kilogram, a rate that is substantially lower than other stores in the same area. The store is a huge success, and Ravi gains huge profits, as everybody prefers to buy the grains from his store. Soon after, Lakshman sets up another store next to Ravi‘s and puts up a board that says, Rice – Rs.15 per kilo and  Wheat – Rs. 12 per kilo‘. Attracted by the new offer, all of Ravi‘s customers now prefer to buy grains from Lakshman‘s store. Ravi, hence, incurs heavy losses and is forced to close down his store. He believes that Lakshman has set up the shop in order to make his business fail, and decides to sue Lakshman for damages. Will Ravi succeed?

Solution:

Answer is B because a tort is committed only when a legal right is violated, here it is a case of fare competition where no legal right is violated hence no tort is committed.

QUESTION: 2

Principle: A master is liable for the acts committed by his servant in the course of employment. 

Facts: Sanjay is a driver working in Brooke Bond and Co. One day, the manager asked him to drop a customer at the airport and get back at the earliest on his way back from the airport, he happened to see his fiancé Ruhina waiting for a bus to go home. He offered to drop her at home, which happened to be close to his office she got into the car and soon thereafter the car somersaulted due to the negligence of Sanjay. Ruhina was thrown out of the car and suffered multiple injuries. She seeks compensation from Brooke Bond and Co. 

Solution:
  • Vicarious liability can be defined as a legal doctrine that assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not cause the injury who has a particular relationship to the person who did act negligently. It can also be called imputed negligence.
  • This doctrine arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator.
  • Hence, in the above situation, since the act was not committed in the course of employment, Ruhina will not succeed.
QUESTION: 3

Principle 1 - In the case of tortious liability, a duty of care is owed to the world at large, and anybody affected by such breach of duty of care can sue for damages.

Principle 2 - When two parties enter into a contract and there is a breach of contractual terms, only the party to the contract affected by such breach may sue.

Facts Sushma and her friends were having a party to celebrate their good grades in the recent semester examinations. Sushma ordered several pizzas from a famous pizza chain called Pizzalicious. Reveling in the party atmosphere, Ravali, Sushma‘s friend helped herself to a slice of pizza and took a bite. After she had eaten it, she saw something resembling part of a worm in the remaining slice of the pizza. Ravali was shocked and greatly traumatized by this, and also fell sick subsequently. When she recovered, she wished to sue Pizzalicious for the bad quality of pizza provided by them. Pizzalicious, however, took the defence that they may only be sued by Sushma, who had placed the order for the pizzas and paid for them. Decide.

Solution:
  • Direct from the first principle, as it states in the case of tortious liability, a duty of care is owed to the world at large, and anybody affected by such breach of duty of care can sue for damages. Ravali can sue for tortious liability.
  • And from the second principle it is clear that sushma can sue. ‘When two parties enter into a contract and there is a breach of contractual terms, only the party to the contract affected by such breach may sue.’
QUESTION: 4

Principle Tortious liability may arise even though there is no contract between two parties if one of them has been unjustly enriched at the cost of the other.

Facts – Rohit hears a knock at the door, and sees that someone has come to deliver a bag of grocery supplies. Rohit had not ordered for them, but he silently accepts the supplies without disclosing that he had not ordered them. His neighbor, David, who had actually ordered the supplies and paid for them is perplexed that they have not been delivered yet.

Solution:

Tortious liability is incurred if there has been unjust enrichment.
∴ Rohit would be liable. 

QUESTION: 5

Principle - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability.

Facts Arpita was traveling to Ladakh for a business visit, while she was stopped by some police officers at a check post on the highway. They detained her on the pretext of her possessing illegal substances on her person and restricted her from contacting anybody who might help her in the predicament. As a result of being detained, she was unable to fulfill the purpose of her visit, and the business deal was lost, causing losses to her company. When she was finally released, she wished to sue the police authorities for infringement on her
fundamental rights to movement, speech, and expression.

Q.
Will she succeed in these claims?

Solution:

There has been a violation of her fundamental rights, with respect to both claims. It is immaterial, therefore, whether she has suffered actual damage. 

QUESTION: 6

Principle 1 - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability.

Principle 2 - When a person owes a duty of care to another, and causes breach of such duty of care, he can be said to have violated the other person‘s legal right.

Facts - Stuti studies in a law school, and she wishes to avail the University‘s exchange programme through which she will get an opportunity to study at a foreign law school for one semester. According to the rules to apply for the exchange programme, she must deposit a certain sum with the university before a specified date. So, Stuti goes to the bank, which has a branch in her university‘s campus, and hands over a cheque to be encashed. The banker, who did have the sufficient amount of cash required, and deposited in her account, refused to encash it without giving her any valid reason. Stuti then goes to a different bank, gets her cheque encashed, and successfully applies for the exchange programme.

Q.
Will the banker still be liable for his act?

Solution:

There need not be actual damage, for a claim in the law of Torts. If there has been a violation of a legal right, the claim would stand. Refusal to encash a cheque, despite having the sufficient amount would amount to the violation of a legal right.

QUESTION: 7

Principle 1If an act is done intentionally, the person committing the act would be held liable irrespective of the motive behind the act.

Principle 2 - Where it can reasonably be foreseen that an act would cause harm to the person or property of another, the person committing such an act will be held liable for acting negligently.

Principle 3 - An act committed without intention, accidentally or involuntarily, does not give rise to liability.

Facts - Simon was greatly interested in photography and decided to take a walk in the woods, so he may engage in some wildlife photography. Seeing a butterfly on a bunch of flowers, he kneels behind a bush to get a close shot of it. In the meantime, Adams, who was in the woods to practice shooting, pulls his trigger to shoot a bird. However, he misses his aim, and the dart ricochets off the tree and hits Simon, causing injury to him. In the shock of the moment, Simon lets his expensive camera drop, and the camera is broken. Simon wishes to sue Adams for injury to his person, and for the damage to the camera.

Solution:

Adams had not intended to shoot Simon. He could not have reasonably foreseen that the dart would ricochet off a tree and hit a man kneeling behind a bush. It is an accidental, and involuntary act, so, Adams would not be liable. 

QUESTION: 8

Principle - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability.

Facts Mr. Akhil lives in a locality that lies just off the main road, which supports heavy traffic and is one of the most important roads in his city. The street on which his house is located is, however, quiet and peaceful, and Akhil is pleased to live there. One day, some road repair works are undertaken on the main road, and as a result, the municipal authorities decide to divert the traffic through the street on which Akhil resides. Akhil is greatly disturbed and annoyed by the constant sound of the vehicles, honking, and traffic jams along the narrow street. He wishes to sue the municipal authorities for the nuisance caused by this diversion of traffic.

Q.
Will he succeed?

Solution:

As not legal rights have been violated, so no tortious liability.

QUESTION: 9

Principle - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability.

Facts - Ayush has a shop that offers printing, Xerox, and bookbinding services. In the shop, he also sells notebooks, stationery, printing inks, paper and other such items. He has a big board outside his shop displaying all the things he deals in, and this board is instrumental in attracting customers, who would otherwise be unaware that he sold such things. His shop is situated in a narrow street with several other stores. Rajesh owns a book store next to him, and he installs a display shelf with all the titles he sells, outside his shop in order to woo customers. This shelf obscures the view to Ayush‘s board, and there is a decrease in the number of customers who buy from him. Ayush decides to sue Rajesh and claim damages.

Solution:

By straightway applying the given principle - The setting up of a shelf is within the rights of Rajesh, and does not infringe the legal rights of Ayush in any manner. Ayush cannot claim damages.

QUESTION: 10

Principle Ubi jus ibi remedium. Where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy.

Facts Deepti stays at a hotel in Indonesia for three months. After about a month, she gets fed up of the food served at the hotel, so she goes out to buy some ingredients, vegetables, etc. and asks the hotel chef to prepare a vegetarian meal and serve it in her room. The chef does so, but when the meal is served, she is asked to pay for the meal. Deepti, who had already spent a lot on the ingredients, refuses to pay for the simple vegetarian meal. The next day, at the breakfast table, the chef refuses to serve her any food. Deepti decides to sue the chef and claim damages.

Solution:

The correct option is D.

As the principle states ‘Where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy.’

QUESTION: 11

Principle - When an unlawful act is committed, it is called Malfeasance. The unlawful acts of Malfeasance are those which are generally actionable per se and do not require proof of damage or negligence or malice.

Facts – The estate of Mr. D‘Souza has a private orchard which is abundant in orange trees, beautiful flowering plants, etc. Ritu, greatly awed, wishes to take a walk in this orchard and admire its beauty. She requests the guard several times to let her inside, so she may take a walk, but the guard refuses to do so. He informs her that it is private property, and she can enter it only with the express permission of Mr. D‘Souza. Fed up, Ritu quietly climbs the low fence and enters the orchard. She plucks several exotic flowers and fruits, but is discovered by Mr. D‘Souza, who is livid, and intends to sue her.

Solution:

Ritu has trespassed on D' Souza's property. Since this is an unlawful act in itself, she will be liable. 

QUESTION: 12

Principle Whoever stores a substance which would cause damage on escape shall be strictly liable (i.e., liable even when he has exercised necessary care) for any damage caused by the escape of that substance.

Facts – Cobalamine Co. is a manufacturer of hydrogen peroxide which has several industrial uses, but is also dangerous. The Company has one of its factories set up in Dimapur, a small district. While transporting the hydrogen peroxide from that factory to another place in huge containers, the engine of the truck carrying the chemical got overheated, and this triggered an explosion of the concentrated hydrogen peroxide. The truck driver, and several other people on the road were grievously injured. The reaction was shortly contained by an expert team, and investigations revealed that reasonable precautions had been taken to prevent such a mishap. Will Cobalamine be liable to pay damages to those injured?

Solution:

Hydrogen peroxide is inherently dangerous, so it‟s escape would make Cobalamine strictly liable. 

QUESTION: 13

Principle The master is liable for the wrongful acts of the servant done in the course of employment.

Facts Pradyuman is a mechanic working in the car mechanics shop owned by Abhjit. Pallavi wants her Audi A8 to be serviced and cleaned, as she is planning to go on a long drive soon. She drops off the car at the mechanic‘s, and asks Pradyuman to have it ready in two days. Pradyuman, while trying to drive the car to the jet-cleaning area, accidentally bumps it against the wall and a dent is created on the car door. When Pallavi comes to take her serviced car, she is livid at the condition in which it is returned to her, and wishes to sue for damages.

Solution:

The damage was caused while Pradyuman was driving the car to the jet cleaning area. This act is in the course of employment; therefore, the master would be liable.

QUESTION: 14

Principle 1 - Only a voluntary act gives rise to liability. An involuntary act does not give rise to liability.

Principle 2 - If particular harm can be reasonably foreseen, the person causing such harm will be held liable.

Facts - Mr. Dinshaw, an old and grumpy man, hates stray dogs. He is on a walk with his son, when he sees one on the street, and picks up a stone to throw at it. Perturbed, his son grabs his hand to prevent him from doing so, but the stone was already launched. It hits a glass windowpane and breaks it. Also, while his son makes a grab for Dinshaw‘s hand, he accidentally hits a woman standing nearby, and she suffers a nosebleed. Decide whether a claim for damages will be successful by the woman, and by the owner of the house whose window was broken.

Solution:

Keeping in mind the second principle, the man can be held liable for the damages for the house. And according to the first principle, the boy cannot be held liable if his act was involuntary.

QUESTION: 15

Principle The mere presence of malicious intent does not make a person liable, if his act was in the exercise of a legal right.

Facts - Alexander, a competitive businessman, could not stand the fact that David‘s bakery business was doing so well. In a bid to topple him, Alexander sets up a bakery next to that of David, and offers cakes, bread, and cookies at a much cheaper rate. He also offers free goodies and bakes cakes in interesting flavours, which attracts all the customers to his own bakery. As a result, David incurs huge losses and is forced to close down his store after a few months. He is aware of Alexander‘s ploy to topple his business and wishes to sue him and claim damages.

Solution:

The mere presence of malicious intent does not make a person liable, if his act was in the exercise of a legal right. Alexander did not violate any legal right of david.

QUESTION: 16

Principle Volenti non-fit injuria - Noremedy can be claimed for harm caused through voluntary consent.

Facts On a hot, sunny day, Avtar Singh, a traffic policeman wishes to take a break from his work on the Jangpura-Jayanagar junction. He sees a grocery store nearby and decides to buy some refreshments. To get to the grocery store, he must cross the busy road first. While doing so, he sees that a child has suddenly jumped down from the pavement on the other side, and is attempting to cross the road, despite vehicles hurtling past at a high speed. On seeing an approaching car that the child does not seem to be aware of, Avtarlunges forward and pushes the child out of the way. However, the driver of the car, Mr.Takwani, is unable to stop the car in time and hits Avtar, who sustains serious injuries, including a torn ligament. This means that Avtar will not be able to perform his duties as a traffic policeman for at least six months. He wishes to sue Takwani and claim damages for his loss in income, but Takwani asserts that there was a green light, and he had committed no fault in driving at a reasonable speed. It was Avtar who had suddenly lunged forward, giving him no time to apply the brakes! Decide.

Solution:

The answer has to be A as according to the principle any person who has voluntarily accepted harm or do any act voluntarily that invloves danger and he's aware of it then in that case he will not get any compensation. And in this case the policeman was aware of the danger but still he chose to save the child so he will get no compensation.

QUESTION: 17

Directions: Questions 17- 20 are based on a common set of Principles and Facts. Answer accordingly.

Principle 1 – An action against violation of Fundamental Rights can only be brought against legislative or administrative actions of the state, and not against private actions.
Principle 2- 'State‘ includes the Government of India, the Parliament, the state governments and legislatures, and all local and other authorities under the control of the government of India.
Principle 3 – The fundamental right to equality entails that equals be treated equally.
Principle 4 No citizen shall on the grounds of caste (among other grounds), be ineligible for an office under the State.
Principle 5 – Any law or action of the State that contravenes fundamental rights will be void to the extent of that contravention.

Facts Nirmala and Sitara are both civil servants who have served in different capacities for about twelve years now. Despite several transfers and changes in designation, they have continued to remain friends. One day, they both attend a stirring talk by a Dalit rights activist and are so influenced by this talk, that they want to contribute to the Dalit movement in their capacity as civil servants. They decide to apply for managerial posts at the Department for Minority Affairs. Nirmala‘s application for the post was rejected on the grounds that she was Brahmin herself, and not eligible to manage the affairs of SCs and STs. Sitara‘s application for the post was rejected due to past animosity with Mr. Kapur, head of the Minority Affairs Department. Mr. Kapur, in a scathing email, informed her that she would not be considered for any post that required his approval. Nirmala and Sitara are both enraged by these rejections and allege that their fundamental rights have been violated.

Q. 
Can there be an action for violation of fundamental rights against the Department for Minority Affairs?

Solution:

The very first principle says ‘An action against violation of Fundamental Rights can only be brought against legislative or administrative actions of the state, and not against private actions.; Thus the ministry affairs is not a private department.

QUESTION: 18

Directions: Questions 17- 20 are based on a common set of Principles and Facts. Answer accordingly.
Principle 1 An action against violation of Fundamental Rights can only be brought against legislative or administrative actions of the state, and not against private actions.
Principle 2 - 'State‘ includes the Government of India, the Parliament, the state governments and legislatures, and all local and other authorities under the control of the government of India.
Principle 3 The fundamental right to equality entails that equals be treated equally.
Principle 4 – No citizen shall on the grounds of caste (among other grounds), be ineligible for an office under the State.
Principle 5 – Any law or action of the State that contravenes fundamental rights will be void to the extent of that contravention.

Facts  Nirmala and Sitara are both civil servants who have served in different capacities for about twelve years now. Despite several transfers and changes in designation, they have continued to remain friends. One day, they both attend a stirring talk by a Dalit rights activist and are so influenced by this talk, that they want to contribute to the Dalit movement in their capacity as civil servants. They decide to apply for managerial posts at the Department for Minority Affairs. Nirmala‘s application for the post was rejected on the grounds that she was Brahmin herself, and not eligible to manage the affairs of SCs and STs. Sitara‘s application for the post was rejected due to past animosity with Mr. Kapur, head of the Minority Affairs Department. Mr. Kapur, in a scathing email, informed her that she would not be considered for any post that required his approval. Nirmala and Sitara are both enraged by these rejections and allege that their fundamental rights have been violated.

Q. 
The discrimination here is based on her caste. Therefore, her fundamental right in this regard has been violated. 
Have the fundamental rights of Nirmalabeen violated in this instance?

Solution:

The discrimination here is based on her caste. Therefore, her fundamental right in this regard has been violated. 

QUESTION: 19

Directions: Questions 17- 20 are based on a common set of Principles and Facts. Answer accordingly.
Principle 1 – An action against violation of Fundamental Rights can only be brought against legislative or administrative actions of the state, and not against private actions.
Principle 2 - 'State‘ includes the Government of India, the Parliament, the state governments and legislatures, and all local and other authorities under the control of the government of India.
Principle 3 The fundamental right to equality entails that equals be treated equally.
Principle 4 – No citizen shall on the grounds of caste (among other grounds), be ineligible for an office under the State.
Principle 5 Any law or action of the State that contravenes fundamental rights will be void to the extent of that contravention.

Facts  Nirmala and Sitara are both civil servants who have served in different capacities for about twelve years now. Despite several transfers and changes in designation, they have continued to remain friends. One day, they both attend a stirring talk by a Dalit rights activist and are so influenced by this talk, that they want to contribute to the Dalit movement in their capacity as civil servants. They decide to apply for managerial posts at the Department for Minority Affairs. Nirmala‘s application for the post was rejected on the grounds that she was Brahmin herself, and not eligible to manage the affairs of SCs and STs. Sitara‘s application for the post was rejected due to past animosity with Mr. Kapur, head of the Minority Affairs Department. Mr. Kapur, in a scathing email, informed her that she would not be considered for any post that required his approval. Nirmala and Sitara are both enraged by these rejections and allege that their fundamental rights have been violated.

Q. 
Have the fundamental rights of Sitara been violated?

Solution:

As principle 3 says ‘ The fundamental right to equality entails that equals be treated equally.’ 
She was not treated equally because of personal grudges of Mr. kapur.

QUESTION: 20

Directions: Questions 17- 20 are based on a common set of Principles and Facts. Answer accordingly.
Principle 1 An action against violation of Fundamental Rights can only be brought against legislative or administrative actions of the state, and not against private actions.
Principle 2 - 'State‘ includes the Government of India, the Parliament, the state governments and legislatures, and all local and other authorities under the control of the government of India.
Principle 3 The fundamental right to equality entails that equals be treated equally.
Principle 4 – No citizen shall on the grounds of caste (among other grounds), be ineligible for an office under the State.
Principle 5 – Any law or action of the State that contravenes fundamental rights will be void to the extent of that contravention.

Facts  Nirmala and Sitara are both civil servants who have served in different capacities for about twelve years now. Despite several transfers and changes in designation, they have continued to remain friends. One day, they both attend a stirring talk by a Dalit rights activist and are so influenced by this talk, that they want to contribute to the Dalit movement in their capacity as civil servants. They decide to apply for managerial posts at the Department for Minority Affairs. Nirmala‘s application for the post was rejected on the grounds that she was Brahmin herself, and not eligible to manage the affairs of SCs and STs. Sitara‘s application for the post was rejected due to past animosity with Mr. Kapur, head of the Minority Affairs Department. Mr. Kapur, in a scathing email, informed her that she would not be considered for any post that required his approval. Nirmala and Sitara are both enraged by these rejections and allege that their fundamental rights have been violated.

Q.
Suppose that the Government passes a law that mandates that only persons belonging to the SC/ ST communities can head those departments, would this law be valid?

Solution:

From the mentioned principle ‘ No citizen shall on the grounds of caste (among other grounds), be ineligible for an office under the State.’
But this action will lead to discrimination on the basis of caste.

QUESTION: 21

Directions: Questions 21-24 are based on a common set of Principles and Facts. Answer accordingly.

Principle 1 An offer is made when one person signifies to another, his willingness to do or not do something, with a view to obtaining that person‘s assent.

Principle 2 When the person to whom the offer is made signifies his assent thereto, the offer is said to be accepted.

Principle 3 - When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.

Principle 4 An agreement without consideration is not enforceable under law.

Principle 5 Parties to a contract must agree upon the same thing in the same sense.

Principle 6 Parties competent to contract must be major and of sound mind.

Facts – Sonia is a gardener in the mansion of Mr. Kapoor. Mr. Kapoor is extremely fond of his pet dog, Cooper. One day, Kapoor realizes that Cooper is missing from his kennel. He is frantic with worry and sends Sonia on a quest for the dog. Sonia sets out, pastes notices in public places, and enquires about the dog. She has been instructed to return only if she finds the dog. In the meantime, Kapoor announces in the popular newspaper, The Statesman, that Cooper is missing, and that anybody who finds the Labrador and brings him back would be awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000. The next day, Kaza brings a brown Labrador with him and claims the reward. Mr. Kapoor immediately realizes that the dog is not Cooper, and refuses to pay the sum. Kaza asserts that the dog is named Cooper, is a brown Labrador resembling the picture in the newspaper, and since he has accepted the offer by bringing the dog, there is a valid contract formed, and Kapoor is bound to pay the consideration of Rs. 10,000. Three days later, Sonia manages to find Cooper in a nearby park and brings him back home. Kapoor is overjoyed and raises Sonia‘s salary from Rs. 12,000 per month to Rs. 20,000. Sonia then discovers the notice in the newspaper, goes to Kapoor, and claims the reward. Kapoor refuses to pay, as he has already given her an increment in salary.

Q.
Does Kaza‘s argument stand? Has there been a valid contract formed between Kazaand and Kapoor?

Solution:

The Consent of both the parties upon the same object is needed to make it a valid contract.

QUESTION: 22

Directions: Questions 21-24 are based on a common set of Principles and Facts. Answer accordingly.

Principle 1 – An offer is made when one person signifies to another, his willingness to do or not do something, with a view to obtaining that person‘s assent.

Principle 2 – When the person to whom the offer is made signifies his assent thereto, the offer is said to be accepted.

Principle 3 - When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.

Principle 4 – An agreement without consideration is not enforceable under law.

Principle 5 – Parties to a contract must agree upon the same thing in the same sense.

Principle 6 – Parties competent to contract must be major and of sound mind.

Facts – Sonia is a gardener in the mansion of Mr. Kapoor. Mr. Kapoor is extremely fond of his pet dog, Cooper. One day, Kapoor realizes that Cooper is missing from his kennel. He is frantic with worry and sends Sonia on a quest for the dog. Sonia sets out, pastes notices in public places, and enquires about the dog. She has been instructed to return only if she finds the dog. In the meantime, Kapoor announces in the popular newspaper, The Statesman, that Cooper is missing, and that anybody who finds the Labrador and brings him back would be awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000. The next day, Kaza brings a brown Labrador with him and claims the reward. Mr. Kapoor immediately realizes that the dog is not Cooper, and refuses to pay the sum. Kaza asserts that the dog is named Cooper, is a brown Labrador resembling the picture in the newspaper, and since he has accepted the offer by bringing the dog, there is a valid contract formed, and Kapoor is bound to pay the consideration of Rs. 10,000. Three days later, Sonia manages to find Cooper in a nearby park and brings him back home. Kapoor is overjoyed and raises Sonia‘s salary from Rs. 12,000 per month to Rs. 20,000. Sonia then discovers the notice in the newspaper, goes to Kapoor, and claims the reward. Kapoor refuses to pay, as he as already given her an increment in salary.

Q.
Is Sonia liable to claim the reward? Would Kapoor have to pay her the amount?

Solution:

Sonia brought back the dog as instructed by Kapoor, and not because she had seen the notice in the newspaper. Her act cannot be construed as acceptance because she had no knowledge of the offer in the first place. 

QUESTION: 23

Directions: Questions 21-24 are based on a common set of Principles and Facts. Answer accordingly.

Principle 1 – An offer is made when one person signifies to another, his willingness to do or not do something, with a view to obtaining that person‘s assent.

Principle 2 – When the person to whom the offer is made signifies his assent thereto, the offer is said to be accepted.

Principle 3 - When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.

Principle 4 – An agreement without consideration is not enforceable under law.

Principle 5 – Parties to a contract must agree upon the same thing in the same sense.

Principle 6 – Parties competent to contract must be major and of sound mind.

Facts – Sonia is a gardener in the mansion of Mr. Kapoor. Mr. Kapoor is extremely fond of his pet dog, Cooper. One day, Kapoor realizes that Cooper is missing from his kennel. He is frantic with worry and sends Sonia on a quest for the dog. Sonia sets out, pastes notices in public places, and enquires about the dog. She has been instructed to return only if she finds the dog. In the meantime, Kapoor announces in the popular newspaper, The Statesman, that Cooper is missing, and that anybody who finds the Labrador and brings him back would be awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000. The next day, Kaza brings a brown Labrador with him and claims the reward. Mr. Kapoor immediately realizes that the dog is not Cooper, and refuses to pay the sum. Kaza asserts that the dog is named Cooper, is a brown Labrador resembling the picture in the newspaper, and since he has accepted the offer by bringing the dog, there is a valid contract formed, and Kapoor is bound to pay the consideration of Rs. 10,000. Three days later, Sonia manages to find Cooper in a nearby park and brings him back home. Kapoor is overjoyed and raises Sonia‘s salary from Rs. 12,000 per month to Rs. 20,000. Sonia then discovers the notice in the newspaper, goes to Kapoor, and claims the reward. Kapoor refuses to pay, as he as already given her an increment in salary.

Q.
Suppose that Harsha, Kapoor‘s neighbor, while taking a walk in the park, recognizes copper and brings him back. He is unaware of the newspaper notice. Can he claim the reward?

Solution:

According to the principle ‘When the person to whom the offer is made signifies his assent thereto, the offer is said to be accepted’
His neighbor is unknown of the offer made by Kappor so he has no knowledge of it and thus no acceptance and an offer is meant only when the other accepts it.

QUESTION: 24

Directions: Questions 21-24 are based on a common set of Principles and Facts. Answer accordingly.

Principle 1 – An offer is made when one person signifies to another, his willingness to do or not do something, with a view to obtaining that person‘s assent.

Principle 2 – When the person to whom the offer is made signifies his assent thereto, the offer is said to be accepted.

Principle 3 - When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.

Principle 4 – An agreement without consideration is not enforceable under law.

Principle 5 – Parties to a contract must agree upon the same thing in the same sense.

Principle 6 – Parties competent to contract must be major, and of sound mind.

Facts – Sonia is a gardener in the mansion of Mr. Kapoor. Mr. Kapoor is extremely fond of his pet dog, Cooper. One day, Kapoor realizes that Cooper is missing from his kennel. He is frantic with worry, and sends Sonia on a quest for the dog. Sonia sets out, pastes notices in public places and enquires about the dog. She has been instructed to return only if she finds the dog. In the meantime, Kapoor announces in the popular newspaper, The Statesman, that Cooper is missing, and that anybody who finds the Labrador and brings him back would be awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000. The next day, Kaza brings a brown Labrador with him and claims the reward. Mr. Kapoor immediately realizes that the dog is not Cooper, and refuses to pay the sum. Kaza asserts that the dog is named Cooper, is a brown Labrador resembling the picture in the newspaper, and since he has accepted the offer by bringing the dog, there is a valid contract formed, and Kapoor is bound to pay the consideration of Rs. 10,000. Three days later, Sonia manages to find Cooper in a nearby park, and brings him back home. Kapoor is overjoyed and raises Sonia‘s salary from Rs. 12,000 per month to Rs. 20,000. Sonia then discovers the notice in the newspaper, goes to Kapoor, and claims the reward. Kapoor refuses to pay, as he as already given her an increment in salary.

Q. Suppose that Pix and Twix, two eight-year-old children who live in the nearby slum, have had Cooper with them for three days. They then see the newspaper notice and take Cooper back to Kapoor. Can they claim the reward?

Solution:

Principle 6 says ‘Parties competent to contract must be major, and of sound mind.’
But the two children are 8 years and are minor.

QUESTION: 25

Principle – Volenti non-fit injuria – One who voluntarily consents to harm, cannot seek damages.

Facts – Jitesh is a tennis player with the NALSAR Tennis Association. One evening, while playing an intense match of tennis, the Vice-Chancellor of the university decides to visit the tennis court to watch the match. He enters the court, seats himself at the stands, and watches the progress of the match. Accidentally, he drops his watch on the court, and Jitesh steps on it while trying to hit a backhand. The watch is a Rolex and has been shattered to pieces. Jitesh is terrified of disciplinary action that might be taken against him and is also upset that he has broken a Rolex, endorsed by his favorite player, Federer. He approaches you for advice.

Solution:

As the principle says ‘Volenti non fit injuria – One who voluntarily consents to harm, cannot seek damages.’
The vice chancellor on his own discretion enters the court, thus he cannot get the compensation.

QUESTION: 26

Directions: Questions 26-28 are based on a common set of principles and facts. Answer accordingly.

Principle 1 – An offer may be made to the world at large, but a contract can only be made with the person who performs the conditions of the offer and thereby accepts the offer.

Principle 2 – In order for a contract to be valid, there must be an intention to enter into legal relations.

Facts – Fight Anopheles Inc. is a company that manufactures mosquito repellant coils, sprays, etc. They have invented a new mosquito repellant cream that insulates specifically from the lethal bite of the Anopheles mosquito, the transmitting agent for malaria. In order to advertise and increase sales of this repellant cream, they put out an advertisement in the popular daily, The Logical Citizen. It claims that Fight Anopheles Inc. shall pay a sum of Rs. 5000 to anyone who contracts malaria despite having used the repellant cream. Further, it states that Rs. 50,000 has already been deposited at the Enigma Bank as a mark of Anopheles‘ sincerity in the matter. Ms. Dunbar comes across this advertisement and is intrigued by the product. Hoping that it will keep the mosquito menace at bay, she purchases it and uses it every day, but contracts malaria nonetheless. Upset that she had put her faith in an absolutely ineffective
product, she claims that the sum of Rs. 5000 be paid to her immediately.

Q.
Has there been an intention to contract?

Solution:

The fact that a large and considerable sum of money was deposited in the bank shows that the advertisement was not merely a puff, but rather intended legal consequences.

QUESTION: 27

Directions: Questions 26-28 are based on a common set of principles and facts. Answer accordingly.

Principle 1 – An offer may be made to the world at large, but a contract can only be made with the person who performs the conditions of the offer and thereby accepts the offer.

Principle 2 – In order for a contract to be valid, there must be an intention to enter into legal relations.

Facts – Fight Anopheles Inc. is a company that manufactures mosquito repellant coils, sprays, etc. They have invented a new mosquito repellant cream that insulates specifically from the lethal bite of the Anopheles mosquito, the transmitting agent for malaria. In order to advertise and increase sales of this repellant cream, they put out an advertisement in the popular daily, The Logical Citizen. It claims that Fight Anopheles Inc. shall pay a sum of Rs. 5000 to anyone who contracts malaria despite having used the repellant cream. Further, it states that Rs. 50,000 has already been deposited at the Enigma Bank as a mark of Anopheles‘ sincerity in the matter. Ms. Dunbar comes across this advertisement and is intrigued by the product. Hoping that it will keep the mosquito menace at bay, she purchases it and uses it every day, but contracts malaria nonetheless. Upset that she had put her faith in an absolutely ineffective product, she claims that the sum of Rs. 5000 be paid to her immediately.

Q.
Is Anopheles liable to pay?

Solution:

The principle says ‘An offer may be made to the world at large, but a contract can only be made with the person who performs the conditions of the offer and thereby accepts the offer.’
And in this case  Dundar had taken all the instructions/conditions of the that cream but still got infected by the mosquito disease.

QUESTION: 28

Directions: Questions 26-28 are based on a common set of principles and facts. Answer accordingly.

Principle 1 – An offer may be made to the world at large, but a contract can only be made with the person who performs the conditions of the offer and thereby accepts the offer.

Principle 2 – In order for a contract to be valid, there must be an intention to enter into legal relations.

Facts – Fight Anopheles Inc. is a company that manufactures mosquito repellant coils, sprays, etc. They have invented a new mosquito repellant cream that insulates specifically from the lethal bite of the Anopheles mosquito, the transmitting agent for malaria. In order to advertise and increase sales of this repellant cream, they put out an advertisement in the popular daily, The Logical Citizen. It claims that Fight Anopheles Inc. shall pay a sum of Rs. 5000 to anyone who contracts malaria despite having used the repellant cream. Further, it states that Rs. 50,000 has already been deposited at the Enigma Bank as a mark of Anopheles‘ sincerity in the matter. Ms. Dunbar comes across this advertisement and is intrigued by the product. Hoping that it will keep the mosquito menace at bay, she purchases it and uses it every day, but contracts malaria nonetheless. Upset that she had put her faith in an absolutely ineffective product, she claims that the sum of Rs. 5000 be paid to her immediately.

Q.
Ms. Sharp, who also saw the advertisement, decides to test the repellant cream for its efficacy. Despite its usage, she contracts malaria, and wishes to sueAnopheles for misrepresentation and claim the sum. Suppose that Anopheles has already paid Ms. Dunbar the sum, would they still be liable to pay Ms. Sharp?

Solution:

Principle 1 states that a contract can only be made with the "persons who performs the conditions" of the offer . In the advertisement the company states that they will pay a sum of Rs 5k to "anyone" who contracts malaria despite having used the repellant cream. The company hasn't cleared that they will compensate only the first complainant for this .

QUESTION: 29

Directions: Questions 29-30 are based on a common set of principles and facts. Answer accordingly.

Principle 1 – An offer is the final expression of willingness by the offeror to be bound by his offer, should the other party choose to accept it.

Principle 2 – An invitation to offer merely invites others to make offers that one may or may not accept. It is not an offer in itself.

Principle 3 – Acceptance needs to be communicated to the offeror.

Facts – Lockhart writes to his closest friend and aide, Helga, ―I wish to sell my book, A Cauldron Full of Hot Strong Love, for 200 Galleons.

He then sends a letter to Sirius – ―Sirius, I have been meaning to sell my book, the one that chronicles our adolescent experiments in love and other adventures. What do you think?

He also writes to Harry  ―Harry, I am your biggest fan. Would you like to buy my book, A Cauldron Full of Hot Strong Love, for 200 Galleons? and to Ron ―Ron, I see that you are in need of advice on matters of the heart. Why don‘t you buy my book, A Cauldron Full of Hot Strong Love, for 200 Galleons? Willing to offer a discount of 20%.

Harry sees the letter, makes a mental note of Lockhart‘s message, and throws the letter in the dustbin. He intends to buy the book and makes a reminder note to write back to Lockhart and send him a sum of 200 Galleons.

Ron receives the letter and immediately writes back to Lockhart saying that he would like to buy the book. He posts the letter, the letter reaches Lockhart, but he then decides not to offer the discount or even sell the book to Ron.

Q.
Has Lockhart made an offer to Helga?

Solution:

There is no offer made here. Lockhart has merely said that he wishes to sell it, but this is not a final expression of willingness to be bound. 

QUESTION: 30

Directions: Questions 29-30 are based on a common set of principles and facts. Answer accordingly.

Principle 1 – An offer is the final expression of willingness by the offeror to be bound by his offer, should the other party choose to accept it.

Principle 2 – An invitation to offer merely invites others to make offers that one may or may not accept. It is not an offer in itself.

Principle 3 – Acceptance needs to be communicated to the offeror.

Facts – Lockhart writes to his closest friend and aide, Helga, ―I wish to sell my book, A Cauldron Full of Hot Strong Love, for 200 Galleons.

He then sends a letter to Sirius – ―Sirius, I have been meaning to sell my book, the one that chronicles our adolescent experiments in love and other adventures. What do you think?

He also writes to Harry – ―Harry, I am your biggest fan. Would you like to buy my book, A Cauldron Full of Hot Strong Love, for 200 Galleons? and to Ron ―Ron, I see that you are in need of advice on matters of the heart. Why don‘t you buy my book, A Cauldron Full of Hot Strong Love, for 200 Galleons? Willing to offer a discount of 20%.

Harry sees the letter, makes a mental note of Lockhart‘s message, and throws the letter in the dustbin. He intends to buy the book and makes a reminder note to write back to Lockhart and send him a sum of 200 Galleons.

Ron receives the letter and immediately writes back to Lockhart saying that he would like to buy the book. He posts the letter, the letter reaches Lockhart, but he then decides not to offer the discount or even sell the book to Ron.

Q.
Has Lockhart made Sirius an offer?

Solution:

The principle says that ‘An invitation to offer merely invites others to make offers that one may or may not accept. It is not an offer in itself.’
He merely asked for his suggestion. lockhart didn't tell him any offer for the book he merely asked his opinion on selling his book.

Related tests

  • TEST1