Principle: When a person enjoys the benefit of an act that was non-gratuitous in nature, he is under an obligation to compensate the person who did the act.a)No, it is in the nature of humanity to assist fellow human beingb)Yes, since the tea stall owner spent money on her calls, food, and mediac)No, however the tea stall owner can claim the amount from the owners of the elephant who caused the stampeded)Yes, since she caused the tea stall owner so much trouble, her parents should compensate and additionally, reward himCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Principle: When a person enjoys the benefit ...

Principle: When a person enjoys the benefit of an act that was non-gratuitous in nature, he is under an obligation to compensate the person who did the act.

a)
No, it is in the nature of humanity to assist fellow human being
b)
Yes, since the tea stall owner spent money on her calls, food, and media
c)
No, however the tea stall owner can claim the amount from the owners of the elephant who caused the stampede
d)
Yes, since she caused the tea stall owner so much trouble, her parents should compensate and additionally, reward him

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

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Principle: When a person enjoys the benefit of an act that was non-gr...

The act of the tea stall owner was a non-gratuitous one, and he should be

compensated for all the expenses he made out of his own pocket.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Principle:When a person enjoys the benefit of an act that was non-gratuitous in nature, he is under an obligation to compensate the person who did the act.Explanation:A non-gratuitous act is one that is done with the intention of being rewarded or compensated.Facts:Chandni and Raagini are identical twins and they visit the KumbhMela with their parents. It is very crowded, and a mad elephant happens to escape its quarters, as a result of which a stampede occurs. Chandni and Raagini are separated from each other and their parents. When the stampede ceases, Chandni wanders around and finds a phone booth. Since she has no money, she borrows money from the tea stall owner nearby and calls her parents. Soon after, while waiting for her parents, she faints and a doctor is summoned who prescribes certain medicines. The tea stall owner sends his wife to buy medicines and food for the girl. As soon as she comes to her senses, her parents find her. The tea stall owner asks for money from Chandnis parents.Q. Are they liable to pay him?

View answer

Principle: When a person enjoys the benefit of an act that was non-gratuitous in nature, he is under an obligation to compensate the person who did the act.

View answer

On 7th May 2020, a major leakage of Styrene gas was reported from the plasticsmanufacturing plant LG Polymers located on the outskirts of the Visakhapatnam city. The accident took place when the cooling system of a polymers plant got clogged due to the mismanagement of factory workers and resulted in turning the city into a gas chamber. The gas which leaked was styrene gas, which is a ‘hazardous chemical’ under Rule 2( e) plus Entry 583 of Schedule I of the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules 1989.Principle 1: Polluter Pays PrincipleThe Doctrine of Polluter Pays is a well-established principle of environmental law, which places an obligation of compensating the damage to the people who ought to reimburse it and also have the capacity to disburse it. The principle explicitly affirms that the person who damages or destructs the environment has the absolute obligation to bear the cost of ameliorat ing the environment. In Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India case, the Apex Court of India held that the polluter is legally responsible to reimburse the individual sufferers as well as pay for the revitalization of the damaged environment. PrinciplePrinciple 2: Principle of Strict Liability The principle of Strict Liability was established in the year 1868 in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, where the Court held that any person who uses his/her land in an unnatural manner and who keeps any hazardous substance on such premises would be held liable under the principle of strict liability for any damage occurred on the escape of such perilous substance. However, the person is liable only when there is non-natural use of land; the principle also restricts liability when the escape is due to an act of strangers, Act of God, for example a natural calamity; due to the person injured or when it happens with the consent of the person injured or with statutory authority.Principle 3: Principle of Absolute LiabilityThe absolute liability is a stringent form of Strict Liability as it is devoid of any exceptions that were mentioned under the earlier principle. for the first time in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India. This principle implies that whenever an enterprise is engaged in any dangerous or hazardous activity that threatens the people working in the enterprise and those living nearby, it owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community that no harm will be caused. If harm is indeed caused, the enterprise will have to compensate for damages, and can‘t use exceptions provided in the case of strict liability. The enterprise can‘t claim that the harm has not been caused due to negligence (absence of due care) or that it had taken all reasonable precautions.Q.Under which of the following principles, will the company LG Polymers be liable?

View answer

On 7th May 2020, a major leakage of Styrene gas was reported from the plasticsmanufacturing plant LG Polymers located on the outskirts of the Visakhapatnam city. The accident took place when the cooling system of a polymers plant got clogged due to the mismanagement of factory workers and resulted in turning the city into a gas chamber. The gas which leaked was styrene gas, which is a ‘hazardous chemical’ under Rule 2( e) plus Entry 583 of Schedule I of the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules 1989.Principle 1: Polluter Pays PrincipleThe Doctrine of Polluter Pays is a well-established principle of environmental law, which places an obligation of compensating the damage to the people who ought to reimburse it and also have the capacity to disburse it. The principle explicitly affirms that the person who damages or destructs the environment has the absolute obligation to bear the cost of ameliorat ing the environment. In Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India case, the Apex Court of India held that the polluter is legally responsible to reimburse the individual sufferers as well as pay for the revitalization of the damaged environment. PrinciplePrinciple2: Principle of Strict Liability The principle of Strict Liability was established in the year 1868 in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, where the Court held that any person who uses his/her land in an unnatural manner and who keeps any hazardous substance on such premises would be held liable under the principle of strict liability for any damage occurred on the escape of such perilous substance. However, the person is liable only when there is non-natural use of land; the principle also restricts liability when the escape is due to an act of strangers, Act of God, for example a natural calamity; due to the person injured or when it happens with the consent of the person injured or with statutory authority.Principle 3: Principle of Absolute LiabilityThe absolute liability is a stringent form of Strict Liability as it is devoid of any exceptions that were mentioned under the earlier principle. for the first time in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India. This principle implies that whenever an enterprise is engaged in any dangerous or hazardous activity that threatens the people working in the enterprise and those living nearby, it owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community that no harm will be caused. If harm is indeed caused, the enterprise will have to compensate for damages, and can‘t use exceptions provided in the case of strict liability. The enterprise can‘t claim that the harm has not been caused due to negligence (absence of due care) or that it had taken all reasonable precautions.Q.A company ABC limited operates an industrial chemical plant in the city of Azadnagar. Due to an earthquake on July 22, 2020, the valves of the reactors in the plant get damaged due to which the operators could not properly transport the hazardous gas for chemical vaporisation, resulting in the gas leakage. The gas leakage resulted in the death of 12 workers of the plant and also some people living nearby the Plant. In this situation, in order to decipher the liability of ABC Limited, choose the best option

View answer

Directions: The question consists one or more principles, followed by some facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.Principle: When the parties to an agreement agree on the same thing in the same sense, there arises legally binding obligations between them.Facts: Zaverilal's antique shop was a well-known shop of the locality. Taradevi, a socialite of the locality, went to the shop; she was attracted by an earthern jar on display. Zaverilal explained to her that the jar belonged to Hoysala period; and despite its earthern composition, it was very strong and almost unbreakable. Taradevi replied to him that she was so captivated by the jar that it was immaterial to her as to which period it belonged. She bought the jar and came home. She placed the jar in a prominent place in her drawing room. One of her friends, an art critique, who happened to visit her, told her that the jar was not at all an antique, but Taradevi did not bother about it. One day, it accidentally fell down and broke into pieces. Taradevi took up the matter with Zaverilal that his both statements were wrong and therefore, he should pay damages to her.Decide.

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Principle: When a person enjoys the benefit of an act that was non-gratuitous in nature, he is under an obligation to compensate the person who did the act.a)No, it is in the nature of humanity to assist fellow human beingb)Yes, since the tea stall owner spent money on her calls, food, and mediac)No, however the tea stall owner can claim the amount from the owners of the elephant who caused the stampeded)Yes, since she caused the tea stall owner so much trouble, her parents should compensate and additionally, reward himCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Principle: When a person enjoys the benefit of an act that was non-gratuitous in nature, he is under an obligation to compensate the person who did the act.a)No, it is in the nature of humanity to assist fellow human beingb)Yes, since the tea stall owner spent money on her calls, food, and mediac)No, however the tea stall owner can claim the amount from the owners of the elephant who caused the stampeded)Yes, since she caused the tea stall owner so much trouble, her parents should compensate and additionally, reward himCorrect 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: When a person enjoys the benefit of an act that was non-gratuitous in nature, he is under an obligation to compensate the person who did the act.a)No, it is in the nature of humanity to assist fellow human beingb)Yes, since the tea stall owner spent money on her calls, food, and mediac)No, however the tea stall owner can claim the amount from the owners of the elephant who caused the stampeded)Yes, since she caused the tea stall owner so much trouble, her parents should compensate and additionally, reward himCorrect 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: When a person enjoys the benefit of an act that was non-gratuitous in nature, he is under an obligation to compensate the person who did the act.a)No, it is in the nature of humanity to assist fellow human beingb)Yes, since the tea stall owner spent money on her calls, food, and mediac)No, however the tea stall owner can claim the amount from the owners of the elephant who caused the stampeded)Yes, since she caused the tea stall owner so much trouble, her parents should compensate and additionally, reward himCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Principle: When a person enjoys the benefit of an act that was non-gratuitous in nature, he is under an obligation to compensate the person who did the act.a)No, it is in the nature of humanity to assist fellow human beingb)Yes, since the tea stall owner spent money on her calls, food, and mediac)No, however the tea stall owner can claim the amount from the owners of the elephant who caused the stampeded)Yes, since she caused the tea stall owner so much trouble, her parents should compensate and additionally, reward himCorrect 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: When a person enjoys the benefit of an act that was non-gratuitous in nature, he is under an obligation to compensate the person who did the act.a)No, it is in the nature of humanity to assist fellow human beingb)Yes, since the tea stall owner spent money on her calls, food, and mediac)No, however the tea stall owner can claim the amount from the owners of the elephant who caused the stampeded)Yes, since she caused the tea stall owner so much trouble, her parents should compensate and additionally, reward himCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Principle: When a person enjoys the benefit of an act that was non-gratuitous in nature, he is under an obligation to compensate the person who did the act.a)No, it is in the nature of humanity to assist fellow human beingb)Yes, since the tea stall owner spent money on her calls, food, and mediac)No, however the tea stall owner can claim the amount from the owners of the elephant who caused the stampeded)Yes, since she caused the tea stall owner so much trouble, her parents should compensate and additionally, reward himCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Principle: When a person enjoys the benefit of an act that was non-gratuitous in nature, he is under an obligation to compensate the person who did the act.a)No, it is in the nature of humanity to assist fellow human beingb)Yes, since the tea stall owner spent money on her calls, food, and mediac)No, however the tea stall owner can claim the amount from the owners of the elephant who caused the stampeded)Yes, since she caused the tea stall owner so much trouble, her parents should compensate and additionally, reward himCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Principle: When a person enjoys the benefit of an act that was non-gratuitous in nature, he is under an obligation to compensate the person who did the act.a)No, it is in the nature of humanity to assist fellow human beingb)Yes, since the tea stall owner spent money on her calls, food, and mediac)No, however the tea stall owner can claim the amount from the owners of the elephant who caused the stampeded)Yes, since she caused the tea stall owner so much trouble, her parents should compensate and additionally, reward himCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Principle: When a person enjoys the benefit of an act that was non-gratuitous in nature, he is under an obligation to compensate the person who did the act.a)No, it is in the nature of humanity to assist fellow human beingb)Yes, since the tea stall owner spent money on her calls, food, and mediac)No, however the tea stall owner can claim the amount from the owners of the elephant who caused the stampeded)Yes, since she caused the tea stall owner so much trouble, her parents should compensate and additionally, reward himCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam