Question Description
Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.Q.Mr. Kaua and Mr. Tota were very good friends. They worked together, ate together, lived in the same locality. Mr. Kaua had a big mansion, a BMW Car, a Mercedes Car & a Ducati Bike while Mr. Tota had a Bungalow and an Audi Car. Mr. Kaua once made an offer to sell off his BMW to Mr. Tota who was willing to buy it as he was in need of another car and was looking for second hand luxury cars in the market. Mr. Tota in fact borrowed the car for a week so as to test drive the car. During this week, he also got the car for regular service from the authorised servicing agency of BMW from where he learnt that it was not an original BMW, but was assembled with BMW engine and chassis and the other parts fitted were either spare parts from other auto manufacturers or from local market and some of them were highly sub-standard. He agreed to buy this car despite knowing the reality even though Mr. Kaua did not disclose it, only because Mr. Kaua was a good friend of Mr. Tota and he got the car at 20% of the market price of a new original BMW car of same model. The car broke down in the 2ndweek of the purchase & Mr. Tota started to regret his decision and asked for refund of his money claiming nullity of the contract.Based on your understanding choose the most appropriate answer choicea)Mr. Tota can rescind the contract as it is voidable at his option since Mr. Kaua committed misrepresentation by not disclosing such material fact.b)Mr. Tota is bound by the contract since he had the opportunity to examine the product before entering into the contract.c)Mr. Tota is bound by the contract as he knowingly entered into the contract.d)The contract between Mr. Kaua & Mr. Tota is void.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 Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.Q.Mr. Kaua and Mr. Tota were very good friends. They worked together, ate together, lived in the same locality. Mr. Kaua had a big mansion, a BMW Car, a Mercedes Car & a Ducati Bike while Mr. Tota had a Bungalow and an Audi Car. Mr. Kaua once made an offer to sell off his BMW to Mr. Tota who was willing to buy it as he was in need of another car and was looking for second hand luxury cars in the market. Mr. Tota in fact borrowed the car for a week so as to test drive the car. During this week, he also got the car for regular service from the authorised servicing agency of BMW from where he learnt that it was not an original BMW, but was assembled with BMW engine and chassis and the other parts fitted were either spare parts from other auto manufacturers or from local market and some of them were highly sub-standard. He agreed to buy this car despite knowing the reality even though Mr. Kaua did not disclose it, only because Mr. Kaua was a good friend of Mr. Tota and he got the car at 20% of the market price of a new original BMW car of same model. The car broke down in the 2ndweek of the purchase & Mr. Tota started to regret his decision and asked for refund of his money claiming nullity of the contract.Based on your understanding choose the most appropriate answer choicea)Mr. Tota can rescind the contract as it is voidable at his option since Mr. Kaua committed misrepresentation by not disclosing such material fact.b)Mr. Tota is bound by the contract since he had the opportunity to examine the product before entering into the contract.c)Mr. Tota is bound by the contract as he knowingly entered into the contract.d)The contract between Mr. Kaua & Mr. Tota is void.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 Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.Q.Mr. Kaua and Mr. Tota were very good friends. They worked together, ate together, lived in the same locality. Mr. Kaua had a big mansion, a BMW Car, a Mercedes Car & a Ducati Bike while Mr. Tota had a Bungalow and an Audi Car. Mr. Kaua once made an offer to sell off his BMW to Mr. Tota who was willing to buy it as he was in need of another car and was looking for second hand luxury cars in the market. Mr. Tota in fact borrowed the car for a week so as to test drive the car. During this week, he also got the car for regular service from the authorised servicing agency of BMW from where he learnt that it was not an original BMW, but was assembled with BMW engine and chassis and the other parts fitted were either spare parts from other auto manufacturers or from local market and some of them were highly sub-standard. He agreed to buy this car despite knowing the reality even though Mr. Kaua did not disclose it, only because Mr. Kaua was a good friend of Mr. Tota and he got the car at 20% of the market price of a new original BMW car of same model. The car broke down in the 2ndweek of the purchase & Mr. Tota started to regret his decision and asked for refund of his money claiming nullity of the contract.Based on your understanding choose the most appropriate answer choicea)Mr. Tota can rescind the contract as it is voidable at his option since Mr. Kaua committed misrepresentation by not disclosing such material fact.b)Mr. Tota is bound by the contract since he had the opportunity to examine the product before entering into the contract.c)Mr. Tota is bound by the contract as he knowingly entered into the contract.d)The contract between Mr. Kaua & Mr. Tota is void.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.Q.Mr. Kaua and Mr. Tota were very good friends. They worked together, ate together, lived in the same locality. Mr. Kaua had a big mansion, a BMW Car, a Mercedes Car & a Ducati Bike while Mr. Tota had a Bungalow and an Audi Car. Mr. Kaua once made an offer to sell off his BMW to Mr. Tota who was willing to buy it as he was in need of another car and was looking for second hand luxury cars in the market. Mr. Tota in fact borrowed the car for a week so as to test drive the car. During this week, he also got the car for regular service from the authorised servicing agency of BMW from where he learnt that it was not an original BMW, but was assembled with BMW engine and chassis and the other parts fitted were either spare parts from other auto manufacturers or from local market and some of them were highly sub-standard. He agreed to buy this car despite knowing the reality even though Mr. Kaua did not disclose it, only because Mr. Kaua was a good friend of Mr. Tota and he got the car at 20% of the market price of a new original BMW car of same model. The car broke down in the 2ndweek of the purchase & Mr. Tota started to regret his decision and asked for refund of his money claiming nullity of the contract.Based on your understanding choose the most appropriate answer choicea)Mr. Tota can rescind the contract as it is voidable at his option since Mr. Kaua committed misrepresentation by not disclosing such material fact.b)Mr. Tota is bound by the contract since he had the opportunity to examine the product before entering into the contract.c)Mr. Tota is bound by the contract as he knowingly entered into the contract.d)The contract between Mr. Kaua & Mr. Tota is void.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 Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.Q.Mr. Kaua and Mr. Tota were very good friends. They worked together, ate together, lived in the same locality. Mr. Kaua had a big mansion, a BMW Car, a Mercedes Car & a Ducati Bike while Mr. Tota had a Bungalow and an Audi Car. Mr. Kaua once made an offer to sell off his BMW to Mr. Tota who was willing to buy it as he was in need of another car and was looking for second hand luxury cars in the market. Mr. Tota in fact borrowed the car for a week so as to test drive the car. During this week, he also got the car for regular service from the authorised servicing agency of BMW from where he learnt that it was not an original BMW, but was assembled with BMW engine and chassis and the other parts fitted were either spare parts from other auto manufacturers or from local market and some of them were highly sub-standard. He agreed to buy this car despite knowing the reality even though Mr. Kaua did not disclose it, only because Mr. Kaua was a good friend of Mr. Tota and he got the car at 20% of the market price of a new original BMW car of same model. The car broke down in the 2ndweek of the purchase & Mr. Tota started to regret his decision and asked for refund of his money claiming nullity of the contract.Based on your understanding choose the most appropriate answer choicea)Mr. Tota can rescind the contract as it is voidable at his option since Mr. Kaua committed misrepresentation by not disclosing such material fact.b)Mr. Tota is bound by the contract since he had the opportunity to examine the product before entering into the contract.c)Mr. Tota is bound by the contract as he knowingly entered into the contract.d)The contract between Mr. Kaua & Mr. Tota is void.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.Q.Mr. Kaua and Mr. Tota were very good friends. They worked together, ate together, lived in the same locality. Mr. Kaua had a big mansion, a BMW Car, a Mercedes Car & a Ducati Bike while Mr. Tota had a Bungalow and an Audi Car. Mr. Kaua once made an offer to sell off his BMW to Mr. Tota who was willing to buy it as he was in need of another car and was looking for second hand luxury cars in the market. Mr. Tota in fact borrowed the car for a week so as to test drive the car. During this week, he also got the car for regular service from the authorised servicing agency of BMW from where he learnt that it was not an original BMW, but was assembled with BMW engine and chassis and the other parts fitted were either spare parts from other auto manufacturers or from local market and some of them were highly sub-standard. He agreed to buy this car despite knowing the reality even though Mr. Kaua did not disclose it, only because Mr. Kaua was a good friend of Mr. Tota and he got the car at 20% of the market price of a new original BMW car of same model. The car broke down in the 2ndweek of the purchase & Mr. Tota started to regret his decision and asked for refund of his money claiming nullity of the contract.Based on your understanding choose the most appropriate answer choicea)Mr. Tota can rescind the contract as it is voidable at his option since Mr. Kaua committed misrepresentation by not disclosing such material fact.b)Mr. Tota is bound by the contract since he had the opportunity to examine the product before entering into the contract.c)Mr. Tota is bound by the contract as he knowingly entered into the contract.d)The contract between Mr. Kaua & Mr. Tota is void.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.Q.Mr. Kaua and Mr. Tota were very good friends. They worked together, ate together, lived in the same locality. Mr. Kaua had a big mansion, a BMW Car, a Mercedes Car & a Ducati Bike while Mr. Tota had a Bungalow and an Audi Car. Mr. Kaua once made an offer to sell off his BMW to Mr. Tota who was willing to buy it as he was in need of another car and was looking for second hand luxury cars in the market. Mr. Tota in fact borrowed the car for a week so as to test drive the car. During this week, he also got the car for regular service from the authorised servicing agency of BMW from where he learnt that it was not an original BMW, but was assembled with BMW engine and chassis and the other parts fitted were either spare parts from other auto manufacturers or from local market and some of them were highly sub-standard. He agreed to buy this car despite knowing the reality even though Mr. Kaua did not disclose it, only because Mr. Kaua was a good friend of Mr. Tota and he got the car at 20% of the market price of a new original BMW car of same model. The car broke down in the 2ndweek of the purchase & Mr. Tota started to regret his decision and asked for refund of his money claiming nullity of the contract.Based on your understanding choose the most appropriate answer choicea)Mr. Tota can rescind the contract as it is voidable at his option since Mr. Kaua committed misrepresentation by not disclosing such material fact.b)Mr. Tota is bound by the contract since he had the opportunity to examine the product before entering into the contract.c)Mr. Tota is bound by the contract as he knowingly entered into the contract.d)The contract between Mr. Kaua & Mr. Tota is void.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.Q.Mr. Kaua and Mr. Tota were very good friends. They worked together, ate together, lived in the same locality. Mr. Kaua had a big mansion, a BMW Car, a Mercedes Car & a Ducati Bike while Mr. Tota had a Bungalow and an Audi Car. Mr. Kaua once made an offer to sell off his BMW to Mr. Tota who was willing to buy it as he was in need of another car and was looking for second hand luxury cars in the market. Mr. Tota in fact borrowed the car for a week so as to test drive the car. During this week, he also got the car for regular service from the authorised servicing agency of BMW from where he learnt that it was not an original BMW, but was assembled with BMW engine and chassis and the other parts fitted were either spare parts from other auto manufacturers or from local market and some of them were highly sub-standard. He agreed to buy this car despite knowing the reality even though Mr. Kaua did not disclose it, only because Mr. Kaua was a good friend of Mr. Tota and he got the car at 20% of the market price of a new original BMW car of same model. The car broke down in the 2ndweek of the purchase & Mr. Tota started to regret his decision and asked for refund of his money claiming nullity of the contract.Based on your understanding choose the most appropriate answer choicea)Mr. Tota can rescind the contract as it is voidable at his option since Mr. Kaua committed misrepresentation by not disclosing such material fact.b)Mr. Tota is bound by the contract since he had the opportunity to examine the product before entering into the contract.c)Mr. Tota is bound by the contract as he knowingly entered into the contract.d)The contract between Mr. Kaua & Mr. Tota is void.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.Q.Mr. Kaua and Mr. Tota were very good friends. They worked together, ate together, lived in the same locality. Mr. Kaua had a big mansion, a BMW Car, a Mercedes Car & a Ducati Bike while Mr. Tota had a Bungalow and an Audi Car. Mr. Kaua once made an offer to sell off his BMW to Mr. Tota who was willing to buy it as he was in need of another car and was looking for second hand luxury cars in the market. Mr. Tota in fact borrowed the car for a week so as to test drive the car. During this week, he also got the car for regular service from the authorised servicing agency of BMW from where he learnt that it was not an original BMW, but was assembled with BMW engine and chassis and the other parts fitted were either spare parts from other auto manufacturers or from local market and some of them were highly sub-standard. He agreed to buy this car despite knowing the reality even though Mr. Kaua did not disclose it, only because Mr. Kaua was a good friend of Mr. Tota and he got the car at 20% of the market price of a new original BMW car of same model. The car broke down in the 2ndweek of the purchase & Mr. Tota started to regret his decision and asked for refund of his money claiming nullity of the contract.Based on your understanding choose the most appropriate answer choicea)Mr. Tota can rescind the contract as it is voidable at his option since Mr. Kaua committed misrepresentation by not disclosing such material fact.b)Mr. Tota is bound by the contract since he had the opportunity to examine the product before entering into the contract.c)Mr. Tota is bound by the contract as he knowingly entered into the contract.d)The contract between Mr. Kaua & Mr. Tota is void.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.