Question Description
Principle: A person is liable for the acts which he could have foreseen and prevented.Facts: Mr. Rishabh is very fond of sweets. He went to a local shop where he asked for the best quality of Besan Ladoo. The assistant showed him the section where the Ladoo was kept and Rishabh bought 1 kg of Ladoo. Later, it was found that the Ladoo was not fresh and was inappropriate to eat. Consequently, Rishabh fell ill after consuming it. In light of the above principle, please suggest a course of action.a)The assistant has only showed the section where Ladoo was kept and Risabh should have checked the quality of Ladoo before buying it. The sweet shop is not responsible.b)Since it is the duty of sweet shop to provide quality and fresh sweets and Rishabh bought it in a good faith. Hence, the owner of sweet shop is liable.c)A customer is supposed to check the quality of sweets first and then he should buy it. No one else can be held responsible for customer’s negligence.d)The assistant showed the section where the Ladoo was kept. It was his duty to show fresh Ladoo. Only he is liable and not the shop owner.Correct 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 Principle: A person is liable for the acts which he could have foreseen and prevented.Facts: Mr. Rishabh is very fond of sweets. He went to a local shop where he asked for the best quality of Besan Ladoo. The assistant showed him the section where the Ladoo was kept and Rishabh bought 1 kg of Ladoo. Later, it was found that the Ladoo was not fresh and was inappropriate to eat. Consequently, Rishabh fell ill after consuming it. In light of the above principle, please suggest a course of action.a)The assistant has only showed the section where Ladoo was kept and Risabh should have checked the quality of Ladoo before buying it. The sweet shop is not responsible.b)Since it is the duty of sweet shop to provide quality and fresh sweets and Rishabh bought it in a good faith. Hence, the owner of sweet shop is liable.c)A customer is supposed to check the quality of sweets first and then he should buy it. No one else can be held responsible for customer’s negligence.d)The assistant showed the section where the Ladoo was kept. It was his duty to show fresh Ladoo. Only he is liable and not the shop owner.Correct 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 Principle: A person is liable for the acts which he could have foreseen and prevented.Facts: Mr. Rishabh is very fond of sweets. He went to a local shop where he asked for the best quality of Besan Ladoo. The assistant showed him the section where the Ladoo was kept and Rishabh bought 1 kg of Ladoo. Later, it was found that the Ladoo was not fresh and was inappropriate to eat. Consequently, Rishabh fell ill after consuming it. In light of the above principle, please suggest a course of action.a)The assistant has only showed the section where Ladoo was kept and Risabh should have checked the quality of Ladoo before buying it. The sweet shop is not responsible.b)Since it is the duty of sweet shop to provide quality and fresh sweets and Rishabh bought it in a good faith. Hence, the owner of sweet shop is liable.c)A customer is supposed to check the quality of sweets first and then he should buy it. No one else can be held responsible for customer’s negligence.d)The assistant showed the section where the Ladoo was kept. It was his duty to show fresh Ladoo. Only he is liable and not the shop owner.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Principle: A person is liable for the acts which he could have foreseen and prevented.Facts: Mr. Rishabh is very fond of sweets. He went to a local shop where he asked for the best quality of Besan Ladoo. The assistant showed him the section where the Ladoo was kept and Rishabh bought 1 kg of Ladoo. Later, it was found that the Ladoo was not fresh and was inappropriate to eat. Consequently, Rishabh fell ill after consuming it. In light of the above principle, please suggest a course of action.a)The assistant has only showed the section where Ladoo was kept and Risabh should have checked the quality of Ladoo before buying it. The sweet shop is not responsible.b)Since it is the duty of sweet shop to provide quality and fresh sweets and Rishabh bought it in a good faith. Hence, the owner of sweet shop is liable.c)A customer is supposed to check the quality of sweets first and then he should buy it. No one else can be held responsible for customer’s negligence.d)The assistant showed the section where the Ladoo was kept. It was his duty to show fresh Ladoo. Only he is liable and not the shop owner.Correct 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 Principle: A person is liable for the acts which he could have foreseen and prevented.Facts: Mr. Rishabh is very fond of sweets. He went to a local shop where he asked for the best quality of Besan Ladoo. The assistant showed him the section where the Ladoo was kept and Rishabh bought 1 kg of Ladoo. Later, it was found that the Ladoo was not fresh and was inappropriate to eat. Consequently, Rishabh fell ill after consuming it. In light of the above principle, please suggest a course of action.a)The assistant has only showed the section where Ladoo was kept and Risabh should have checked the quality of Ladoo before buying it. The sweet shop is not responsible.b)Since it is the duty of sweet shop to provide quality and fresh sweets and Rishabh bought it in a good faith. Hence, the owner of sweet shop is liable.c)A customer is supposed to check the quality of sweets first and then he should buy it. No one else can be held responsible for customer’s negligence.d)The assistant showed the section where the Ladoo was kept. It was his duty to show fresh Ladoo. Only he is liable and not the shop owner.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Principle: A person is liable for the acts which he could have foreseen and prevented.Facts: Mr. Rishabh is very fond of sweets. He went to a local shop where he asked for the best quality of Besan Ladoo. The assistant showed him the section where the Ladoo was kept and Rishabh bought 1 kg of Ladoo. Later, it was found that the Ladoo was not fresh and was inappropriate to eat. Consequently, Rishabh fell ill after consuming it. In light of the above principle, please suggest a course of action.a)The assistant has only showed the section where Ladoo was kept and Risabh should have checked the quality of Ladoo before buying it. The sweet shop is not responsible.b)Since it is the duty of sweet shop to provide quality and fresh sweets and Rishabh bought it in a good faith. Hence, the owner of sweet shop is liable.c)A customer is supposed to check the quality of sweets first and then he should buy it. No one else can be held responsible for customer’s negligence.d)The assistant showed the section where the Ladoo was kept. It was his duty to show fresh Ladoo. Only he is liable and not the shop owner.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Principle: A person is liable for the acts which he could have foreseen and prevented.Facts: Mr. Rishabh is very fond of sweets. He went to a local shop where he asked for the best quality of Besan Ladoo. The assistant showed him the section where the Ladoo was kept and Rishabh bought 1 kg of Ladoo. Later, it was found that the Ladoo was not fresh and was inappropriate to eat. Consequently, Rishabh fell ill after consuming it. In light of the above principle, please suggest a course of action.a)The assistant has only showed the section where Ladoo was kept and Risabh should have checked the quality of Ladoo before buying it. The sweet shop is not responsible.b)Since it is the duty of sweet shop to provide quality and fresh sweets and Rishabh bought it in a good faith. Hence, the owner of sweet shop is liable.c)A customer is supposed to check the quality of sweets first and then he should buy it. No one else can be held responsible for customer’s negligence.d)The assistant showed the section where the Ladoo was kept. It was his duty to show fresh Ladoo. Only he is liable and not the shop owner.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Principle: A person is liable for the acts which he could have foreseen and prevented.Facts: Mr. Rishabh is very fond of sweets. He went to a local shop where he asked for the best quality of Besan Ladoo. The assistant showed him the section where the Ladoo was kept and Rishabh bought 1 kg of Ladoo. Later, it was found that the Ladoo was not fresh and was inappropriate to eat. Consequently, Rishabh fell ill after consuming it. In light of the above principle, please suggest a course of action.a)The assistant has only showed the section where Ladoo was kept and Risabh should have checked the quality of Ladoo before buying it. The sweet shop is not responsible.b)Since it is the duty of sweet shop to provide quality and fresh sweets and Rishabh bought it in a good faith. Hence, the owner of sweet shop is liable.c)A customer is supposed to check the quality of sweets first and then he should buy it. No one else can be held responsible for customer’s negligence.d)The assistant showed the section where the Ladoo was kept. It was his duty to show fresh Ladoo. Only he is liable and not the shop owner.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Principle: A person is liable for the acts which he could have foreseen and prevented.Facts: Mr. Rishabh is very fond of sweets. He went to a local shop where he asked for the best quality of Besan Ladoo. The assistant showed him the section where the Ladoo was kept and Rishabh bought 1 kg of Ladoo. Later, it was found that the Ladoo was not fresh and was inappropriate to eat. Consequently, Rishabh fell ill after consuming it. In light of the above principle, please suggest a course of action.a)The assistant has only showed the section where Ladoo was kept and Risabh should have checked the quality of Ladoo before buying it. The sweet shop is not responsible.b)Since it is the duty of sweet shop to provide quality and fresh sweets and Rishabh bought it in a good faith. Hence, the owner of sweet shop is liable.c)A customer is supposed to check the quality of sweets first and then he should buy it. No one else can be held responsible for customer’s negligence.d)The assistant showed the section where the Ladoo was kept. It was his duty to show fresh Ladoo. Only he is liable and not the shop owner.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.