Test: Topics of Law- 1 - Humanities/Arts MCQ

The reasonable conclusion drawn that the acting of Alia Bhatt is protected under the copyright law. The copyright shall subsist until sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year which the film is published.

Intentionally taking someone's property thinking it's our property is merely an offence .  Misappropriation is the deliberate, illegal utilization of the property, thoughts, or assets of someone else for one's own utilization or other unapproved reason, particularly by an open official, a trustee of a trust, an agent or chairman of a dead individual's home or by any individual with a guardian obligation to think about and secure another's advantages.

B has not committed tresoass in above case as A has invited B in his house . And , bedroom is just a part of his house . B can enter his house without any bad intention to cause injury or physical harm . Trespass can be determined as the illegal action done legitimately and deliberately to make the mischief another property can be named as trespass. It is of two sorts of common and criminal wrong. It is so on the grounds that it can have two various types of wounds for example it can prompt the infringement of human rights which prompts the harms .

A has not committed assault against B. As ,there was no physical contact between them . He don't have any intention to hurt a and even no physical contraction is present .Assault is defined as an act to cause harm to another or causing physical injury to another . 

In the above case , there's an agreement as the price is paid for the item he purchased whether it's cash or cheque . The main element for an agreement is consideration , which is present in this case for the parties as the toothbrush for one party and cheque for another party . The practical consequence of integration is that its scattered parts , in their former and inchoate shape . 

The defendant is liable for nuisance as it was his duty to manage the queues of customers that was effecting the neighbouring shops. 
Nuisance, in law, is a human action or a physical condition that is destructive or hostile to other people and offers ascend to a reason for the activity. An open irritation made in an open spot or on open land, or influencing the ethics, security, or soundness of the network, is viewed as an offence against the state.
Hence, A is the correct option.

Normally, the tortfeasor is liable for his tort. But in some cases, a person may be held liable for the tort committed by another. A master is vicariously liable for the tort of his servant, principal for the tort of his agent and partners for the tort of a partner. This is known as vicarious liability in tort.
In a Master-Servant relationship, the master employs the services of the servant and he works on the command of master, and thus, a special relationship exists between the two, and in case of a tort committed by the servant, his master is also held liable.
The following are the essential conditions to be followed for the vicarious liability of master to arise: –
1. The servant has committed an act which amounts to a tort;
2. Such a tortious act is committed by the servant during the course of his employment under the master.
In the above case, given that Sanjay was an employee of Brookebond and Co., the company shall be liable to compensate for damages to Ruhina. Hence, option (A) is correct.

In this case , RAMU did an offence of theft as he intentionally cut down the tree from RINKU's ground without his consent . He is said to commit theft . 'Theft' is defined in the section 378 of IPC . Theft is an offense where portable property of an individual is removed without his assent .

'B' can enforce the agreement. 
The clear illustration is consent obtained by point of a pistol , or by threatening to cause hurt. It is clear that coercion as thus defined implies a committing or threatening to commit some act which is a contract to law. Hence this agreement is void on the exception of B as he can either uphold the contract or reject it. Like in the case of Chikham Amiraju V Chikham Seshamma. 

She was aware of the risk , as the driver of the cab was intoxicated . But ,there are no chances of an accident it's a natural phenomenon . As she got injured she is liable for the compensation from the driver . Applying the Consent Defense Consent is an agreed safeguard that might be accessible to you in the event that you are being sued for a deliberate tort.