Question Description
Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same.Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him.Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act.Facts – Ojaswi is an old woman who lives alone in the outskirts of the city. Every month, she has to deposit a sum of Rs. 2000 in the nearby branch of the State Bank of Shamirpet. Pranesh, her neighbour, works as a teller at that branch and offers to deposit the money for her. Trustingly, Ojaswi hands him the money at the end of the month and asks him to deposit it in her bank account. Pranesh never gave her a receipt stating that the amount had been deposited, but made false entries in her passbook nonetheless. Six months later, it is brought to her notice that Pranesh has been misappropriating all the money. She wishes to sue the State Bank of Shamirpet and claim damages for her loss.Would the Bank be liable?a)Yes, the bank would be liable, as Pranesh works for the bank and is the bank’s agent.b)Yes, the bank would be liable, as Pranesh works for the bank and is the bank’s agent, and was collecting the money in the course of his employment.c)No, the bank would not be liable. Although Pranesh is an agent of the bank, it was not within the course of his employment to collect money from customers and deposit it in their accounts.d)Pranesh will be personally liable to compensate Ojaswi.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same.Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him.Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act.Facts – Ojaswi is an old woman who lives alone in the outskirts of the city. Every month, she has to deposit a sum of Rs. 2000 in the nearby branch of the State Bank of Shamirpet. Pranesh, her neighbour, works as a teller at that branch and offers to deposit the money for her. Trustingly, Ojaswi hands him the money at the end of the month and asks him to deposit it in her bank account. Pranesh never gave her a receipt stating that the amount had been deposited, but made false entries in her passbook nonetheless. Six months later, it is brought to her notice that Pranesh has been misappropriating all the money. She wishes to sue the State Bank of Shamirpet and claim damages for her loss.Would the Bank be liable?a)Yes, the bank would be liable, as Pranesh works for the bank and is the bank’s agent.b)Yes, the bank would be liable, as Pranesh works for the bank and is the bank’s agent, and was collecting the money in the course of his employment.c)No, the bank would not be liable. Although Pranesh is an agent of the bank, it was not within the course of his employment to collect money from customers and deposit it in their accounts.d)Pranesh will be personally liable to compensate Ojaswi.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same.Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him.Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act.Facts – Ojaswi is an old woman who lives alone in the outskirts of the city. Every month, she has to deposit a sum of Rs. 2000 in the nearby branch of the State Bank of Shamirpet. Pranesh, her neighbour, works as a teller at that branch and offers to deposit the money for her. Trustingly, Ojaswi hands him the money at the end of the month and asks him to deposit it in her bank account. Pranesh never gave her a receipt stating that the amount had been deposited, but made false entries in her passbook nonetheless. Six months later, it is brought to her notice that Pranesh has been misappropriating all the money. She wishes to sue the State Bank of Shamirpet and claim damages for her loss.Would the Bank be liable?a)Yes, the bank would be liable, as Pranesh works for the bank and is the bank’s agent.b)Yes, the bank would be liable, as Pranesh works for the bank and is the bank’s agent, and was collecting the money in the course of his employment.c)No, the bank would not be liable. Although Pranesh is an agent of the bank, it was not within the course of his employment to collect money from customers and deposit it in their accounts.d)Pranesh will be personally liable to compensate Ojaswi.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same.Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him.Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act.Facts – Ojaswi is an old woman who lives alone in the outskirts of the city. Every month, she has to deposit a sum of Rs. 2000 in the nearby branch of the State Bank of Shamirpet. Pranesh, her neighbour, works as a teller at that branch and offers to deposit the money for her. Trustingly, Ojaswi hands him the money at the end of the month and asks him to deposit it in her bank account. Pranesh never gave her a receipt stating that the amount had been deposited, but made false entries in her passbook nonetheless. Six months later, it is brought to her notice that Pranesh has been misappropriating all the money. She wishes to sue the State Bank of Shamirpet and claim damages for her loss.Would the Bank be liable?a)Yes, the bank would be liable, as Pranesh works for the bank and is the bank’s agent.b)Yes, the bank would be liable, as Pranesh works for the bank and is the bank’s agent, and was collecting the money in the course of his employment.c)No, the bank would not be liable. Although Pranesh is an agent of the bank, it was not within the course of his employment to collect money from customers and deposit it in their accounts.d)Pranesh will be personally liable to compensate Ojaswi.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same.Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him.Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act.Facts – Ojaswi is an old woman who lives alone in the outskirts of the city. Every month, she has to deposit a sum of Rs. 2000 in the nearby branch of the State Bank of Shamirpet. Pranesh, her neighbour, works as a teller at that branch and offers to deposit the money for her. Trustingly, Ojaswi hands him the money at the end of the month and asks him to deposit it in her bank account. Pranesh never gave her a receipt stating that the amount had been deposited, but made false entries in her passbook nonetheless. Six months later, it is brought to her notice that Pranesh has been misappropriating all the money. She wishes to sue the State Bank of Shamirpet and claim damages for her loss.Would the Bank be liable?a)Yes, the bank would be liable, as Pranesh works for the bank and is the bank’s agent.b)Yes, the bank would be liable, as Pranesh works for the bank and is the bank’s agent, and was collecting the money in the course of his employment.c)No, the bank would not be liable. Although Pranesh is an agent of the bank, it was not within the course of his employment to collect money from customers and deposit it in their accounts.d)Pranesh will be personally liable to compensate Ojaswi.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same.Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him.Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act.Facts – Ojaswi is an old woman who lives alone in the outskirts of the city. Every month, she has to deposit a sum of Rs. 2000 in the nearby branch of the State Bank of Shamirpet. Pranesh, her neighbour, works as a teller at that branch and offers to deposit the money for her. Trustingly, Ojaswi hands him the money at the end of the month and asks him to deposit it in her bank account. Pranesh never gave her a receipt stating that the amount had been deposited, but made false entries in her passbook nonetheless. Six months later, it is brought to her notice that Pranesh has been misappropriating all the money. She wishes to sue the State Bank of Shamirpet and claim damages for her loss.Would the Bank be liable?a)Yes, the bank would be liable, as Pranesh works for the bank and is the bank’s agent.b)Yes, the bank would be liable, as Pranesh works for the bank and is the bank’s agent, and was collecting the money in the course of his employment.c)No, the bank would not be liable. Although Pranesh is an agent of the bank, it was not within the course of his employment to collect money from customers and deposit it in their accounts.d)Pranesh will be personally liable to compensate Ojaswi.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same.Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him.Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act.Facts – Ojaswi is an old woman who lives alone in the outskirts of the city. Every month, she has to deposit a sum of Rs. 2000 in the nearby branch of the State Bank of Shamirpet. Pranesh, her neighbour, works as a teller at that branch and offers to deposit the money for her. Trustingly, Ojaswi hands him the money at the end of the month and asks him to deposit it in her bank account. Pranesh never gave her a receipt stating that the amount had been deposited, but made false entries in her passbook nonetheless. Six months later, it is brought to her notice that Pranesh has been misappropriating all the money. She wishes to sue the State Bank of Shamirpet and claim damages for her loss.Would the Bank be liable?a)Yes, the bank would be liable, as Pranesh works for the bank and is the bank’s agent.b)Yes, the bank would be liable, as Pranesh works for the bank and is the bank’s agent, and was collecting the money in the course of his employment.c)No, the bank would not be liable. Although Pranesh is an agent of the bank, it was not within the course of his employment to collect money from customers and deposit it in their accounts.d)Pranesh will be personally liable to compensate Ojaswi.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same.Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him.Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act.Facts – Ojaswi is an old woman who lives alone in the outskirts of the city. Every month, she has to deposit a sum of Rs. 2000 in the nearby branch of the State Bank of Shamirpet. Pranesh, her neighbour, works as a teller at that branch and offers to deposit the money for her. Trustingly, Ojaswi hands him the money at the end of the month and asks him to deposit it in her bank account. Pranesh never gave her a receipt stating that the amount had been deposited, but made false entries in her passbook nonetheless. Six months later, it is brought to her notice that Pranesh has been misappropriating all the money. She wishes to sue the State Bank of Shamirpet and claim damages for her loss.Would the Bank be liable?a)Yes, the bank would be liable, as Pranesh works for the bank and is the bank’s agent.b)Yes, the bank would be liable, as Pranesh works for the bank and is the bank’s agent, and was collecting the money in the course of his employment.c)No, the bank would not be liable. Although Pranesh is an agent of the bank, it was not within the course of his employment to collect money from customers and deposit it in their accounts.d)Pranesh will be personally liable to compensate Ojaswi.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same.Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him.Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act.Facts – Ojaswi is an old woman who lives alone in the outskirts of the city. Every month, she has to deposit a sum of Rs. 2000 in the nearby branch of the State Bank of Shamirpet. Pranesh, her neighbour, works as a teller at that branch and offers to deposit the money for her. Trustingly, Ojaswi hands him the money at the end of the month and asks him to deposit it in her bank account. Pranesh never gave her a receipt stating that the amount had been deposited, but made false entries in her passbook nonetheless. Six months later, it is brought to her notice that Pranesh has been misappropriating all the money. She wishes to sue the State Bank of Shamirpet and claim damages for her loss.Would the Bank be liable?a)Yes, the bank would be liable, as Pranesh works for the bank and is the bank’s agent.b)Yes, the bank would be liable, as Pranesh works for the bank and is the bank’s agent, and was collecting the money in the course of his employment.c)No, the bank would not be liable. Although Pranesh is an agent of the bank, it was not within the course of his employment to collect money from customers and deposit it in their accounts.d)Pranesh will be personally liable to compensate Ojaswi.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.