PRINCIPLE: Any direct physical interference with the goods in somebody’s possession without lawful justification is called trespass to goods.
FACTS: A purchased a car from a person who had no little to it and had sent it to a garage for repair. X, believing, wrongly, that the car was his, removed it from the garage.
The correct option is A.
Trespass to goods means wrongful interference with the goods in possession of another. It is an wrongful act punishable under tort.
In the above case X removing the car (which does not belong to him) can be held responsible for trespass to goods.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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?
PRINCIPLE: Caveat emptor, “let the buyer beware”, stands for the practical skill and judgment of the buyer in his choice of goods for purchase. It is the business of the buyer to judge for himself that what he buys has its use and worth for him. Once bought and if the buy is not up to his expectations then he alone is to blame and no one else.
FACTS: For the purpose of making uniform for the employees, “A” bought dark blue colored cloth from B but did not disclose to the seller the specific purpose of the said purchase. When uniforms were prepared and used by the employees the cloth was found unfit. However, the cloth was fit for a variety of other purposes (such as, making caps. boots and carriage lining. etc). Applying the afore-stated principle which of the following derivations is CORRECT as regards remedy available to A in the given situation?
PRINCIPLE: The transferor of goods cannot pass a better title than what he himself possesses.
FACTS: X sells a stolen bike to Y. Y buys it in good faith.
As regards the title to bike which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
PRINCIPLE: Negligence is a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standard of care required by law, resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. A plaintiff can take civil action against the respondent, if the respondent’s negligence causes the plaintiff injury or loss of property.
FACTS: D went to a café and ordered and paid for a tin/can of soft drink. The tin was opaque, and, therefore, the contents could not be seen from outside. She consumed some of the contents and then lifted the tin to pour the remainder of the content into a tumbler. The remains of a snail in decomposed state dropped out of the tin into the tumbler. D later complained of a stomach pain and her doctor diagnosed her as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe shock. She sued the manufacturer of the drink for negligence.
Applying the afore-stated principle which of the following derivations is CORRECT as regards liability of the manufacturer in the given situation?
PRINCIPLE: Master is liable for the wrongful acts committed by his servant; provided the acts are committed during the course of employment. However, the master is not liable if the wrongful act committed by his servant has no connection whatsoever with the servants contract of employment.
FACTS: D is a driver employed by M, who is the owner of a company. During the lunch time, D goes to a close by tea shop to have a cup of tea. There he picks up fight with the tea shop owner (T), which resulted in some damage to his shop. T wants to sue M for claiming compensation for the damage caused by the fight. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
PRINCIPLE: Trespass to land means direct interference with the possession of land without lawful justification. Trespass could be committed either by a person himself entering the land of another person or doing the same through some tangible object(s).
FACTS: A throws some stones upon his neighbor’s (B’s) premises.Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
Yes the correct option is A as he has committed trespass by throwing stone in neighbors house.
PRINCIPLE: Nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it. If the interference is direct, the wrong is trespass; whereas, if the interference is consequential, it amounts to nuisance.
FACTS: A plants a tree on his land. However, he allows its branches to project over the land of B. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
PRINCIPLE: Interference with another’s goods in such a way as to deny the latter’s title to the goods amounts to conversion, and thus it is a civil wrong. It is an act intentionally done inconsistent with the owner’s right, though the doer may not know of, or intends to challenge the property or possession of the true owner.
FACTS: R went to a cycle-stand to park his bicycle. Seeing the stand fully occupied, he removed a few bicycles in order to rearrange a portion of the stand and make some space for his bicycle. He parked his bicycle properly, and put back all the bicycles except the one belonging to S. In fact, R was in a hurry, and therefore, he could not put back S’s bicycle. Somebody came on the way and took away S’s bicycle. The watchman of the stand did not take care of it assuming that the bicycle was not parked inside the stand. S filed a suit against R for conversion.Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
PRINCIPLE: Whosoever by his act or omission causes environmental pollution shall be held liable for any loss caused by such pollution. It shall be no defence in such cases that all due diligence or reasonable care was taken while carrying out the act or omission in question.
FACTS: Hari is carrying on a chemical and fertilizer industry near a bank of a river. In order to prevent and control any kind of harm to the environment, suitable waste treatment and disposal plants were installed in the factory. Due to some sudden mechanical/ technical problem, these plants ceased to work properly and therefore, caused environmental pollution, which ultimately caused substantial harm to the environment and to the people living around the factory. Victims of such pollution file a suit for suitable remedy.
PRINCIPLE: Qui facit per alium facit per se, i.e., he who does things through others does it himself.
FACTS: Nisha, the owner of a car, asked her friend Saurabh to take her car and drive the same to her office. As the car was near her office, it hit a pedestrian Srikant on account of Saurabh’s negligent driving and injured him seriously. Now, Srikant files a suit for damages against Nisha.
PRINCIPLE: Res ipsa loquitur, i.e., the thing speaks for itself.
FACTS: Seema got herself operated for the removal of her uterus in the defendant’s hospital, as there was diagnosed to be a cyst in one of her ovaries. Due the negligence of the surgeon, who performed the operation, abdominal pack was left in her abdomen. The same was removed by a second surgery.
PRINCIPLE: When an act, which would otherwise be an offence, is not that offence by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, every person has the same right of private defence against that act, which he would have if the act were that offence. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
FACTS: A, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill B. B in order to save his life cause grievous hurt to A.
PRINCIPLE: Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said to defame that person.
FACTS: In a community there is a custom of stealing shoes of bridegroom during the marriage ceremony. The shoes of the bridegroom were stolen by Y, A announced that Z has stolen the shoes. Everyone present in the marriage party started staring at Z with great surprise. Z felt very ashamed.
The correct option is A.
According Section 499 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and according to the principle given here, A has defamed Z.
PRINCIPLE: An employer is liable for the negligence of his employee. But an employer is not liable for the negligence of his employee, if the victim of such negligence is one of his other employees.
FACTS: A and B were working in factory as unskilled labourers. A was carrying a basket of stones on his head. B was sitting on the ground. When A crossed B, all of a sudden a stone fell down from the basket and hit B on his head. B died immediately.
PRINCIPLES: (1) Consumable goods which are not fit for consumption are not marketable.
(2) A consumer shall not suffer on account of unmarketable goods.
(3) A seller is liable for knowingly selling unmarketable goods.
(4) A manufacturer shall be liable for the quality of his products.
FACTS: Ram bought a Coca Cola bottle from Shama’s shop. Back at home, the server opened the bottle and poured the drink into the glasses of Ram and his friend Tom. As Tom started drinking, he felt irritation in his throat. Immediately, Ram and Tom took the sample to test and found nitric acid in the content. Ram filed a suit against Shama, Coca Cola company and the bottler, Kishan and Co.
a. Ram cannot get compensation
b. Tom can get compensation
c. Both Ram and Tom can get compensation
i. Shama did not know the contents of sealed bottle.
ii. Ram did not actually suffer though he bought the bottle.
iii. Tom did not buy the bottle.
iv. Coca Cola company is responsible since it supplied the concentrate.
v. Kishen & Co, is responsible since it added water, sugar, etc., and sealed the bottle.
vi. Shama is responsible for selling the defective product.
Your decision with the reason:
The correct option is C.
One of the principles says A manufacturer shall be liable for the quality of his products.
PRINCIPLES: 1. If A is asked to do something by B, B is responsible for the act, not A.
2. If A, while acting for B commits a wrong, A is responsible for the wrong, not B.
3. If A is authorised to do something for B, but in the name of A without disclosing B’s presence, both A and B may be held liable.
FACTS: Somu contracted with Amar whereunder Amar would buy a pumpset to be used in Somu’s farm. Such a pumpset was in short supply in the market. Gulab, a dealer, had such a pumpset and he refused to sell it to Amar. Amar threatened Gulab of serious consequences if he fails to part with the pumpset. Gulab filed a complaint against Amar.
a. Amar alone is liable for the wrong though he acted for Somu.
b. Amar is not liable for the wrong, though he is bound by the contract with Somu.
c. Somu is bound by the contract and liable for the wrong.
d. Both Somu and Amar are liable for the wrong.
i. Amar committed the wrong while acting for the benefit of Somu.
ii. Amar cannot do while acting for Somu something which he cannot do while acting for himself.
iii. Both Amar and Somu are liable since they are bound by the contract.
iv. Somu has to be responsible for the act of Amar committed for Somu’s benefit.
Your decision with the reason:
PRINCIPLES: 1. An employer shall be liable for the wrongs committed by his employees in the course of employment.
2. Third parties must exercise reasonable care to find out whether a person is actually acting in the course of employment.
FACTS: Nandan was appointed by Syndicate Bank to collect small savings from its customers spread over in different places on daily basis. Nagamma, a housemaid, was one of such ‘customers making use of Nandan’s service.
Syndicate Bank after a couple of years terminated Nandan’s service. Nagamma, unaware of this fact, was handing over her savings to Nandan who misappropriated them. Nagamma realised this nearly after three months, when she went to the Bank to withdraw money. She filed a complaint against the Bank.
a. Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Nagamma.
b. Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to compensate Nagamma.
c. Nagamma has to blame herself for her negligence.
i.Nandan was not acting in the course of employment after the termination of his service.
ii. A person cannot blame others for his own negligence.
iii. Nagamma was entitled to be informed by the Bank about Nandan.
iv.The Bank is entitled to expect its customers to know actual position.
Your decision with the reason:
Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Nagamma because she was entitled to be informed by the Bank about Nandan.
PRINCIPLES: 1. A master shall be liable for the fraudulent acts of his servants committed in the course of employment.
2. Whether an act is committed in the course of employment has to be judged in the context of the case.
3. Both master and third parties must exercise reasonable care in this regard.
FACTS: Rama Bhai was an uneducated widow and she opened an S.B. account with Syndicate Bank with the help of her nephew by name Keshav who was at that time working as a clerk in the Bank. Keshav used to deposit the money of Rama Bhai from time to time and get the entries done in the passbook. After a year or so, Keshav was dismissed from the service by the Bank. Being unaware of this fact, Rama Bhai continued to hand over her savings to him and Keshav misappropriated them. Rama Bhai realised this only when Keshav disappeared from the scene one day, and she sought compensation from the Bank.
a. Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
b. Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
c. Rama Bhai cannot blame others for her negligence.
(i) Keshav was not an employee of the Bank when the fraud was committed.
(ii) The Bank was not aware of the special arrangement between Rama Bhai and Keshav
(iii) It is the Bank’s duty to take care of vulnerable customers.
(iv) Rama Bhai should have checked about Keshav in her own interest.
Your decision with the reason:
PRINCIPLES: 1. A person is liable for negligence, if he fails to take care of his neighbor’s interest.
2. A neighbour is anyone whose interests should have been foreseeable by a reasonable man while carrying on his activities.
FACTS: A cricket match was going on in a closed door stadium. A cricket fan who could not get into the stadium was watching the game by climbing up a nearby tree and sitting there. The cricket ball in the course of the game went out of the stadium and hit this person and injured him. He filed a suit against the organizers.
a. The organizers are liable to compensate the injured person.
b. The organizers are not liable to compensate the injured person.
c. The injured person should have avoided the place where he might be hit by the cricket ball.
i. The organizers are responsible for the people inside the stadium.
ii. The organizers could not have foreseen somebody watching the game by climbing up a tree.
iii. A person crazy about something must pay the price for that.
iv. The organizers shall be liable to everybody likely to watch the game.
Your decision with the reason:
PRINCIPLES: 1. When a person unlawfully interferes in the chattel of another person by which the latter is deprived of its use, the former commits the tort of conversion.
2. Nobody shall enrich himself at other’s expense.
FACTS: A patient suffering from stomach ailment approached a teaching hospital. He was diagnosed as suffering from appendicitis and his appendix was removed. He became alright. The hospital however found some unique cells in the appendix, and using the cell lines thereof, it developed drugs of enormous commercial value. When the erstwhile patient came to know about it, he claimed a share in the profit made by the hospital.
a. The hospital need not share its profits with the patient.
b. The hospital may share its profits on ex gratis basis.
c. The hospital shall share its profits with the patient.
i. The patient, far from being deprived of the use of his appendix, actually benefitted by its removal.
ii. The hospital instead of throwing away the appendix conducted further research on it on its own and the development of drug was the result of its own effort.
iii. The hospital could not have achieved its success without that appendix belonging to the patient.
iv. Everybody must care for and share with others.
Your decision with the reason:
B throws water on C with the intention of getting him wet. The action is
The term ‘Scienter’ is related to which one of the following sign boards
Assertion: H writes to his wife a letter, which contains defamatory matter about B. H is not liable to B for defamation
Reason: Communication of defamatory matter by a husband to his wife or vice versa is not a publication, for what passes between them is protected.
Assertion: Government cannot be held liable for the rots committed by its servant
Reason: A master is liable for the torts committed by his servant in the course of his employment
Assertion: A person can claim damages if he has sustained any loss monetary or otherwise
Reason: where there is infringement of a legal right, law allows compensation
The last opportunity principle is related to the:
As an element of the tort of defamation, publication means that
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
The correct option is B
both the statements are independently correct but R is not the explanation of A.
Assertion: The plaintiff can sue all or any number of joint tort feasors
Reason: when several persons join in the commission of a tort is individually responsible as if each alone had committed it.
There are always several tortfeasors as well. In any joint tort, the party injured has his choice of whom to sue. Several persons jointly commit a tort, the plaintiff has his election to sue all or any number of the parties; because a tort is in its nature the separate act of each individual'.
Assertion: A wooden chair while being used by a guest caused injury to him to defective manufacture. The guest is entitled to claim damages from the maker.
Reason: Manufacture owes a duty of care to the ultimate user
The correct option is D.
According to the Law of Torts, both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A, which states that it is the sole responsibility and duty to take care while making any product, towards the ultimate user, so the guest is entitled to claim damages from the maker or manufacturer.
In an auction sale, X is the highest bidder. The auctioneer accepts the offer not by speaking but striking the hammer on the table. This amounts to:
The correct option is A.
As it is an auction sale, it is an implied contract.
Assertion: A person, who moves to a place neared the place of nuisance can complain of nuisance
Reason: Coming to the place of nuisance is a good defence
Two or more person can be made joint tort-feasors, 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
Principle : Interference with another’s goods in such a way as to deny the latter’s title to the goods amounts to conversion, and thus it is a civil wrong. It is an act intentionally done inconsistent with the owner’s right, though the doer may not know of, or intend to challenge, the property or possession of the true owner.
Facts : ‘R’ went to a cycle-stand to park his bicycle. Seeing the stand fully occupied, he removed a few bicycles in order to rearrange a portion of the stand and make some space for his bicycle. He parked his bicycle properly, and put back all the bicycles except the one belonging to ‘S’, In fact, ‘R’ was in a hurry and therefore, he could not put back S’s bicycle somebody come on the way and took away S’s bicycle. The watchmen of the stand did not take care of it assuming that the bicycle was to parked inside the stand. ‘S’ filed a suit against ‘R’ for conversion.
Assertion (A): In the event of violation of any legal right (tort) the aggrieved party is entitled to recover unliquidated damages.
Reason (R): The object of awarding damages to the aggrieved party is to put him in the same position in which he would have been if the wrong would not have been committed. Damages are, therefore, assessed on that basis.
Assertion (A): The Constitution of India provides for the appointment of a Governor for a period of five years.
Reason (R): The Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President.
The correct option is B.
Both the statements are independently correct.
Which of the following acts invite tortuous liability and is not saved by the doctrine "volenti non fit injuria"?
In tort, the remedy is:
A person is said to be vicariously liable when:
Principle: A master shall be responsible for the wrongful acts of his servants in the course of his employment.
Facts: The Syndicate Bank was running a small savings scheme under which its authorized agents would go round and collect small savings from several people on a daily basis. These agents would get commission, on the deposits so collected. Ananth was one such agent, collecting deposits from factory workers engaged on daily wages. Though he regularly carried on his business for some time, slowly he started appropriating deposits for his personal use and one day he just disappeared. One Fatima, who had been handing over her savings to him found that nearly for a month before his disappearance, he was not depositing her savings at all. The bank, when approached, took the stand that Ananth was not its regular and paid employee and, therefore, it was not responsible for his misconduct. She filed a suit against the bank.
Principle: A person is liable for all the injuries caused on account of consequences of his careless act.
Facts: Ram, a snake charmer, was exhibiting his talents to a group of people. One of the snakes escaped and bit a child who had to be hospitalized for two days for treatment.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: If there is infringement of legal right of a person, he can sue under torts for compensation even if he has not suffered any harm or loss of a single penny.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Mr. B, a bank manager refuses to honour a cheque presented by C, a customer. He knows that C has sufficient funds in his account. Can C sue B under torts and claim compensation?
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Violation of a legal Right, with or without damage, give rise to a tort
FACTUAL SITUATION: ‘A’ establishes a coaching class and charge ‘5000 per year as fees. A’s neighbour ‘B’ establishes another coaching class thereby creating a competition. This forces A to reduce his fees to ‘3000 per year.
Q. Can ‘A’ claim damages from ‘B’ for the loss caused to him?