Test: Passage Based Legal Reasoning (Easy)

15 Questions MCQ Test Legal Reasoning for CLAT | Test: Passage Based Legal Reasoning (Easy)

Attempt Test: Passage Based Legal Reasoning (Easy) | 15 questions in 15 minutes | Mock test for CLAT preparation | Free important questions MCQ to study Legal Reasoning for CLAT for CLAT Exam | Download free PDF with solutions


I. A person can be held guilty under the tort of negligence only if there is proximate cause and the damage is not too remote

II. Proximate cause means that you must be able to show that the harm was caused by the tort you are suing for

III. Proximate cause may be doubtful when a superseding intervening cause happens shortly after the injury.

Facts: Bantu was playing in the school soccer field when he got hit hard by the ball in his chest by a friend. He fell unconscious and suffered severe internal injuries. His mother decided to sue for the tort of negligence.

Which of the following is correct?


Going by principles I and II, it is clear that Bantu was injured as a direct result of being hit by the ball on the soccer field, and neither the cause nor the damage was too remote. Thus, it may be deduced that the damage to Bantu was due to proximate cause.


I. An Interference with the use of the property of another person is nuisance.
II. To constitute a tort, an act or an omission must result in the violation of a legal right vested in the plaintiff.

Vinay and Navin were old friends and had recently started living next door to each other. Navin cooked delicious steak on barbecue, and Vinay was a fan of Navin’s cooking. Therefore, when it was Vinay’s birthday, he requested Navin to cook the steak for him. Navin agreed happily. However, when he started cooking, the smoke from the barbeque was blown by wind straight into Vinay’s house. Vinay felt nauseated and had to leave the house and stay out all night. Is Navin liable for nuisance?


The Principle is quite wide in scope and does not create a distinction between authorized and unauthorized interference with the use of property. Thus, the interference under this principle would amount to nuisance.




I. Trespass to chattels (goods or personal property) is an intentional interference with the possession of personal property, possibly causing injury.

II. There are three elements to it:

(a) Lack of consent in the interference with the property

(b) The interference with the property must result in actual harm

(c) The interference must be intentional


Sabrina was a busy legal professional. She bought an expensive clock from Switzerland and told her butler, Edward, that it needed to be oiled from time to time, and he should take care of it. Edward took the clock to a nearby shop for repair one day, and Sabrina, on finding the clock missing, told him off and said she would sue him for trespass to chattel.


Principle (i) and the first head under principle (ii) clarifies that trespass to chattel is an intentional interference with the possession of personal property, resulting in damage and the fact that there must be a lack of consent in such interference. The facts in the instant case show that Sabrina had given implied consent for Edward to go and get the clock oiled. Thus, she may not sue him for trespass to chattel.


Principle: Nuisance as a tort (civil wrong) means an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it. 
Fact: During the scarcity of onions, long queues were made outside the defendant's shop who having a license to sell fruits and vegetables used to sell only 1 Kg. of onion per ration card. The queues extended on to the highway and also caused some obstruction to the neighboring shops. The neighboring shopkeepers brought an action for nuisance against the defendant. 


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.


Principle: Only Parliament or State Legislatures have the authority to enact laws on their own. No law made by the State can take away a person’s fundamental right. 
Facts: Parliament enacted a law, which according to a group of lawyers is violating the fundamental rights of traders. A group of lawyers files a writ petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the statute seeking relief to quash the statute and further direct Parliament to enact a new law. 


The Supreme court is vested with the power of Judicial review. It means that the supreme court may review its own judgment. The Supreme Court enjoys the competence to exercise the power of reviewing legislative enactments both of Parliament and the  State's legislatures. The power of the court to declare legislative enactments invalid is expressively provided by the Constitution under Article 13, which declares that every law in force, or every future law inconsistent with or in derogation of the Fundamental Rights, shall be void.


Principle: Whoever stores a substance that could potentially cause damage on escape shall be absolutely liable for any damage caused by the escape of such substance from its premises. The person will be liable for the tort of negligence. 

Facts: Prerna and Anurag decide to buy a mini- chemical capsule for their scientific experiments. The minuscule capsule has great potentiality for damage if broken, and hence Prerna and Anurag take complete precautions against that. However, one day the capsule breaks due to an earthquake. Their neighbour, Bajaj, rushes into their premises to check what caused the loud sound that accompanied the breakage of the object. Prerna and Anurag ensure that the damage is contained within the premises of the room. However, their neighbour, Bajaj, sues them for the damage caused to him due to contact with the toxic object.



I. Slander is any defamation that is spoken or heard.

II. Libel is any defamation that can be seen like writing, printing, movie, statue etc.

Facts: Meeta and Reeta are both popular actresses in the Hindi film industry. They were the best of friends. However, when Meeta was replaced by Reeta in a film, she came on the sets of the film and interrupted the shooting. She started ranting on how Reeta used to pay directors and producers in order to compel them to cast her. Following this public outburst, Reeta lost out on major endorsement deals as companies were apprehensive about her damaged reputation.


As per the principle given in the question, slander is a form of defamation which is spoken or heard. In the instant case, Meeta engaged in making derogatory remarks about Reeta in a public place because of which Reeta suffered professionally as well. Hence, Reeta can sue Meeta for slander.


Principle: Liability for the breach of a duty of care is not limited to professionals or persons under a written or oral contract of some kind. All members of society have a duty to exercise reasonable care towards others and their property.

Facts: M/s. Dribble and Co. were renowned manufacturers for sports equipment. They launched a new type of cricket ball in the market which had extra bounce and was best for practising fast catches and honing one’s fielding skills. Barrie bought the ball and started playing with it right next to Mrs. Frosty’s house. The ball nearly hit the glass windows four times, but Barrie kept on playing with it, until finally, the ball hit the window and shattered it. Who will be liable for breach of duty of care in this case?


The principle states that liability for a breach of duty of care lies equally on members of society as it does on professionals and those under contract. In the instant case, Barrie was liable for he was playing with the extra bouncy ball and had seen the ball could break the window in Mrs. Frosty’s house but did not take any precaution.


Principle: There are several defences to trespass to land, one of them being license. License constitutes an express or implied permission given by the owner to be on that land. It is considered irrevocable provided it is not given by a contract or, there is no flaw in the agreement.

Facts: Ben had a license through the contract to free access to the pool in Gregory’s backyard from 1/2/2003 to 2/1/2004. Gregory found Ben swimming in the pool when he came home from work on 1/1/2004.


It is clear from the principle that a license is a valid defence to trespass to land, provided it is not revocable. In the instant case, it is evident that Ben had free access to the pool in Gregory’s backyard by license till 2/1/2004. Gregory found him using the pool on 1/1/2004, when the license was still valid. Thus, he cannot sue Ben for trespass to land.


Principle: Any direct physical interference with the goods in somebody's possession without lawful justification is called trespass to goods. 
Fact: A purchased a car from a person who had no title to it and had sent it to a garage for repair. X, believing, wrongly, that the car was his, removed it from the garage. 


Under section 441 of IPC which defines Criminal trespass that whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with the intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person or with intent to commit an offence.


I. The contract is void if the consideration is forbidden by law. The consideration of an agreement is unlawful if it is forbidden by law.
II. Bribery is forbidden.

Facts: A was fighting a land acquisition case against B in the court. The case had been dragging on for more than 10 years. One day A went to C, the judge who was overseeing the proceedings of the case and offered him Rs.10,000 to make A win the case. Was the consideration valid in this contract?


On the application of the principle, we observe that A tried to bribe the judge, which is forbidden under the law and hence the consideration was unlawful.


Principle: Agreements by way of wager are void except those entered into for or toward any plate, prize or sum of money of the value or amount of Rs. 500 or upwards, to be rewarded to the winner or winners of any horse-race.

Facts: Feroz is a lazy man who spends most of his time gambling and betting on horse races to earn money. One day, he placed a bet for a sum of Rs. 350 on a horse race with his friend Harish. Feroz kept pursuing Harish to pay the amount when Harish lost the bet, but Harish refused to do so, saying there was no valid agreement between them.


The principle clearly states that a wager is a void agreement. The exception for horse races is applicable for a sum of Rs. 500 or more. Since, in the instant case, the sum is Rs. 350; thus, it is a void agreement, and Feroz cannot sue Harish.


Principle: A contract is not voidable because it was caused by mistake as to any law in force in [India], but a mistake as to a law not in force in [India] has the same effect as a mistake of fact.

Facts: Ramone and Sandeep enter into a contract with the erroneous belief that ‘X’ type of cargo is prohibited under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958.

The contract will be …….


As per the principle given, a contract is not voidable because it was caused by mistake as to any law in force in [India]. In the instant case, the contract has been entered with an erroneous belief about the Merchant Shipping Act in force in India, and this does not make the contract voidable, nor is it void.


I. Express consent may be in verbal, nonverbal or written form and is clearly and unmistakeably stated
II. Implied consent is not expressly granted by a person but rather deduced from a person’s actions and the facts and circumstances

Facts: Norah was leaving for an urgent meeting. Her friend Beth asked if she could borrow Norah’s Gucci handbag for a party. Norah exclaimed, “Of course, you can. Anytime!” and rushed off.

Which of the following is correct?
I. There was express consent
II. There was implied consent
III. There was verbal consent
IV. It cannot be determined


As per principle (i), it can be seen that consent may be called express when it is clearly and unmistakably stated, and it may be oral or written. In the instant case, Norah clearly said Beth could borrow the handbag anytime. Hence, it is express consent, and since it was oral, it is verbal consent.


Principle: A partner is liable for the debts incurred by the other partners only in the course of partnership.
Facts: Sandy and Pinto enter into a partnership to produce a Bollywood action thriller, wherein Sandy is also the Director of the movie. The movie was a flop at the box office and received negative reviews by film critics. Consequently, they ran into financial difficulties, and the partnership ended. Pinto went to Albert to borrow some money, which Albert understood was for repaying the debts from the partnership. Pinto took the money and absconded to Bali. Albert sues Sandy for the amount. Decide.


As per the principle, a partner is liable for the debts incurred by the other partners in the course of partnership. However, the partnership had ended when Pinto borrowed money from Albert. Hence, Sandy was not liable.

Use Code STAYHOME200 and get INR 200 additional OFF
Use Coupon Code