Test: Legal Aptitude- 2 - CLAT MCQ

Questions 4 to 7 on same principle

Principle: In all robbery there is either theft or extortion

When theft is robbery: Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

When extortion is robbery: Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the

Explanation: The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

Q. 

Facts: A holds Z down, and fraudulently takes Z's money and jewels from Z's clothes, without Z's consent.

Principle: In all robbery there is either theft or extortion

When theft is robbery: Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

When extortion is robbery: Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the

Explanation: The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

Q. 

Facts: A meets Z on the high roads, show a pistol, and demands Z's purse. Z, in consequence, surrenders his purse.

Principle: In all robbery there is either theft or extortion

When theft is robbery: Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

When extortion is robbery: Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the

Explanation: The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

Q. 

Facts: A meets Z and Z's child on the high road. A takes the child, and threatens to fling it down a precipice, unless Z delivers his purse. Z, in consequence, delivers his purse.

Principle: In all robbery there is either theft or extortion

When theft is robbery: Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

When extortion is robbery: Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the

Explanation: The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

Q. 

Facts: A obtains property from Z by saying--"Your child is in the hands of my gang, and will be put to death unless you send us ten thousand rupees".

Assertion: A person is not guilty of Dacoity unless he has committed, attempted to commit or aided in committing Robbery.

Reason: when two persons conjointly commit Robbery, then every person so committing Robbery is said to commit Dacoity

Assertion (A): X, because of unsound state of mind and not knowing the nature of the act, attacks Y, who in self defense and in order to ward off the attack, hits him thereby injuring him. Y has not committed an offence.

Reason (R): Y had a right of private defense against X under Section 98 of the Indian Penal Code.

X, a person signs his own name to a bill of exchange, intending that it may be believed that he bill was drawn by another person of the same name.

Principle: The communication of a proposal is complete when it becomes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made.

Facts: A proposes by letter to sell a house to B at a certain price. The communication of proposal is complete when

Principle: "Fraud" means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agents, with intent to deceive another party thereto his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract;

(1) the suggestion as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;

(2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;

(3) a promise made without any intention of performing it;

(4) any other act fitted to deceive;

(5) any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent.

Q. 

Facts: A sells by auction to B, a horse which A knows to be unsound. A says nothing to B about the horse unsoundness.

Principle: Agreement void where both parties are under mistake as to matter of fact

Q.

Facts: A agrees to sell to B a specific cargo of goods supposed to be on its way from England to Bombay. It turns out that before the day of the bargain the ship conveying the cargo had been cast away and the goods lost. Neither party was aware of these facts.

Principle: (Same for question no. 14 and 15)

The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless -It is forbidden by law; or is of such nature that, if permitted it would defeat the provisions of any law or is fraudulent; of involves or implies, injury to the person or property of another; or the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy.

In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.

Q. 

Facts: A promises to obtain for B an employment in the public service and B promises to pay Rs. 1000 to A.

The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless -It is forbidden by law; or is of such nature that, if permitted it would defeat the provisions of any law or is fraudulent; of involves or implies, injury to the person or property of another; or the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy.

In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.

Q. 

Facts: A promises B to drop prosecution which he has instituted against B for robbery and B promises to restore the value of the things taken.

A voidable contract is one which is:

“A” promise to give money or money’s worth upon the determination or ascertainment of an uncertain event is called

PRINCIPLE: Vicarious liability is the liability of the Master or Principal for the tort committed by his servant or agent, provided the tort is committed in the course of employment. The Master or Principal is not liable for private wrongs of the servant /agent.

FACTS: X hands over some cash money at his house to Y, who is X’s neighbour and is also cashier in a bank, to be deposited in A’s account in the bank. Instead of depositing the money, Y misappropriates it.

Q.

Which of the following statements depict correct legal position in this given legal situation?

PRINCIPLE: A person has no legal remedy for an injury caused by an act to which he has consented.

FACTS: R, a cricket enthusiast, purchases a ticket to watch a T20 match organized by the Indian Premier League (IPL). During the match, a ball struck for six hits R on his body and injures him. He sues IPL for compensation for the medical expenses.

Q.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

PRINCIPLE: Damage without the violation of a legal right is not actionable in a court of law. If the interference with the rights of another person is not unlawful or unauthorized, but a necessary consequence of the exercise of defendant’s own lawful rights, no action should lie.

FACTS: There was an established school (ES) in a particular locality. Subsequently, a new school (NS) was set up in the same locality which charged lower fees, on account of which people started patronizing the new school. Because of the competition, ES had to reduce its fees. ES filed a case against NS saying that NS had caused it financial loss and, thus, claimed compensation.

Q.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

PRINCIPLE: Whenever there is an invasion of a legal right, the person in whom the right is vested, is entitled to bring an action though he has suffered no actual loss or harm, and may recover damages (compensation).

FACTS: ‘A’ was a qualified voter for the Lok Sabha election. However, a returning officer wrongfully refused to take A’s vote. In spite of such wrongful refusal, the candidate, for whom ‘A’ wanted to vote, won the election. But, ‘A’ brought an action for damages.

Q.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

PRINCIPLE: In a civil action for defamation, truth of the defamatory matter is an absolute defence. However, the burden of proving truth is on the defendant; and he is liable if he does not successfully discharge this burden.

FACTS: D, who was the editor of a local weekly, published a series of articles mentioning that P, who was a government servant, issued false certificates, accepted bribe, adopted corrupt and illegal means to mint money and was a “mischief monger”. P brought a civil action against D, who could not prove the facts published by him. Under the circumstances, which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

PRINCIPLE: A gift comprising existing property is valid and a gift comprising future property is void

FACTS: X has a house which is owned by him. He contracted to purchase a plot of land adjacent to the said house but the sale (of the plot of land) in his favour is yet to be completed. He makes a gift of both the properties (house and land) to Y. Under the afore-mentioned circumstances, which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

Assertion: No action lies for mere damage caused by some act which does not violate a legal right

Reason: An action lies for interference with another legal right even where it causes no actual damage

Two or more person can be made joint tortfeasors, if they have:

A building was erected by the defendant, which caused diminution of light to two ground floor windows of the plaintiff house. Subsequently electric lights were always needed in the place. An action for damages can be brought on the ground

The government of India act 1935 abolishes the concept of

Right to vote is a

In which case it was held that preamble is not a part of constitution of India?

Whether the preamble can be amended?