Question Description
Direction: Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principle: An agreement between two private parties that creates mutual legal obligations. A contract can be either oral or written.Facts: Mr. Ram and Mr. Rahim were work colleagues who had an arrangement regarding shared lifts to work. Rahim would drive his motorbike and Ram would ride pillion in return for a weekly sum of money. Unfortunately both were killed in a road traffic accident and the wife of Mr. Ram made a claim for damages against the estate of Mr. Rahim. However Rahim’s insurance policy did not cover pillion passengers and as his estate had no assets or money to satisfy the judgment, Mrs. Ram pursued the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB).The MIB have an agreement whereby accidents and consequential claims would be satisfied by the Government in circumstances where the driver has no relevant policy of insurance. However the rules covering this situation require Mr. Ram was carried for “hire or reward”. Mrs. Ram argues that there was a contract in place between Ram and Rahim for the lifts to work. Decide whether there was a contract so as to make Mrs. Ram eligible for claim from MIB.a)Notwithstanding the regular payment of money in return for the lift, it was not a legal obligation as to create a contract. There were no terms as to how long this was to last, what would happen in default of payment or the availability of transport, or anything written down so as to at least make their intention clear.b)Yes, there was clearly an offer of transport and this was accepted. In addition, the consideration exchanged by the parties was the service of transport and the money paid by Ram.c)Yes, the practice of agreements between colleagues sharing a lift to work (or “car-pooling”) is an accepted and wide spread practice. Parties will usually agree that one will take their car and in return the others will make a contribution towards the petrol costs.d)No, unless the wife of Ram can show that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of Rahim.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 Direction: Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principle: An agreement between two private parties that creates mutual legal obligations. A contract can be either oral or written.Facts: Mr. Ram and Mr. Rahim were work colleagues who had an arrangement regarding shared lifts to work. Rahim would drive his motorbike and Ram would ride pillion in return for a weekly sum of money. Unfortunately both were killed in a road traffic accident and the wife of Mr. Ram made a claim for damages against the estate of Mr. Rahim. However Rahim’s insurance policy did not cover pillion passengers and as his estate had no assets or money to satisfy the judgment, Mrs. Ram pursued the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB).The MIB have an agreement whereby accidents and consequential claims would be satisfied by the Government in circumstances where the driver has no relevant policy of insurance. However the rules covering this situation require Mr. Ram was carried for “hire or reward”. Mrs. Ram argues that there was a contract in place between Ram and Rahim for the lifts to work. Decide whether there was a contract so as to make Mrs. Ram eligible for claim from MIB.a)Notwithstanding the regular payment of money in return for the lift, it was not a legal obligation as to create a contract. There were no terms as to how long this was to last, what would happen in default of payment or the availability of transport, or anything written down so as to at least make their intention clear.b)Yes, there was clearly an offer of transport and this was accepted. In addition, the consideration exchanged by the parties was the service of transport and the money paid by Ram.c)Yes, the practice of agreements between colleagues sharing a lift to work (or “car-pooling”) is an accepted and wide spread practice. Parties will usually agree that one will take their car and in return the others will make a contribution towards the petrol costs.d)No, unless the wife of Ram can show that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of Rahim.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 Direction: Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principle: An agreement between two private parties that creates mutual legal obligations. A contract can be either oral or written.Facts: Mr. Ram and Mr. Rahim were work colleagues who had an arrangement regarding shared lifts to work. Rahim would drive his motorbike and Ram would ride pillion in return for a weekly sum of money. Unfortunately both were killed in a road traffic accident and the wife of Mr. Ram made a claim for damages against the estate of Mr. Rahim. However Rahim’s insurance policy did not cover pillion passengers and as his estate had no assets or money to satisfy the judgment, Mrs. Ram pursued the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB).The MIB have an agreement whereby accidents and consequential claims would be satisfied by the Government in circumstances where the driver has no relevant policy of insurance. However the rules covering this situation require Mr. Ram was carried for “hire or reward”. Mrs. Ram argues that there was a contract in place between Ram and Rahim for the lifts to work. Decide whether there was a contract so as to make Mrs. Ram eligible for claim from MIB.a)Notwithstanding the regular payment of money in return for the lift, it was not a legal obligation as to create a contract. There were no terms as to how long this was to last, what would happen in default of payment or the availability of transport, or anything written down so as to at least make their intention clear.b)Yes, there was clearly an offer of transport and this was accepted. In addition, the consideration exchanged by the parties was the service of transport and the money paid by Ram.c)Yes, the practice of agreements between colleagues sharing a lift to work (or “car-pooling”) is an accepted and wide spread practice. Parties will usually agree that one will take their car and in return the others will make a contribution towards the petrol costs.d)No, unless the wife of Ram can show that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of Rahim.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Direction: Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principle: An agreement between two private parties that creates mutual legal obligations. A contract can be either oral or written.Facts: Mr. Ram and Mr. Rahim were work colleagues who had an arrangement regarding shared lifts to work. Rahim would drive his motorbike and Ram would ride pillion in return for a weekly sum of money. Unfortunately both were killed in a road traffic accident and the wife of Mr. Ram made a claim for damages against the estate of Mr. Rahim. However Rahim’s insurance policy did not cover pillion passengers and as his estate had no assets or money to satisfy the judgment, Mrs. Ram pursued the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB).The MIB have an agreement whereby accidents and consequential claims would be satisfied by the Government in circumstances where the driver has no relevant policy of insurance. However the rules covering this situation require Mr. Ram was carried for “hire or reward”. Mrs. Ram argues that there was a contract in place between Ram and Rahim for the lifts to work. Decide whether there was a contract so as to make Mrs. Ram eligible for claim from MIB.a)Notwithstanding the regular payment of money in return for the lift, it was not a legal obligation as to create a contract. There were no terms as to how long this was to last, what would happen in default of payment or the availability of transport, or anything written down so as to at least make their intention clear.b)Yes, there was clearly an offer of transport and this was accepted. In addition, the consideration exchanged by the parties was the service of transport and the money paid by Ram.c)Yes, the practice of agreements between colleagues sharing a lift to work (or “car-pooling”) is an accepted and wide spread practice. Parties will usually agree that one will take their car and in return the others will make a contribution towards the petrol costs.d)No, unless the wife of Ram can show that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of Rahim.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 Direction: Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principle: An agreement between two private parties that creates mutual legal obligations. A contract can be either oral or written.Facts: Mr. Ram and Mr. Rahim were work colleagues who had an arrangement regarding shared lifts to work. Rahim would drive his motorbike and Ram would ride pillion in return for a weekly sum of money. Unfortunately both were killed in a road traffic accident and the wife of Mr. Ram made a claim for damages against the estate of Mr. Rahim. However Rahim’s insurance policy did not cover pillion passengers and as his estate had no assets or money to satisfy the judgment, Mrs. Ram pursued the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB).The MIB have an agreement whereby accidents and consequential claims would be satisfied by the Government in circumstances where the driver has no relevant policy of insurance. However the rules covering this situation require Mr. Ram was carried for “hire or reward”. Mrs. Ram argues that there was a contract in place between Ram and Rahim for the lifts to work. Decide whether there was a contract so as to make Mrs. Ram eligible for claim from MIB.a)Notwithstanding the regular payment of money in return for the lift, it was not a legal obligation as to create a contract. There were no terms as to how long this was to last, what would happen in default of payment or the availability of transport, or anything written down so as to at least make their intention clear.b)Yes, there was clearly an offer of transport and this was accepted. In addition, the consideration exchanged by the parties was the service of transport and the money paid by Ram.c)Yes, the practice of agreements between colleagues sharing a lift to work (or “car-pooling”) is an accepted and wide spread practice. Parties will usually agree that one will take their car and in return the others will make a contribution towards the petrol costs.d)No, unless the wife of Ram can show that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of Rahim.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction: Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principle: An agreement between two private parties that creates mutual legal obligations. A contract can be either oral or written.Facts: Mr. Ram and Mr. Rahim were work colleagues who had an arrangement regarding shared lifts to work. Rahim would drive his motorbike and Ram would ride pillion in return for a weekly sum of money. Unfortunately both were killed in a road traffic accident and the wife of Mr. Ram made a claim for damages against the estate of Mr. Rahim. However Rahim’s insurance policy did not cover pillion passengers and as his estate had no assets or money to satisfy the judgment, Mrs. Ram pursued the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB).The MIB have an agreement whereby accidents and consequential claims would be satisfied by the Government in circumstances where the driver has no relevant policy of insurance. However the rules covering this situation require Mr. Ram was carried for “hire or reward”. Mrs. Ram argues that there was a contract in place between Ram and Rahim for the lifts to work. Decide whether there was a contract so as to make Mrs. Ram eligible for claim from MIB.a)Notwithstanding the regular payment of money in return for the lift, it was not a legal obligation as to create a contract. There were no terms as to how long this was to last, what would happen in default of payment or the availability of transport, or anything written down so as to at least make their intention clear.b)Yes, there was clearly an offer of transport and this was accepted. In addition, the consideration exchanged by the parties was the service of transport and the money paid by Ram.c)Yes, the practice of agreements between colleagues sharing a lift to work (or “car-pooling”) is an accepted and wide spread practice. Parties will usually agree that one will take their car and in return the others will make a contribution towards the petrol costs.d)No, unless the wife of Ram can show that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of Rahim.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction: Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principle: An agreement between two private parties that creates mutual legal obligations. A contract can be either oral or written.Facts: Mr. Ram and Mr. Rahim were work colleagues who had an arrangement regarding shared lifts to work. Rahim would drive his motorbike and Ram would ride pillion in return for a weekly sum of money. Unfortunately both were killed in a road traffic accident and the wife of Mr. Ram made a claim for damages against the estate of Mr. Rahim. However Rahim’s insurance policy did not cover pillion passengers and as his estate had no assets or money to satisfy the judgment, Mrs. Ram pursued the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB).The MIB have an agreement whereby accidents and consequential claims would be satisfied by the Government in circumstances where the driver has no relevant policy of insurance. However the rules covering this situation require Mr. Ram was carried for “hire or reward”. Mrs. Ram argues that there was a contract in place between Ram and Rahim for the lifts to work. Decide whether there was a contract so as to make Mrs. Ram eligible for claim from MIB.a)Notwithstanding the regular payment of money in return for the lift, it was not a legal obligation as to create a contract. There were no terms as to how long this was to last, what would happen in default of payment or the availability of transport, or anything written down so as to at least make their intention clear.b)Yes, there was clearly an offer of transport and this was accepted. In addition, the consideration exchanged by the parties was the service of transport and the money paid by Ram.c)Yes, the practice of agreements between colleagues sharing a lift to work (or “car-pooling”) is an accepted and wide spread practice. Parties will usually agree that one will take their car and in return the others will make a contribution towards the petrol costs.d)No, unless the wife of Ram can show that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of Rahim.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction: Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principle: An agreement between two private parties that creates mutual legal obligations. A contract can be either oral or written.Facts: Mr. Ram and Mr. Rahim were work colleagues who had an arrangement regarding shared lifts to work. Rahim would drive his motorbike and Ram would ride pillion in return for a weekly sum of money. Unfortunately both were killed in a road traffic accident and the wife of Mr. Ram made a claim for damages against the estate of Mr. Rahim. However Rahim’s insurance policy did not cover pillion passengers and as his estate had no assets or money to satisfy the judgment, Mrs. Ram pursued the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB).The MIB have an agreement whereby accidents and consequential claims would be satisfied by the Government in circumstances where the driver has no relevant policy of insurance. However the rules covering this situation require Mr. Ram was carried for “hire or reward”. Mrs. Ram argues that there was a contract in place between Ram and Rahim for the lifts to work. Decide whether there was a contract so as to make Mrs. Ram eligible for claim from MIB.a)Notwithstanding the regular payment of money in return for the lift, it was not a legal obligation as to create a contract. There were no terms as to how long this was to last, what would happen in default of payment or the availability of transport, or anything written down so as to at least make their intention clear.b)Yes, there was clearly an offer of transport and this was accepted. In addition, the consideration exchanged by the parties was the service of transport and the money paid by Ram.c)Yes, the practice of agreements between colleagues sharing a lift to work (or “car-pooling”) is an accepted and wide spread practice. Parties will usually agree that one will take their car and in return the others will make a contribution towards the petrol costs.d)No, unless the wife of Ram can show that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of Rahim.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction: Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principle: An agreement between two private parties that creates mutual legal obligations. A contract can be either oral or written.Facts: Mr. Ram and Mr. Rahim were work colleagues who had an arrangement regarding shared lifts to work. Rahim would drive his motorbike and Ram would ride pillion in return for a weekly sum of money. Unfortunately both were killed in a road traffic accident and the wife of Mr. Ram made a claim for damages against the estate of Mr. Rahim. However Rahim’s insurance policy did not cover pillion passengers and as his estate had no assets or money to satisfy the judgment, Mrs. Ram pursued the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB).The MIB have an agreement whereby accidents and consequential claims would be satisfied by the Government in circumstances where the driver has no relevant policy of insurance. However the rules covering this situation require Mr. Ram was carried for “hire or reward”. Mrs. Ram argues that there was a contract in place between Ram and Rahim for the lifts to work. Decide whether there was a contract so as to make Mrs. Ram eligible for claim from MIB.a)Notwithstanding the regular payment of money in return for the lift, it was not a legal obligation as to create a contract. There were no terms as to how long this was to last, what would happen in default of payment or the availability of transport, or anything written down so as to at least make their intention clear.b)Yes, there was clearly an offer of transport and this was accepted. In addition, the consideration exchanged by the parties was the service of transport and the money paid by Ram.c)Yes, the practice of agreements between colleagues sharing a lift to work (or “car-pooling”) is an accepted and wide spread practice. Parties will usually agree that one will take their car and in return the others will make a contribution towards the petrol costs.d)No, unless the wife of Ram can show that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of Rahim.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.