A person who finds the goods belonging to another and takes them into his custodyandhellip;andhellip;andhellip;.a)Becomes the owner of those goods thereafterb)Is subject to the same responsibilities as a baileec)Is allowed to sell them and retain the money realized from such saled)Has no obligation to return those goods, he may do so only a goods gestureCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > A person who finds the goods belonging to ano...

A person who finds the goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody……….

a)
Becomes the owner of those goods thereafter
b)
Is subject to the same responsibilities as a bailee
c)
Is allowed to sell them and retain the money realized from such sale
d)
Has no obligation to return those goods, he may do so only a goods gesture

Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

A person who finds the goods belonging to another and takes them into ...

According to section 71 of Indian Contract Act,a person who finds goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee. Since the position of the finder of the goods is that of a bailee he is supposed to take the same amount of care with regard to the goods as is expected of a bailee under section 151. He is also subject to all the duties of a bailee, including a duty to return the goods after the true owner is found. If he refuses to return, he could be made liable for conversion.

View all questions of this test

Most Upvoted Answer

A person who finds the goods belonging to another and takes them into ...

A person who finds the goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody is commonly referred to as a Good Samaritan or a finder.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

Free Test

FREE

Test: Contract Of Law - 7
50 Ques | 30 Min

Start Free Test

View all free CLAT tests

Community Answer

A person who finds the goods belonging to another and takes them into ...

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

A person to whom money has been paid anything delivered under coercion

View answer

Typically, when we imagine a rule or constraint as binding, we think of it as unavoidable. Binding constraints are those we suppose to be absolute and incapable of being overridden by other considerations. If a precedent is binding, then a court bound by it simply must follow it. Period.There is no reason, however, why even a binding authority should be understood in this way. Although a binding authority creates an obligation on the part of the bound court to use that authority, such an obligation need not be absolute. In life, genuine obligations can be overridden by even stronger ones. I am obliged to keep my promises, so I must keep my lunch date with you even if I no longer find you interesting. But if a close relative has fallen ill, it is understood that my obligation is overridden by the even stronger one to attend to ailing relatives. Similarly, a police officer refrains from giving a speeding ticket to the man who is rushing his pregnant wife to the hospital. Indeed, rights operate in the same way.Just as obligations can be obligatory without being absolutely so, so too can authorities be authoritative without being absolutely authoritative. Most authorities are therefore not binding or controlling in the absolute sense, and treating a source as authoritative or even mandatory does not entail following it come what may. A judge of the District Court is bound by the decisions of the High Court, but he is also bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court, and if in some case the relevant High Court precedent turns out to dictate one outcome while the relevant Supreme Court case indicates another, the obligation to follow the Supreme Court will override the obligation to follow the High Court.Similarly, the best understanding of stare decisis is that a subsequent court is bound to follow the earlier decisions of the same court, but this too is not an absolute obligation. The Supreme Court can overturn its own precedents when there is a “special justification”, not that it believes that the previous Court was mistaken. Something more is required, something “special,” but it is possible to overrule. The earlier case is a binding precedent, but here, unlike in the situation involving vertical precedent, where we understand binding to mean non overridable by any other consideration, the binding force of stare decisis is real but decidedly non absolute.Q. In which of the following situations is the obligation likely to be overruled, based on the author’s reasoning?

View answer

Typically, when we imagine a rule or constraint as binding, we think of it as unavoidable. Binding constraints are those we suppose to be absolute and incapable of being overridden by other considerations. If a precedent is binding, then a court bound by it simply must follow it. Period.There is no reason, however, why even a binding authority should be understood in this way. Although a binding authority creates an obligation on the part of the bound court to use that authority, such an obligation need not be absolute. In life, genuine obligations can be overridden by even stronger ones. I am obliged to keep my promises, so I must keep my lunch date with you even if I no longer find you interesting. But if a close relative has fallen ill, it is understood that my obligation is overridden by the even stronger one to attend to ailing relatives. Similarly, a police officer refrains from giving a speeding ticket to the man who is rushing his pregnant wife to the hospital. Indeed, rights operate in the same way.Just as obligations can be obligatory without being absolutely so, so too can authorities be authoritative without being absolutely authoritative. Most authorities are therefore not binding or controlling in the absolute sense, and treating a source as authoritative or even mandatory does not entail following it come what may. A judge of the District Court is bound by the decisions of the High Court, but he is also bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court, and if in some case the relevant High Court precedent turns out to dictate one outcome while the relevant Supreme Court case indicates another, the obligation to follow the Supreme Court will override the obligation to follow the High Court.Similarly, the best understanding of stare decisis is that a subsequent court is bound to follow the earlier decisions of the same court, but this too is not an absolute obligation. The Supreme Court can overturn its own precedents when there is a “special justification”, not that it believes that the previous Court was mistaken. Something more is required, something “special,” but it is possible to overrule. The earlier case is a binding precedent, but here, unlike in the situation involving vertical precedent, where we understand binding to mean non overridable by any other consideration, the binding force of stare decisis is real but decidedly non absolute.Q. Based on the information provided in the passage, if there is a case in the District court, and there are precedents in the High Court and Supreme Court with contradictory outcomes, which outcome is binding on the District court?

View answer

Typically, when we imagine a rule or constraint as binding, we think of it as unavoidable. Binding constraints are those we suppose to be absolute and incapable of being overridden by other considerations. If a precedent is binding, then a court bound by it simply must follow it. Period.There is no reason, however, why even a binding authority should be understood in this way. Although a binding authority creates an obligation on the part of the bound court to use that authority, such an obligation need not be absolute. In life, genuine obligations can be overridden by even stronger ones. I am obliged to keep my promises, so I must keep my lunch date with you even if I no longer find you interesting. But if a close relative has fallen ill, it is understood that my obligation is overridden by the even stronger one to attend to ailing relatives. Similarly, a police officer refrains from giving a speeding ticket to the man who is rushing his pregnant wife to the hospital. Indeed, rights operate in the same way.Just as obligations can be obligatory without being absolutely so, so too can authorities be authoritative without being absolutely authoritative. Most authorities are therefore not binding or controlling in the absolute sense, and treating a source as authoritative or even mandatory does not entail following it come what may. A judge of the District Court is bound by the decisions of the High Court, but he is also bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court, and if in some case the relevant High Court precedent turns out to dictate one outcome while the relevant Supreme Court case indicates another, the obligation to follow the Supreme Court will override the obligation to follow the High Court.Similarly, the best understanding of stare decisis is that a subsequent court is bound to follow the earlier decisions of the same court, but this too is not an absolute obligation. The Supreme Court can overturn its own precedents when there is a “special justification”, not that it believes that the previous Court was mistaken. Something more is required, something “special,” but it is possible to overrule. The earlier case is a binding precedent, but here, unlike in the situation involving vertical precedent, where we understand binding to mean non overridable by any other consideration, the binding force of stare decisis is real but decidedly non absolute.Q. According to the author, what is the general impression of a binding precedent?

View answer

Typically, when we imagine a rule or constraint as binding, we think of it as unavoidable. Binding constraints are those we suppose to be absolute and incapable of being overridden by other considerations. If a precedent is binding, then a court bound by it simply must follow it. Period.There is no reason, however, why even a binding authority should be understood in this way. Although a binding authority creates an obligation on the part of the bound court to use that authority, such an obligation need not be absolute. In life, genuine obligations can be overridden by even stronger ones. I am obliged to keep my promises, so I must keep my lunch date with you even if I no longer find you interesting. But if a close relative has fallen ill, it is understood that my obligation is overridden by the even stronger one to attend to ailing relatives. Similarly, a police officer refrains from giving a speeding ticket to the man who is rushing his pregnant wife to the hospital. Indeed, rights operate in the same way.Just as obligations can be obligatory without being absolutely so, so too can authorities be authoritative without being absolutely authoritative. Most authorities are therefore not binding or controlling in the absolute sense, and treating a source as authoritative or even mandatory does not entail following it come what may. A judge of the District Court is bound by the decisions of the High Court, but he is also bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court, and if in some case the relevant High Court precedent turns out to dictate one outcome while the relevant Supreme Court case indicates another, the obligation to follow the Supreme Court will override the obligation to follow the High Court.Similarly, the best understanding of stare decisis is that a subsequent court is bound to follow the earlier decisions of the same court, but this too is not an absolute obligation. The Supreme Court can overturn its own precedents when there is a “special justification”, not that it believes that the previous Court was mistaken. Something more is required, something “special,” but it is possible to overrule. The earlier case is a binding precedent, but here, unlike in the situation involving vertical precedent, where we understand binding to mean non overridable by any other consideration, the binding force of stare decisis is real but decidedly non absolute.Q. What is the validity of the following statement, based on the information provided in the passage? “The decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on future decisions based on the principle of stare decisis and there cannot be any deviation.

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

A person who finds the goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody……….a)Becomes the owner of those goods thereafterb)Is subject to the same responsibilities as a baileec)Is allowed to sell them and retain the money realized from such saled)Has no obligation to return those goods, he may do so only a goods gestureCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
A person who finds the goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody……….a)Becomes the owner of those goods thereafterb)Is subject to the same responsibilities as a baileec)Is allowed to sell them and retain the money realized from such saled)Has no obligation to return those goods, he may do so only a goods gestureCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about A person who finds the goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody……….a)Becomes the owner of those goods thereafterb)Is subject to the same responsibilities as a baileec)Is allowed to sell them and retain the money realized from such saled)Has no obligation to return those goods, he may do so only a goods gestureCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for A person who finds the goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody……….a)Becomes the owner of those goods thereafterb)Is subject to the same responsibilities as a baileec)Is allowed to sell them and retain the money realized from such saled)Has no obligation to return those goods, he may do so only a goods gestureCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for A person who finds the goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody……….a)Becomes the owner of those goods thereafterb)Is subject to the same responsibilities as a baileec)Is allowed to sell them and retain the money realized from such saled)Has no obligation to return those goods, he may do so only a goods gestureCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of A person who finds the goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody……….a)Becomes the owner of those goods thereafterb)Is subject to the same responsibilities as a baileec)Is allowed to sell them and retain the money realized from such saled)Has no obligation to return those goods, he may do so only a goods gestureCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of A person who finds the goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody……….a)Becomes the owner of those goods thereafterb)Is subject to the same responsibilities as a baileec)Is allowed to sell them and retain the money realized from such saled)Has no obligation to return those goods, he may do so only a goods gestureCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for A person who finds the goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody……….a)Becomes the owner of those goods thereafterb)Is subject to the same responsibilities as a baileec)Is allowed to sell them and retain the money realized from such saled)Has no obligation to return those goods, he may do so only a goods gestureCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of A person who finds the goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody……….a)Becomes the owner of those goods thereafterb)Is subject to the same responsibilities as a baileec)Is allowed to sell them and retain the money realized from such saled)Has no obligation to return those goods, he may do so only a goods gestureCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice A person who finds the goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody……….a)Becomes the owner of those goods thereafterb)Is subject to the same responsibilities as a baileec)Is allowed to sell them and retain the money realized from such saled)Has no obligation to return those goods, he may do so only a goods gestureCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam