Legal Reasoning Test-2


24 Questions MCQ Test Legal Reasoning for CLAT | Legal Reasoning Test-2


Description
This mock test of Legal Reasoning Test-2 for CLAT helps you for every CLAT entrance exam. This contains 24 Multiple Choice Questions for CLAT Legal Reasoning Test-2 (mcq) to study with solutions a complete question bank. The solved questions answers in this Legal Reasoning Test-2 quiz give you a good mix of easy questions and tough questions. CLAT students definitely take this Legal Reasoning Test-2 exercise for a better result in the exam. You can find other Legal Reasoning Test-2 extra questions, long questions & short questions for CLAT on EduRev as well by searching above.
QUESTION: 1

Directions: Questions1-3 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.

Sirius, on receiving the letter, writes backto Lockhart and says that he would like tobuy the book from him, and asks him toquote a price. Can this be considered asacceptance, and has a contract beenformed between Lockhart and Sirius?

Solution:
QUESTION: 2

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.

Is there a contract between Harry andLockhart, considering that Harry intends tobuy the book?

Solution:
QUESTION: 3

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 Ron an offer? Is therea contract formed through Ron‘sacceptance?

Solution:

The fact that he is willing to negotiate and offer a discount shows that it was not a final expression of willingness to be bound. Therefore, it is not an offer. 

QUESTION: 4

Directions: Questions 4 - 6 are based on a common set of principles and facts. Answer accordingly.

Principle 1: Any person (Principal) authorizing another person (Agent) to do a certain act will be liable for all acts of such person done within the course of employment. The tests of control and
direction must be complied with.

Principle 2: A wrongful act authorized by the Principal as well as a lawful act done in a wrongful
manner would be considered to have been within the course of employment unless specific directions were given regarding the mode of performance of the act.

Principle 3: For an act to fall outside the scope of employment, the act should either have been
performed after the authorized act had come to an end or must be of such nature that it can be
completely divorced from the authorized act.

Principle 4: Such a relationship need not be a long term arrangement and can be set up for one specific transaction.
Facts: Aggubai instructed her long standing childhood friend Annubai to go to Palampur and strike a deal with Tagesh, a spirit supplier, for the purchase of 1000 bottles of McDowell‘s No.1 whisky, which Aggubai intended to sell at her retail store in Mumbai. Annubai was also instructed to keep in touch with Aggubai over phone regarding the deal. Accordingly, Annubai took a train to Palampur, planned a meeting with Tagesh and made the requisite purchase.

Q. Did Annubai and Aggubai have a principalagent relationship?

Solution:

Annubai was acting on the instructions of Aggubai and was under the control and direction of Aggubai. Annubai had been asked to keep in touch over the phone. A principal-agent relationship need not be a long term arrangement.

QUESTION: 5

Principle 1: Any person (Principal) authorizing another person (Agent) to do a certain act will be liable for all acts of such person done within the course of employment. The tests of control and
direction must be complied with.

Principle 2: A wrongful act authorized by the Principal as well as a lawful act done in a wrongful
manner would be considered to have been within the course of employment unless specific directions were given regarding the mode of performance of the act.

Principle 3: For an act to fall outside the scope of employment, the act should either have been
performed after the authorized act had come to an end or must be of such nature that it can be
completely divorced from the authorized act.

Principle 4: Such a relationship need not be a long term arrangement and can be set up for one specific transaction.

Facts: Aggubai instructed her long standing childhood friend Annubai to go to Palampur and strike a deal with Tagesh, a spirit supplier, for the purchase of 1000 bottles of McDowell‘s No.1 whisky, which Aggubai intended to sell at her retail store in Mumbai. Annubai was also instructed to keep in touch with Aggubai over phone regarding the deal. Accordingly, Annubai took a train to Palampur, planned a meeting with Tagesh and made the requisite purchase.

Q.
On her way back, Annubai decided to drivedown for a part of the journey as her friendBhavinder told her it was a scenic drive.Annubai got tempted and downed 4 bottlesof whisky in the car. Owing to herinebriated state, Annubai sped and her carran into a family of three sleeping on thefootpath. Who will be liable for theaccident?

Solution:

Aggubai. Annubai was transporting the bottles of spirit on her instructions and the employment would be completed only once the spirit was handed over to Aggubai at Mumbai. It was a lawful act done using a wrongful mode in the absence of specific instructions as to mode of performance

QUESTION: 6

Principle 1: Any person (Principal) authorizing another person (Agent) to do a certain act will be liable for all acts of such person done within the course of employment. The tests of control and
direction must be complied with.

Principle 2: A wrongful act authorized by the Principal as well as a lawful act done in a wrongful
manner would be considered to have been within the course of employment unless specific directions were given regarding the mode of performance of the act.

Principle 3: For an act to fall outside the scope of employment, the act should either have been
performed after the authorized act had come to an end or must be of such nature that it can be
completely divorced from the authorized act.

Principle 4: Such a relationship need not be a long term arrangement and can be set up for one specific transaction.
Facts: Aggubai instructed her long standing childhood friend Annubai to go to Palampur and strike a deal with Tagesh, a spirit supplier, for the purchase of 1000 bottles of McDowell‘s No.1 whisky, which Aggubai intended to sell at her retail store in Mumbai. Annubai was also instructed to keep in touch with Aggubai over phone regarding the deal. Accordingly, Annubai took a train to Palampur, planned a meeting with Tagesh and made the requisite purchase.

Q.
Had Aggubai clearly instructed Annubai totravel only by train, who would then beliable for the accident?

Solution:

Annubai. By deciding to drive she clearly operated outside the course of her employment since there were specific instructions to travel by train alone. 

QUESTION: 7

Principle- The delivery of possession is anessential requisite of a contract ofbailment. It is different from custody. Afterthe delivery of possession, the bailee hasfull control over the goods bailed and hemust take care of the goods as if they werehis own.

Facts - Berry walks into Straw‘s office for ameeting and as he was entering, Shelly,Straw‘s employee, took his coat off and hungit on a hook behind the door of the meetingroom without being asked to do so. Shelly hadbeen instructed to do so for everyoneattending the meeting. After the meeting whenBerry asked for his coat, it was missing. IsStraw liable?

Solution:

Yes. Shelly was a bailee in absolute control over it and decided herself where and how to keep Berry‟s coat. While under her possession, it was wholly Shelly‟s responsibility to take care of the coat. Straw will be responsible because Shelly was his employee operating under his instructions within the course of employment

QUESTION: 8

Jack was a high-profile detective. He decided to outsource some work to Jones, an efficient but less experienced detective. Jones had been appreciated by many a client for his high work ethics. Jack assigned specific cases to Jones. The papers related to these cases were handed
over to Jones every morning and locked in a cupboard located in Jones room every evening after making sure no paper/s hadbeen removed. The keys to this cupboardwere always in Jack‘s possession. Onemorning, when Jack went to Jones‘ officeto hand over the papers to him as usualand unlocked the cupboard, severalimportant papers were missing. He filed asuit against Jones. Will he succeed?

Solution:

No. Even though the papers were physically placed in Jones‟ office he never had control over them as Jack retained the keys. There was no delivery of possession. Only letting Jones work on them in the day was no bailment. At best, delivery of possession would exist in the period between handing over the papers to him and taking it back from him. It is clearly mentioned that Jack always checked that no paper was missing before locking it in, therefore there was no chance that Jones could have pulled any paper/s out while at work

QUESTION: 9

The 99th Constitutional Amendment Acthas sacked the system of Collegium forappointing and transferring judges of theHigh Courts and the Supreme Court. Whoamongst the following is not a member ofthe recently constituted National JudicialAppointments Commission?

Solution:

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) is a six member body consisting of: the Chief Justice of India as its chairman, the two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, the Prime Minister, and two eminent persons nominated by the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition of Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India. 

QUESTION: 10

Forty years ago, India saw emergencybeing put in force for about two years.According to Article 352 of theConstitution, the President has the powerto proclaim emergency. Why then is Ms.Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister ofIndia, is accused of imposing emergencywhen it was a proclamation made by thethen President, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed?

Solution:

According to Article 73 of the Constitution, the President acts on the aid and advise of the Council of Ministers which is headed by the Prime Minister. So, the emergency is proclaimed by the President only when the Council of Ministers asks the President to do so. This is the reason why the Prime Minister is the real head of the executive, while the President is the nominal head of the Government. 

QUESTION: 11

In a recent judgement, the Supreme Courthas held Section 66 A of the InformationTechnology Act, 2000 to beunconstitutional. Which fundamental rightdid this section violate?

Solution:

Article 19 lists six freedoms, of which, the freedom of speech and expression is one. The other five freedoms are: to assemble peaceably and without arms, to form associations or unions, to move freely throughout the territory of India, to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India, and to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. Note that these freedoms are available only to the citizens of India, and not to every person. So, if a Canadian national comes to India, he cannot claim any of these freedoms. 

QUESTION: 12

The Goods and Services Tax Bill passedby the Lok Sabha, and pending before theRajya Sabha, has created extreme furore.What is the nature of the Goods andServices Tax?

Solution:

Direct taxes are those which you the person liable to pay such taxes pays them directly to the Government. Such as, the income tax or property tax your parents pay to the Government every year. On the other hand, indirect taxes are levied on one person, but are paid by someone else. Such as, service tax, which is supposed to be paid by the person providing the services, but is paid by the customer. (Ever noticed the service tax over and above the cost of food you had at any restaurant? That‟s indirect tax, because you are paying something that‟s supposed to be paid by the restaurant.) 

QUESTION: 13

The recent land-swap agreement with Bangladesh required our Parliament topass an amendment to the Constitution. According to Article 368, an amendment tothe Constitution requires a specialmajority. What is a special majority‘?

Solution:

Note that the constitutional amendment has to be passed in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha separately with a special majority in each of the houses. Also, according to the 24th Amendment of the Constitution (1971), the President cannot return or reject assent to a Constitutional Amendment like she can do to an ordinary law. So, once both the houses pass the amendment, it is mandatory for the President to give assent to it

QUESTION: 14

Which of the following is not a part of the term Parliament‘?

Solution:

House of People (Lok Sabha) and Council of States (Rajya Sabha) are the two house of Parliament. The Prime Minister is a position of the executive, and not the legislature. Hence, when a person who is the Prime Minister is a Member of the Parliament (which she has to be), then she is a part of the Parliament as its member. But, as a Prime Minister, she is not related to the Parliament except that the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister is responsible and accountable to the Lok Sabha. The President is a part of the Parliament because without his assent, no bill passed by the Parliament becomes a law. 

QUESTION: 15

Which of the following fields of law doesthe Government of the NCT of Delhi hasthe power to govern?

Solution:

This question is relevant in the light of the recent feud between the Chief Minister of the NCT of Delhi, Mr. Arvind Kejriwal, and the Lieutenant Governor of the CT of Delhi. According to the 69th Amendment of the Constitution (1991), the Government of the NCT of Delhi has all the powers of a State Government except law and order, land, and police. You may remember that Mr. Kejriwal had went on a strike when he had become the Chief Minister in the early 2014, demanding that police be given in his control. 

QUESTION: 16

Which of the following organisations are set-up under the Constitution of India?

Solution:

Article 280 of the Constitution has the provisions regarding the Finance Commission, which will have a chairman and four other members, who are appointed by the President on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. On the other hand, the Planning Commission, NITI Aayog, and National Development Council have been set-up by an executive order issued by the Government, and not by the Constitution or any Act passed by the Parliament. 

QUESTION: 17

Who is the Chairperson of the National Ganga River Basin Authority?

Solution:

National Ganga River Basin Authority works under the Ministry of Water Resources, River Development, and Ganga Rejuvenation. The chairperson is the Prime Minister. This authority is in charge of formulating and executing the Ganga Action Plan to clean up the River Ganga. All the funds come from the Central Government.

QUESTION: 18

Why is the Indian Political System called the Westminister System‘?

Solution:

The Palace of Westminister is the seat of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. India is one of the countries which have been influenced by the political system of the UK. Other such countries are Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.

QUESTION: 19

Principle – Nobody shall make use of his property in such a way as to cause damage to others. Any such use would constitute private nuisance, a wrongful act under the law of torts.

Facts – Priya lived in an apartment, and there were six other flats on the same floor as hers.
All of these flats were owned by Nikita, who had leased them out to the respective tenants. When Priya got accepted for a PhD at Harvard University, she sub-leased the house to Anahita, her cousin, who was incidentally HIV positive. When the neighbours came to know of this, they all moved out of Nikita’s flats, fearing the spread of AIDS. Nikita requested Priya to evict her cousin, and offered to find a suitable tenant in her place. However, Priya refused, and argued that merely being HIV positive does not mean that the disease would spread like wildfire. Nikita then filed a suit against Priya, claiming damages for nuisance. Will she succeed?

Solution:

Leasing the flat out to a person who is HIV positive does not interfere with anybody else’s peaceful enjoyment of their property, or even pose any harm to their well being. Priya hence, has not caused nuisance. 

QUESTION: 20

Principle 1 – Volenti non fit injuria – A person has no remedy against an injury caused by an
act to which he has consented.

Principle 2 – If a person does an act that isper se violative of the law, he cannot escapeliability by pleading that he was asked tocommit that act

Facts – Shruti was in a hurry to get to theairport to catch a plane, so she hired a taxi runby the Gupta Taxi Company, which was wellknown in the Begumpet locality. Sherepeatedly urged the driver to drive faster.Within the city, there was a speed limit of 50kmph, and the driver reluctantly drove as fastas 80 kmph so as to reach the airport on time.While driving at this high speed, the driver lostcontrol and hit the divider on the road, as aresult of which, Shruti was badly injured. Shefiled a suit for damages against the taxicompany.

Solution:
QUESTION: 21

Principle: Misrepresentation causes acontract to be voidable at the option of the buyer.

Facts – Amritam wants to sell his house.Sukriti approaches him with an offer to buy thehouse. However, the house is actually in adismal condition. Without repairs being carriedout, the house would be uninhabitable.Amritam does not mention the condition of thehouse, or tell Sukriti that repairs need to becarried out, so as to make it habitable. Sukritipurchases the house for a sum of Rs. 30lakhs. When she is about to move into thehouse, she realizes that the house is almost ina tumbledown state, and wishes to void thecontract. Can she do so?

Solution:

Option (A) is correct as misrepresentation is limited to certain cases of principal. It's not clearly mentioned whether she saw the interior of the house or not. Moreover misrepresentation is done when a party decieves or show something else in place of original asset to other party.

QUESTION: 22

Principle – Whoever uses force without anylawful justification commits battery.

Facts – Navya and Sushma have anargument, where Navya clearly wins thedebate and Sushma’s arguments are made toseem absurd. Humiliated by this, Sushmapulls the chair away just when Navya is aboutto sit down. Although Navya falls down, she isnot hurt. However, she seeks to sue Sushmafor battery. Will she succeed?

Solution:

There is no lawful justification for pulling the chair away. It is a spiteful act that could cause hurt to Navya, and therefore, Sushma will be held liable for battery even if she did not exercise force against the body of Navya. 

QUESTION: 23

Principle – A right to action cannot arise outof an illegal activity.

Facts – Bala and Harsha were thieves, whostole cars, other motor vehicles, engines,tyres, etc. Bala had a particular fascinationwith aeroplanes, and often spent all daygazing at the skies and listening to music byHans Zimmer. One day, Bala was insistent onstealing some equipment from the nearbyaerodrome, so that he could build his veryown glider. They hired a driver to drive one oftheir stolen cars and take them to theaerodrome in the outskirts of the city. Sneakilyand successfully accomplishing the theft, theysought to get away from the place as quicklyas possible. They then got into the car andurged the driver to drive away as fast as thecar could take them. They had not realizedthat the indicator of the car had not beenworking, and they fail to inform the driver ofthis. Consequently, the car ended up in anaccident, and he sustained some seriousinjuries. He seeks to sue Bala and Harsha andclaim damages.

Solution:

Here, the driver has not committed any wrong or engaged in an illegal activity. He was not party to the theft, and hence, can claim damages. Option (c) sounds like it corresponds to the Principle given. However, the Principle does not mean that no legal action can arise whatsoever, if an illegal activity is even remotely associated. The meaning of the Principle is that no legal action can arise if the act directly pertains to the illegal activity. 
 

QUESTION: 24

Principle 1 – State sovereignty is supreme,and no state can interfere in the internalaffairs of another state.

Principle 2 – If there has been a grossviolation of human rights in one State, anyother State in the international community caninterfere to protect the rights of the subjects ofthat state.

Facts – Ritania and Reverentia areneighbouring states. They share friendlyrelations, and several citizens of Ritania areemployed in corporations in Reverentia,where there has recently been an industrialboom. Ritania has two ethnic groups – theTootoos and the Hutsies. The Hutsies formthe majority in the ruling party of the nation,and the two ethnic groups are resentful ofeach other. In popular cinema, the Tootoosare portrayed as wealthy villains who exploitthe hardworking Hutsies and never do anhonest day’s work in their lives. One day, aTootoo rickshaw puller accidentally causesthe death of a Hutsie customer. Clashes breakout between the two communities, and in amatter of weeks, the clashes spreadthroughout the state of Ritania. Internationalnews agencies report that the violence beingunleashed against the Tootoos is state-backed, and that the Tootoos have no hope of survival if the state itself is involved in theviolence against them. There are reports of Tootoo persons being tortured and killed bythe hundreds, and children kidnapped.Reverentia then sends its army across theborder, and after a tussle between Reverentian and Ritanian forces, the violencecomes to an end. Ritania holds that thisinterference by Reverentia into its internalaffairs was unlawful, and seeks to claimreparations from the State of Reverentia.

Solution:

Reverentia has not unlawfully interfered into Ritania’s internal affairs here. While there has been intervention, this cannot be held to be unlawful, as Principle 2 states that interference in cases of gross human rights violations is permissible. The violence against the Tootoos was reported to be state-backed, and there have been gross human rights violations in this instance

Related tests