Test: Legal Aptitude- 1 - CLAT MCQ

The correct option is B.

There is no direct relation between assertion and reason.

Explanation:
The given assertion states that if any part of a single consideration for one or more objects or any one or any part of any one of several considerations for a single object is lawful, then the agreement is void.
The given reason states that an agreement not enforceable by law is said to be void.
To evaluate the validity of the assertion and reason, we need to analyze both statements individually and then determine the relationship between them.
Assertion:
- If any part of a single consideration for one or more objects or any one or any part of any one of several considerations for a single object is lawful, then the agreement is void.
Reason:
- An agreement not enforceable by law is said to be void.
Analysis:
- The assertion states that if any part of a consideration is lawful, the agreement is void. This means that even if a small part of the consideration is legal, the entire agreement becomes void.
- The reason states that an agreement not enforceable by law is void. This is a general definition of a void agreement.
Relationship between the Assertion and Reason:
- The reason provides a general definition of a void agreement, which supports the assertion that any agreement with a lawful part is void.
Conclusion:
- Both the assertion and reason are true.
- The reason correctly explains the assertion.
- Therefore, the correct answer is A: Both (A) and (R) are true, and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).

MINOR’S LIABILITY FOR NECESSARIES
According to section 68, the necessaries supplied to the minor “should be suited to the condition in life “as we all know there are so many things which are essential for are life and without which we can’t live. We all know that if we will not get the things then we survive as they are very important for everyone but a minor can’t make a contract with anyone as he or she can’t come in contact with anyone then the question arise that who will provide him or her necessities means the things which are very important for everyone and without which nobody can live. By seeing or we can say by observing all situations it is allowed that if anyone will provide necessities to a minor then minor will be liable towards that person means if anyone is providing any necessities to the minor then minor have to pay the cost of that service or that good. Necessities do not mean bare necessities of life, but means such things as may be necessaries to maintain a person according to his condition in life.

Explanation:
The given assertion and reason state that vindictive or exemplary damages of tort are unknown in a contract and the award of damages in case of breach of a contract is not made as a punishment for wrong. Let's analyze the statement:
Assertion: As a general rule, vindictive or exemplary damages of tort are unknown in contract.
- This means that in contract law, it is not common to award vindictive or exemplary damages for a breach of contract.
Reason: The award of damages in case of breach of a contract is made not as a punishment for wrong.
- This is stating that the purpose of awarding damages in a breach of contract case is not to punish the wrongdoer but to compensate the injured party for the loss suffered.
Now let's evaluate the options:
A: Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)
- This option correctly states that both the assertion and reason are true, and the reason explains the assertion.
B: Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)
- This option is incorrect as the reason does explain the assertion accurately.
C: (A) is true (R) is wrong
- This option is incorrect as both the assertion and reason are true.
D: (A) is wrong (R) is true
- This option is incorrect as both the assertion and reason are true.
Therefore, the correct answer is option A: Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).

An agreement to share the benefits of public office can be classified as void. Here's why:
Definition of Void:
A void agreement is one that is not enforceable by law and has no legal effect. It is considered as if it never existed.
Explanation:
In most jurisdictions, the sharing of benefits of public office is illegal and against public policy. Public office is a position of trust and authority, and any agreement to share its benefits would undermine the integrity and impartiality of the office.
Reasons for being Void:
1. Against Public Policy: Agreements that are against public policy are considered void. Sharing the benefits of public office is against the principles of public policy as it promotes corruption and nepotism.
2. Unlawful Consideration: For an agreement to be valid, there must be lawful consideration. Sharing the benefits of public office involves an unlawful consideration, which further renders the agreement void.
3. Illegal Act: Sharing benefits of public office is an illegal act in many jurisdictions. Any agreement that involves an illegal act is considered void and unenforceable.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, an agreement to share the benefits of public office is considered void. It goes against public policy, involves an unlawful consideration, and is an illegal act. Such agreements are not enforceable by law and have no legal effect.

Explanation:
The correct answer is C: A void agreement.

• An agreement to sell a cargo of corn that does not exist at the time of the contract is considered a void agreement.


• A void agreement is a contract that is not enforceable by law and is considered to have no legal effect.


• In this case, since the cargo of corn does not exist at the time of the contract, there is no object or subject matter for the agreement to be based on.


• Therefore, the agreement is void and is not legally binding on either party.

Key Points:
- Agreement to sell a non-existent cargo of corn is void.
- Void agreement is not enforceable by law.
- The agreement has no legal effect.
- There is no object or subject matter for the agreement to be based on.
- The agreement is not legally binding on either party.

Explanation:
To understand the solution to this question, let's break it down:
Non-gratuitous act:
A non-gratuitous act refers to an act or service that is provided without any expectation of payment or compensation in return. It is a voluntary act that benefits another person.
A person enjoying the benefit:
This refers to the individual who is receiving the benefit of the non-gratuitous act. They are the ones who are benefiting from the act or service provided by someone else.
Obligation to make compensation:
The question asks whether the person enjoying the benefit of the non-gratuitous act is under an obligation to make compensation for this benefit. In other words, do they have a responsibility or duty to repay or compensate the person who provided the act or service?
Possible options:
The options provided are:
A: Is under an obligation to make compensation for this benefit.
B: May make compensation at his option.
C: Has no obligation towards anyone.
D: Has no remedy available against him.

Based on the given information, the correct answer is option A: "Is under an obligation to make compensation for this benefit." Here's why:
- When someone benefits from a non-gratuitous act, they are morally and ethically obligated to compensate the person who provided the act or service.
- This compensation may not necessarily be in the form of monetary payment, but it could be in the form of gratitude, returning the favor, or providing assistance in some other way.
- It is important to acknowledge and appreciate the efforts of others who have selflessly helped or provided a service without expecting anything in return.
- By compensating for the benefit received, the person demonstrates their recognition and gratitude towards the person who performed the non-gratuitous act.
Therefore, the person enjoying the benefit of a non-gratuitous act is indeed under an obligation to make compensation for this benefit.

When a party suffers a loss as a result of a breach of contract, they can usually claim ordinary damages. Let's break down the options and explain them in detail:

Ordinary damages:
- Ordinary damages, also known as general damages, are the most common type of damages awarded in breach of contract cases.
- These damages are intended to compensate the injured party for the loss or harm they have suffered as a result of the breach.
- The purpose of ordinary damages is to put the injured party in the position they would have been in if the contract had been properly performed.
- Ordinary damages can include compensation for financial loss, such as the cost of repairing or replacing damaged property, lost profits, or additional expenses incurred as a result of the breach.
Special damages:
- Special damages, also known as consequential or indirect damages, are damages that arise from the particular circumstances of the case.
- Unlike ordinary damages, special damages are not a direct result of the breach itself but are a consequence of the breach.
- Special damages are only recoverable if they were foreseeable by the breaching party at the time the contract was made.
- Examples of special damages can include lost business opportunities, loss of reputation, or additional costs incurred due to the breach.
Exemplary damages:
- Exemplary damages, also known as punitive or vindictive damages, are awarded in addition to ordinary damages.
- These damages are not intended to compensate the injured party but rather to punish the breaching party for their wrongful conduct and deter others from similar behavior.
- Exemplary damages are typically only awarded in cases where the breaching party's conduct was particularly egregious or malicious.
Penal damages:
- Penal damages are not a recognized category of damages in the context of breach of contract.
- Penal damages are a form of punishment imposed by the state in criminal cases and are unrelated to breach of contract claims.
Therefore, in the usual course, a party who suffers a loss as a result of a breach of contract can claim ordinary damages to compensate for their losses.

A counter offer is:

A counter offer is a rejection of the original offer.

Explanation:

When a counter offer is made, it means that the party receiving the original offer is rejecting it and proposing a new offer with different terms or conditions. Here's why a counter offer is considered a rejection of the original offer:

• Rejection of terms: By making a counter offer, the party is indicating that they do not agree with the terms or conditions outlined in the original offer.


• Proposal of new terms: With a counter offer, the party is suggesting alternative terms or conditions that they believe would be more acceptable.


• Termination of original offer: When a counter offer is made, it effectively terminates the original offer. The party making the counter offer is no longer bound by the terms of the original offer.


• Shift in negotiation: A counter offer initiates a negotiation process, where both parties may go back and forth until they reach an agreement that is mutually acceptable.

Therefore, a counter offer is not an acceptance of the original offer, but rather a rejection of it, leading to further negotiation and potential agreement on revised terms.

The correct answer is A as the reason given is true in relation with the statement given.

X and Y had similar intention but did not have prior concert of mind thus they cannot be liable for murder together with the aid of section 34 IPC.

Explanation:
To analyze the situation and determine the guilt of 'A' officer, let's break down the options and understand their implications:
A: Illegal arrest
- This option suggests that 'A' officer is guilty of making an illegal arrest. However, further analysis is required to confirm this.
B: No offence if after enquiries he arrested Q
- This option implies that if 'A' officer conducted enquiries after the arrest and discovered that Q was the intended target, then he is not guilty of any offense.
- The key point here is whether 'A' officer conducted proper enquiries after the arrest.
C: Wrongful restraint
- This option suggests that 'A' officer is guilty of wrongful restraint. However, it does not consider the possibility of 'A' officer realizing his mistake and rectifying it.
D: Wrongful confinement
- This option implies that 'A' officer is guilty of wrongful confinement. However, it also does not consider the possibility of 'A' officer realizing his mistake and rectifying it.
Final Analysis:
- From the given options, option B seems to be the most appropriate and logical choice.
- If 'A' officer, after realizing his mistake, conducted proper enquiries and arrested the correct person (Q), then he is not guilty of any offense.
- However, if 'A' officer failed to conduct proper enquiries and wrongfully arrested Q without rectifying the mistake, then he may be guilty of illegal arrest or wrongful confinement.
Therefore, without further information on whether 'A' officer conducted enquiries after the arrest, we can conclude that the answer is indeed option B: No offence if after enquiries he arrested Q.

The correct option is C.

This can be understood by the given example.

A, with the intention of murdering Z, instigates B, a child under seven years of age, to do an act which causes Z’s death. B, in consequence of the abetment, does the act in the absence of A and thereby causes Z’s death. Here, though B was not capable by law of committing an offence, A is liable to be punished in the same manner as if B had been capable by law of committing an offence, and had committed murder, and he is therefore subject to the punishment of death.

Offence committed by X: Extortion

Explanation:

1. Elements of the offence:
- X induces Z to sign a blank paper and deliver it to X.
- X does this by putting Z in fear of grievous hurt.
- X's act is dishonest.
2. Analysis of the elements:
- X's act of inducing Z to sign a blank paper and deliver it to X qualifies as extortion.
- X uses the fear of grievous hurt to compel Z to comply with their demand.
- The act is considered dishonest as X is intentionally deceiving Z to obtain their consent.
3. Definition of extortion:
- Extortion is defined as the act of obtaining property or valuable security from a person by intentionally causing or attempting to cause that person to do any act against their will, by putting them in fear of any injury to that person or any other person.
4. Comparison with other offences:
- Criminal misappropriation: This offence involves dishonestly misappropriating someone else's property, which is not the case here as X is seeking Z's consent for the blank paper.
- Robbery: Robbery involves the use of force or the threat of force to steal property from someone, which is not the case here as X is using fear to obtain Z's signature on a blank paper.
- No offence: X's actions clearly meet the criteria for extortion, so this option is incorrect.
5. Conclusion:
- Based on the analysis, the offence committed by X is extortion.

The correct option is A.
According to section 405 of IPC, Criminal breach of trust.—Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriated or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”
 

Explanation:
The assertion states that an accused person has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. This means that the accused person should be provided with clear and specific information about the charges against them.
The reason given is that an accused person can get their conviction quashed upon vague and obscure charges. This means that if the charges against the accused person are not clearly stated or are unclear, they can challenge their conviction and have it overturned.
To evaluate the assertion and reason, we need to determine whether they are both true and whether the reason correctly explains the assertion.
- The assertion is true: The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation is a fundamental principle of criminal justice systems in many countries. It ensures that the accused person knows exactly what they are being charged with and can prepare a defense accordingly.
- The reason is also true: If the charges against an accused person are vague or obscure, it becomes difficult for them to defend themselves effectively. In such cases, the accused person can challenge the charges and argue that their conviction should be quashed.
- The reason correctly explains the assertion: The reason explains why it is important for the accused person to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. If the charges are vague or obscure, the accused person cannot effectively exercise their right to defend themselves.
Based on this analysis, the correct answer is (A) Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).

Explanation:
The correct answer is D: He can move the supreme court for the same writ because the rule of res judicata will not apply in this case. Here's why:
- Res judicata: Res judicata is a legal principle that prevents a matter that has already been adjudicated by a competent court from being re-litigated. It ensures finality and certainty in legal proceedings.
- High court refusal: The person's petition for habeas corpus has been refused by the High Court on merits, which means that the matter has already been decided by a competent court.
- Supreme court: The person seeks to move the Supreme Court by an original petition. The Supreme Court is the highest court in India and has the power to hear cases directly, including those involving the enforcement of fundamental rights.
- Rule of res judicata: The rule of res judicata applies to prevent the re-litigation of a matter that has already been decided. However, there are exceptions to this rule, one of which is the enforcement of fundamental rights.
- Enforcement of fundamental rights: The right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution of India, is itself a fundamental right. This right cannot be limited by the rule of res judicata.
- Original petition: In this case, the person is seeking to move the Supreme Court by way of an original petition. This means that they are directly approaching the Supreme Court, rather than appealing against the High Court's decision.
- Supreme Court's jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to hear matters involving the enforcement of fundamental rights and can entertain original petitions in such cases.
Therefore, the person can move the Supreme Court for the same writ because the rule of res judicata will not apply in this case. Their right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental right is itself a fundamental right, which takes precedence over the rule of res judicata.

Executive Power of the Union:
The executive power of the union refers to the authority and responsibility to enforce laws and administer the government at the central level in India. It is vested in the President of India.
The President of India:
The President of India is the head of state and the first citizen of the country. They are elected by an electoral college consisting of the elected members of both houses of Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies of the states. The President holds the highest constitutional office in India and exercises executive powers on behalf of the union.
Key Points:
- The President of India is the embodiment of the executive power of the union.
- The President is elected by an electoral college.
- The President holds the highest constitutional office in India.
- The President exercises executive powers on behalf of the union.
Therefore, the answer to the given question is B: President of India.

Explanation:

The correct answer is C: Swaran Singh Committee.
The Fundamental Duties were added to the Indian Constitution through the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976. This amendment was made in accordance with the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee. Here is a detailed explanation of the Swaran Singh Committee and its role in the inclusion of Fundamental Duties:
1. Swaran Singh Committee:
- The Swaran Singh Committee was constituted in 1976 by the government of India.
- The committee was headed by Swaran Singh, a prominent politician and former Union Minister.
- The main objective of the committee was to examine the feasibility of including Fundamental Duties in the Indian Constitution.
2. Recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee:
- The committee submitted its report in 1976, which recommended the inclusion of Fundamental Duties in the Constitution.
- It proposed a list of ten Fundamental Duties that every citizen of India should follow.
- The committee believed that these duties would help in promoting a sense of responsibility, discipline, and national integration among the citizens.
3. 42nd Amendment Act, 1976:
- Based on the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee, the 42nd Amendment Act was passed by the Parliament in 1976.
- This amendment added a new part, Part IV-A, to the Indian Constitution, which consists of a list of ten Fundamental Duties.
- These duties are non-justiciable, meaning that they are not enforceable by law, but they are considered morally binding on every citizen.
4. Significance of Fundamental Duties:
- The inclusion of Fundamental Duties in the Constitution emphasizes the obligations and responsibilities of citizens towards the nation.
- They serve as a reminder to citizens that along with their rights, they also have certain duties towards the country.
- These duties cover various aspects such as respecting the national flag and anthem, promoting harmony, preserving the environment, and upholding the ideals of the Constitution.
In conclusion, the Swaran Singh Committee played a crucial role in recommending the inclusion of Fundamental Duties in the Indian Constitution. These duties were added through the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, highlighting the importance of citizens' responsibilities towards the nation.

The correct option is B

Both the statements are true but one deals with Qualification and other with number of members. 

R does not explains A.

The President of India is the chief executive head of the Union and he is the integral part of the Parliament. He exercises executive functions and several legislative and judicial functions. The Constitution empowers the president to grant Parsons to persons who have been tried and convicted of any offence in all cases where the:

1. Punishment or sentence is for an offence against a Union Law;

2. Punishment is by a court martial.

3. Sentence is sentence of death. 

This power includes Pardon, Commutation, Remission, Respite and Reprieve.

Assertion: The principle of equality before law means that there should be equality of treatment under equal circumstances.
Reason: All persons are not equal by nature, attainment or circumstances.

The given assertion and reason can be analyzed as follows:
1. Equality before law: This principle states that all individuals, regardless of their social status, wealth, or any other characteristic, should be treated equally under the law. It implies that no one is above the law and everyone should receive fair and just treatment.
2. Equality of treatment: This means that individuals who are in similar circumstances should be treated in the same manner. It ensures that there is no discrimination or bias in the application of laws.
3. Explanation: The reason provided states that all persons are not equal by nature, attainment, or circumstances. While it is true that individuals vary in various aspects, such as their abilities, achievements, and backgrounds, the principle of equality before law focuses on treating individuals equally under similar circumstances, regardless of their differences.
4. Conclusion: Both the assertion and reason are true, and the reason correctly explains the principle of equality before law. The principle does not aim to make all individuals exactly equal in every aspect but rather to ensure equal treatment under equal circumstances.
Therefore, the correct answer is both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).

The Structure of the Indian Constitution

The structure of the Indian constitution can be described as federal in form and unitary in spirit. Here is a detailed explanation:

A. Federal in Form

• The Indian constitution follows a federal structure, which means power is divided between the central government and the state governments.


• There is a clear separation of powers between the central and state governments, with each having their own jurisdictions and responsibilities.


• The central government has the authority to make laws on matters listed in the Union List, which includes subjects of national importance such as defense, foreign affairs, and currency.


• The state governments have the authority to make laws on matters listed in the State List, which includes subjects of local or regional importance such as police, public health, and agriculture.


• There is also a Concurrent List, which includes subjects that are of common interest to both the central and state governments. Laws can be made by both levels of government on these subjects.


• The constitution provides for a dual system of government where both the central and state governments have their own executive, legislative, and judicial powers.

B. Unitary in Spirit

• Although the Indian constitution follows a federal structure, it is also unitary in spirit.


• The central government has more powers and authority compared to the state governments.


• In case of any conflict or inconsistency between the laws made by the central and state governments, the central laws prevail.


• The central government has the power to intervene in the affairs of the state governments and can even dismiss a state government in certain circumstances.


• The Indian constitution provides for a strong center, which ensures the unity and integrity of the country.

In conclusion, the Indian constitution is federal in form as it divides power between the central and state governments. However, it is unitary in spirit as it gives more powers to the central government and maintains the unity of the country. Therefore, the correct answer is A: Federal in form, unitary in spirit.

Explanation:
The president of India has the power to declare an emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution of India. This article allows the president to proclaim a state of emergency if he/she is satisfied that a grave emergency exists, wherein the security of India or a part of its territory is threatened by war, external aggression, or armed rebellion.
The correct answer is option B: 1, 3, and 4. The president can declare an emergency on the following grounds:
1. War: If there is an armed conflict or a threat of armed conflict with another country, the president can declare an emergency.
3. External aggression: If there is an attack or an imminent threat of attack on India by another country, the president can declare an emergency.
4. Armed rebellion: If there is an armed uprising or revolt within the country, the president can declare an emergency.
It is important to note that internal disturbance alone is not mentioned as a ground for declaring an emergency under Article 352. However, internal disturbance can be a factor that contributes to armed rebellion, and in such cases, the president can declare an emergency on the grounds of armed rebellion.
In conclusion, the president of India has the power to declare an emergency under Article 352 on the grounds of war, external aggression, and armed rebellion.

The correct answer is B: She will not succeed because Mr Rajesh was justified in shooting the dog to protect himself.
Reasoning:
- According to the given principle, every person has the right to defend himself, his property, or possession against immediate harm, and can use a reasonable amount of force.
- Mr Rajesh was passing by Mrs Saxena's house when her dog ran out and bit his overcoat. Even though the dog was running away at the time, Mr Rajesh had the right to defend himself from any potential harm.
- Mrs Saxena claims that her dog was of a rare breed and worth Rs. 5000, and she plans to bring a legal action for compensation. However, she cannot succeed in getting compensation because:
- Mr Rajesh took action to protect himself, which is his right under the principle.
- The dog had a history of attacking other people in the locality, posing a potential threat to the public safety. Shooting the dog was a reasonable action to protect not only himself but also others in the future.
- Therefore, Mrs Saxena will not succeed in getting compensation from Mr Rajesh.
In conclusion, the correct answer is B: She will not succeed because Mr Rajesh was justified in shooting the dog to protect himself.

Principle: A person cannot complain against a harm to which he has voluntarily consented. Precautions can be taken only against reasonably foreseeable mishaps.

Situation: At an athletic meet, during a hammer throw, the hammer came apart and hit a middle distance runner who was sitting 10 meters outside the throwing area. The runner sustained severe injuries on the head and neck. The runner filed a suit for damages. The standard precautions were taken for throwing the 7 kg hammer. The runner

Option: (i)

• The runner would be able to recover because the organizers had failed to keep the equipment in good condition.

Option: (ii) and (iii)

• The runner would not be able to recover because the injuries were caused in a freak accident.


• The runner would not be able to recover because she had agreed to participate in the sports meet with all the expectant risks.

Option: (iii)

• The runner would not be able to recover because she had agreed to participate in the sports meet with all the expectant risks.

Option: (ii), (iii) and (iv)

• The runner would not be able to recover because the injuries were caused in a freak accident.


• The runner would not be able to recover because she had agreed to participate in the sports meet with all the expectant risks.


• The runner would not be able to recover because the accident was not reasonably foreseeable.

Answer: (D) (ii), (iii) and (iv)

Explanation:

• The principle states that a person cannot complain against a harm to which he has voluntarily consented. In this case, the runner had voluntarily agreed to participate in the sports meet with all the risks involved. Therefore, she cannot complain against the harm caused.


• The principle also states that precautions can be taken only against reasonably foreseeable mishaps. In this case, the accident, where the hammer came apart and hit the runner sitting 10 meters outside the throwing area, can be considered a freak accident and not reasonably foreseeable. Therefore, the runner cannot recover for damages.

Thus, the correct answer is option (D) (ii), (iii) and (iv).

Explanation:
The principle of "Injuria Sine Damnum" states that a person can sue for an injury or violation of a legal right, even if no actual damage or loss has been incurred. In this case, X, the returning officer, wrongly refused to register Y's vote, despite Y being an eligible voter. The candidate whom Y wanted to vote for was declared elected.
Based on the principle and the given facts, the appropriate answer is option B: "Y can sue X on the ground that he was denied the right to cast a vote, which is a legal right." Here's the detailed explanation:
- "Injuria Sine Damnum" principle: This principle allows for the enforcement of legal rights even without any actual damage or loss.
- Denial of the right to vote: Y, an eligible voter, was wrongly refused to register his vote by X, the returning officer. This action violates Y's right to cast a vote.
- Fundamental right to vote: The right to cast a vote is not only a legal right but also a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
- Legal recourse: Y can sue X for the violation of his right to vote, seeking appropriate legal remedies.
- No requirement of damage: In this case, it is not necessary for Y to prove any damage or loss suffered due to the denial of his vote. The violation of a legal right itself is sufficient to seek legal recourse.
Hence, Y can sue X on the ground that he was denied the right to cast a vote, which is a legal right, even though the candidate in whose favor Y wanted to vote was declared elected.