All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  PRINCIPLE 1 - Violation of a legal right, wit... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
PRINCIPLE 1 - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability.
PRINCIPLE 2 – When a person owes a duty of care to another, and causes breach of such duty of care, he can be said to have violated the other person‘s legal right.
FACTS – Stuti studies in a law school, and she wishes to avail the University‘s exchange programme through which she will get an opportunity to study at a foreign law school for one semester. According to the rules to apply for the exchange programme, she must deposit a certain sum with the university before a specified date. So, Stuti goes to the bank, which has a branch in her university‘s campus, and hands over a cheque to be encashed. The banker, who did have the sufficient amount of cash required, and deposited in her account, refused to encash it without giving her any valid reason.
Stuti then goes to a different bank, gets her cheque encashed, and successfully applies for the exchange programme. Will the banker still be liable for his act?
  • a)
    The banker will be liable, as he has refused to encash Stuti‘s cheque without a valid reason, and has violated her legal right. Although there was no real damage that Stuti suffered, he will still be liable.
  • b)
    No, the banker will not be liable as Stuti still managed to get the required sum from a different bank, and successfully applied for the exchange programme. She has not suffered any damage.
  • c)
    The banker‘s refusal to encash a cheque does not amount to violation of a legal right, so he will not be held liable.
  • d)
    Can‘t say. The facts are inadequate to decide.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
PRINCIPLE 1 - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damag...
Plz read principle 1
Attention CLAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Principle 1 - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability.Principle 2 – When a person owes a duty of care to another, and causes breach of such duty of care, he can be said to have violated the other person‘s legal right.Facts – Stuti studies in a law school, and she wishes to avail the University‘s exchange programme through which she will get an opportunity to study at a foreign law school for one semester. According to the rules to apply for the exchange programme, she must deposit a certain sum with the university before a specified date. So, Stuti goes to the bank, which has a branch in her university‘s campus, and hands over a cheque to be encashed. The banker, who did have the sufficient amount of cash required, and deposited in her account, refused to encash it without giving her any valid reason. Stuti then goes to a different bank, gets her cheque encashed, and successfully applies for the exchange programme.Q. Will the banker still be liable for his act?

Read the following passage and answer the question.Rule of natural justice are placed so highthat it has been declared time and again by courts that “no human law are of any validity, if contrary to this”, and court of law could discard an act of parliament if it is contrary to natural justice. Generally no provision is found in any statute for observance of principle of natural justice by adjudicating authorities.Question then arises, whether the adjudicating authorities are bound to follow these principles. Law is well settled on this point, courts have observed that even though there is no positive words in a statuteor rules requiring that the parties shall be heard, yet the principles of natural justice will supply the omission of legislature. In other words if a statute or rule authorising interference with property, civil or fundamental rights was silent on question of hearing and notice, the courts will apply the rules as it is “of universal application and founded on plainest principle of natural justice”. Non-observance of principle will invalidate the exercise of power by any authority. Principle of natural justice are binding on all courts, judicial bodies and quasi judicial bodies. Question is -are they applicable to an administrative action? Earlier court took the view that it is inapplicable but as per lord denning “that heresy has been scotched”. Thus a statutory body irrespective of its nature or function has to act fairly and not in an arbitrary manner.Principles of natural justice differs from situation to situation but certain basic premises remain the same. For instance, accused should know the nature of accusation made, he should be given an opportunity to state his case and tribunal should act in good faith. Whenever, a complaint is made to court regarding non observance of principles of natural justice, court has to see whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just and fair decision as per the facts of the case. If it was necessary then court will declare the decision ultra vires the power of authority.Traditionally, there are 2 principles of natural justice.(i) No man shall be judge in his own cause, or no man can act as both at the one and the same time- a party or a suitor and also a judge, or a deciding authority must be impartial and without bias.(ii) Hear the other side, or both the side must be heard, or no man should be condemned unheard, or that there must be fairness on the part of deciding authority.Rule against bias simply means that, justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Anything which tends or may be regarded as tending to cause such person to decide a case otherwise than on evidence must be held to be biased. Judge is supposed to be indifferent to the parties in a controversy. He must be in position to decide the matter objectively. He cannot allow his personal prejudice to go into decision making. Object is not merely that scales be held even; it is also that they may not appear to be inclined. This rule also applies to administrative authorities required to act judicially.Right to be heard simply means that, a party is not to suffer in person or in purse without an opportunity of being heard. In short, before an order is passed against any person, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to him. This maxim includes 2 elements- notice and hearing. Any action taken without notice is against principle of natural justice and is void ab initio. Notice must be clear, specific and unambiguous and charges should not be vague and uncertain. Moreover, notice must give reasonable opportunity to comply with requirement mentioned therein. Hearing simply means that no adverse action can be taken against any person without giving him an opportunity of being heard. It also means that, adjudicating authority must disclose all evidence and material placed before it in the course of hearing proceeding and must afford an opportunity to the person against whom the evidences are to be used to rebut it. Another rule of hearing is “he who hears should decide” or “one who decides must hear”.Q.After the encounter of 4 rape accused in Hyderabad, the three police officers got a show cause notice, which stated that, they have been charged with murder and they have to answer in 5 days why an action should not be initiated against them. The notice did not mention any details wrt to the date of murder or name of victims, place of incident etc. The officers did not reply to notice, so they were suspended. Officers then challenged their suspension in court and argued that they did not get an opportunity of being heard. Decide.

Read the following passage and answer the question.Rule of natural justice are placed so highthat it has been declared time and again by courts that “no human law are of any validity, if contrary to this”, and court of law could discard an act of parliament if it is contrary to natural justice. Generally no provision is found in any statute for observance of principle of natural justice by adjudicating authorities.Question then arises, whether the adjudicating authorities are bound to follow these principles. Law is well settled on this point, courts have observed that even though there is no positive words in a statuteor rules requiring that the parties shall be heard, yet the principles of natural justice will supply the omission of legislature. In other words if a statute or rule authorising interference with property, civil or fundamental rights was silent on question of hearing and notice, the courts will apply the rules as it is “of universal application and founded on plainest principle of natural justice”. Non-observance of principle will invalidate the exercise of power by any authority. Principle of natural justice are binding on all courts, judicial bodies and quasi judicial bodies. Question is -are they applicable to an administrative action? Earlier court took the view that it is inapplicable but as per lord denning “that heresy has been scotched”. Thus a statutory body irrespective of its nature or function has to act fairly and not in an arbitrary manner.Principles of natural justice differs from situation to situation but certain basic premises remain the same. For instance, accused should know the nature of accusation made, he should be given an opportunity to state his case and tribunal should act in good faith. Whenever, a complaint is made to court regarding non observance of principles of natural justice, court has to see whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just and fair decision as per the facts of the case. If it was necessary then court will declare the decision ultra vires the power of authority.Traditionally, there are 2 principles of natural justice.(i) No man shall be judge in his own cause, or no man can act as both at the one and the same time- a party or a suitor and also a judge, or a deciding authority must be impartial and without bias.(ii) Hear the other side, or both the side must be heard, or no man should be condemned unheard, or that there must be fairness on the part of deciding authority.Rule against bias simply means that, justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Anything which tends or may be regarded as tending to cause such person to decide a case otherwise than on evidence must be held to be biased. Judge is supposed to be indifferent to the parties in a controversy. He must be in position to decide the matter objectively. He cannot allow his personal prejudice to go into decision making. Object is not merely that scales be held even; it is also that they may not appear to be inclined. This rule also applies to administrative authorities required to act judicially.Right to be heard simply means that, a party is not to suffer in person or in purse without an opportunity of being heard. In short, before an order is passed against any person, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to him. This maxim includes 2 elements- notice and hearing. Any action taken without notice is against principle of natural justice and is void ab initio. Notice must be clear, specific and unambiguous and charges should not be vague and uncertain. Moreover, notice must give reasonable opportunity to comply with requirement mentioned therein. Hearing simply means that no adverse action can be taken against any person without giving him an opportunity of being heard. It also means that, adjudicating authority must disclose all evidence and material placed before it in the course of hearing proceeding and must afford an opportunity to the person against whom the evidences are to be used to rebut it. Another rule of hearing is “he who hears should decide” or “one who decides must hear”.Q.Dr Siddharth, was removed from practicing in the city of Bhagalpur for practicing without the license of Bhagalpur medical college. The statute under which college acted provided half the fine for practising without license will go to the government and half to college. Proper notice was given before removal and he was removed after due inquiry and after being given a proper right to be heard. Decide.

Read the following passage and answer the question.Rule of natural justice are placed so highthat it has been declared time and again by courts that “no human law are of any validity, if contrary to this”, and court of law could discard an act of parliament if it is contrary to natural justice. Generally no provision is found in any statute for observance of principle of natural justice by adjudicating authorities.Question then arises, whether the adjudicating authorities are bound to follow these principles. Law is well settled on this point, courts have observed that even though there is no positive words in a statuteor rules requiring that the parties shall be heard, yet the principles of natural justice will supply the omission of legislature. In other words if a statute or rule authorising interference with property, civil or fundamental rights was silent on question of hearing and notice, the courts will apply the rules as it is “of universal application and founded on plainest principle of natural justice”. Non-observance of principle will invalidate the exercise of power by any authority. Principle of natural justice are binding on all courts, judicial bodies and quasi judicial bodies. Question is -are they applicable to an administrative action? Earlier court took the view that it is inapplicable but as per lord denning “that heresy has been scotched”. Thus a statutory body irrespective of its nature or function has to act fairly and not in an arbitrary manner.Principles of natural justice differs from situation to situation but certain basic premises remain the same. For instance, accused should know the nature of accusation made, he should be given an opportunity to state his case and tribunal should act in good faith. Whenever, a complaint is made to court regarding non observance of principles of natural justice, court has to see whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just and fair decision as per the facts of the case. If it was necessary then court will declare the decision ultra vires the power of authority.Traditionally, there are 2 principles of natural justice.(i) No man shall be judge in his own cause, or no man can act as both at the one and the same time- a party or a suitor and also a judge, or a deciding authority must be impartial and without bias.(ii) Hear the other side, or both the side must be heard, or no man should be condemned unheard, or that there must be fairness on the part of deciding authority.Rule against bias simply means that, justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Anything which tends or may be regarded as tending to cause such person to decide a case otherwise than on evidence must be held to be biased. Judge is supposed to be indifferent to the parties in a controversy. He must be in position to decide the matter objectively. He cannot allow his personal prejudice to go into decision making. Object is not merely that scales be held even; it is also that they may not appear to be inclined. This rule also applies to administrative authorities required to act judicially.Right to be heard simply means that, a party is not to suffer in person or in purse without an opportunity of being heard. In short, before an order is passed against any person, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to him. This maxim includes 2 elements- notice and hearing. Any action taken without notice is against principle of natural justice and is void ab initio. Notice must be clear, specific and unambiguous and charges should not be vague and uncertain. Moreover, notice must give reasonable opportunity to comply with requirement mentioned therein. Hearing simply means that no adverse action can be taken against any person without giving him an opportunity of being heard. It also means that, adjudicating authority must disclose all evidence and material placed before it in the course of hearing proceeding and must afford an opportunity to the person against whom the evidences are to be used to rebut it. Another rule of hearing is “he who hears should decide” or “one who decides must hear”.Q.Raman was removed from service of XYZ ltd which is a government company. Before removal he was given proper show cause notice and was heard by Principle secretary of Power ministry who was also a share holder in XYZ limited but did not have any controlling interest in the company. He owned 20% of share in the company. Raman before being removed was heard properly and all principles of natural justice related to notice and hearing were followed. Decide, whether his removal was valid or not.

Read the following passage and answer the question.Rule of natural justice are placed so highthat it has been declared time and again by courts that “no human law are of any validity, if contrary to this”, and court of law could discard an act of parliament if it is contrary to natural justice. Generally no provision is found in any statute for observance of principle of natural justice by adjudicating authorities.Question then arises, whether the adjudicating authorities are bound to follow these principles. Law is well settled on this point, courts have observed that even though there is no positive words in a statuteor rules requiring that the parties shall be heard, yet the principles of natural justice will supply the omission of legislature. In other words if a statute or rule authorising interference with property, civil or fundamental rights was silent on question of hearing and notice, the courts will apply the rules as it is “of universal application and founded on plainest principle of natural justice”. Non-observance of principle will invalidate the exercise of power by any authority. Principle of natural justice are binding on all courts, judicial bodies and quasi judicial bodies. Question is -are they applicable to an administrative action? Earlier court took the view that it is inapplicable but as per lord denning “that heresy has been scotched”. Thus a statutory body irrespective of its nature or function has to act fairly and not in an arbitrary manner.Principles of natural justice differs from situation to situation but certain basic premises remain the same. For instance, accused should know the nature of accusation made, he should be given an opportunity to state his case and tribunal should act in good faith. Whenever, a complaint is made to court regarding non observance of principles of natural justice, court has to see whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just and fair decision as per the facts of the case. If it was necessary then court will declare the decision ultra vires the power of authority.Traditionally, there are 2 principles of natural justice.(i) No man shall be judge in his own cause, or no man can act as both at the one and the same time- a party or a suitor and also a judge, or a deciding authority must be impartial and without bias.(ii) Hear the other side, or both the side must be heard, or no man should be condemned unheard, or that there must be fairness on the part of deciding authority.Rule against bias simply means that, justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Anything which tends or may be regarded as tending to cause such person to decide a case otherwise than on evidence must be held to be biased. Judge is supposed to be indifferent to the parties in a controversy. He must be in position to decide the matter objectively. He cannot allow his personal prejudice to go into decision making. Object is not merely that scales be held even; it is also that they may not appear to be inclined. This rule also applies to administrative authorities required to act judicially.Right to be heard simply means that, a party is not to suffer in person or in purse without an opportunity of being heard. In short, before an order is passed against any person, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to him. This maxim includes 2 elements- notice and hearing. Any action taken without notice is against principle of natural justice and is void ab initio. Notice must be clear, specific and unambiguous and charges should not be vague and uncertain. Moreover, notice must give reasonable opportunity to comply with requirement mentioned therein. Hearing simply means that no adverse action can be taken against any person without giving him an opportunity of being heard. It also means that, adjudicating authority must disclose all evidence and material placed before it in the course of hearing proceeding and must afford an opportunity to the person against whom the evidences are to be used to rebut it. Another rule of hearing is “he who hears should decide” or “one who decides must hear”.Q.Ramesh was a karmchari at electricity department; he was one day caught taking bribe by the vigilance department for providing an illegal connection. Based on an FIR registered by vigilance department, Ramesh was removed from service with immediate effect. Ramesh, argues for his natural right of being heard but department rejects it by stating that neither his service rules, nor his agreement provides for such right and department had power to remove on account of misconduct without providing any notice whatsoever. What will court decide in this case.

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

PRINCIPLE 1 - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability. PRINCIPLE 2 – When a person owes a duty of care to another, and causes breach of such duty of care, he can be said to have violated the other person‘s legal right. FACTS – Stuti studies in a law school, and she wishes to avail the University‘s exchange programme through which she will get an opportunity to study at a foreign law school for one semester. According to the rules to apply for the exchange programme, she must deposit a certain sum with the university before a specified date. So, Stuti goes to the bank, which has a branch in her university‘s campus, and hands over a cheque to be encashed. The banker, who did have the sufficient amount of cash required, and deposited in her account, refused to encash it without giving her any valid reason.Stuti then goes to a different bank, gets her cheque encashed, and successfully applies for the exchange programme. Will the banker still be liable for his act?a)The banker will be liable, as he has refused to encash Stuti‘s cheque without a valid reason, and has violated her legal right. Although there was no real damage that Stuti suffered, he will still be liable.b)No, the banker will not be liable as Stuti still managed to get the required sum from a different bank, and successfully applied for the exchange programme. She has not suffered any damage.c)The banker‘s refusal to encash a cheque does not amount to violation of a legal right, so he will not be held liable.d)Can‘t say. The facts are inadequate to decide.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
PRINCIPLE 1 - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability. PRINCIPLE 2 – When a person owes a duty of care to another, and causes breach of such duty of care, he can be said to have violated the other person‘s legal right. FACTS – Stuti studies in a law school, and she wishes to avail the University‘s exchange programme through which she will get an opportunity to study at a foreign law school for one semester. According to the rules to apply for the exchange programme, she must deposit a certain sum with the university before a specified date. So, Stuti goes to the bank, which has a branch in her university‘s campus, and hands over a cheque to be encashed. The banker, who did have the sufficient amount of cash required, and deposited in her account, refused to encash it without giving her any valid reason.Stuti then goes to a different bank, gets her cheque encashed, and successfully applies for the exchange programme. Will the banker still be liable for his act?a)The banker will be liable, as he has refused to encash Stuti‘s cheque without a valid reason, and has violated her legal right. Although there was no real damage that Stuti suffered, he will still be liable.b)No, the banker will not be liable as Stuti still managed to get the required sum from a different bank, and successfully applied for the exchange programme. She has not suffered any damage.c)The banker‘s refusal to encash a cheque does not amount to violation of a legal right, so he will not be held liable.d)Can‘t say. The facts are inadequate to decide.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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 - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability. PRINCIPLE 2 – When a person owes a duty of care to another, and causes breach of such duty of care, he can be said to have violated the other person‘s legal right. FACTS – Stuti studies in a law school, and she wishes to avail the University‘s exchange programme through which she will get an opportunity to study at a foreign law school for one semester. According to the rules to apply for the exchange programme, she must deposit a certain sum with the university before a specified date. So, Stuti goes to the bank, which has a branch in her university‘s campus, and hands over a cheque to be encashed. The banker, who did have the sufficient amount of cash required, and deposited in her account, refused to encash it without giving her any valid reason.Stuti then goes to a different bank, gets her cheque encashed, and successfully applies for the exchange programme. Will the banker still be liable for his act?a)The banker will be liable, as he has refused to encash Stuti‘s cheque without a valid reason, and has violated her legal right. Although there was no real damage that Stuti suffered, he will still be liable.b)No, the banker will not be liable as Stuti still managed to get the required sum from a different bank, and successfully applied for the exchange programme. She has not suffered any damage.c)The banker‘s refusal to encash a cheque does not amount to violation of a legal right, so he will not be held liable.d)Can‘t say. The facts are inadequate to decide.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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 - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability. PRINCIPLE 2 – When a person owes a duty of care to another, and causes breach of such duty of care, he can be said to have violated the other person‘s legal right. FACTS – Stuti studies in a law school, and she wishes to avail the University‘s exchange programme through which she will get an opportunity to study at a foreign law school for one semester. According to the rules to apply for the exchange programme, she must deposit a certain sum with the university before a specified date. So, Stuti goes to the bank, which has a branch in her university‘s campus, and hands over a cheque to be encashed. The banker, who did have the sufficient amount of cash required, and deposited in her account, refused to encash it without giving her any valid reason.Stuti then goes to a different bank, gets her cheque encashed, and successfully applies for the exchange programme. Will the banker still be liable for his act?a)The banker will be liable, as he has refused to encash Stuti‘s cheque without a valid reason, and has violated her legal right. Although there was no real damage that Stuti suffered, he will still be liable.b)No, the banker will not be liable as Stuti still managed to get the required sum from a different bank, and successfully applied for the exchange programme. She has not suffered any damage.c)The banker‘s refusal to encash a cheque does not amount to violation of a legal right, so he will not be held liable.d)Can‘t say. The facts are inadequate to decide.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for PRINCIPLE 1 - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability. PRINCIPLE 2 – When a person owes a duty of care to another, and causes breach of such duty of care, he can be said to have violated the other person‘s legal right. FACTS – Stuti studies in a law school, and she wishes to avail the University‘s exchange programme through which she will get an opportunity to study at a foreign law school for one semester. According to the rules to apply for the exchange programme, she must deposit a certain sum with the university before a specified date. So, Stuti goes to the bank, which has a branch in her university‘s campus, and hands over a cheque to be encashed. The banker, who did have the sufficient amount of cash required, and deposited in her account, refused to encash it without giving her any valid reason.Stuti then goes to a different bank, gets her cheque encashed, and successfully applies for the exchange programme. Will the banker still be liable for his act?a)The banker will be liable, as he has refused to encash Stuti‘s cheque without a valid reason, and has violated her legal right. Although there was no real damage that Stuti suffered, he will still be liable.b)No, the banker will not be liable as Stuti still managed to get the required sum from a different bank, and successfully applied for the exchange programme. She has not suffered any damage.c)The banker‘s refusal to encash a cheque does not amount to violation of a legal right, so he will not be held liable.d)Can‘t say. The facts are inadequate to decide.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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 - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability. PRINCIPLE 2 – When a person owes a duty of care to another, and causes breach of such duty of care, he can be said to have violated the other person‘s legal right. FACTS – Stuti studies in a law school, and she wishes to avail the University‘s exchange programme through which she will get an opportunity to study at a foreign law school for one semester. According to the rules to apply for the exchange programme, she must deposit a certain sum with the university before a specified date. So, Stuti goes to the bank, which has a branch in her university‘s campus, and hands over a cheque to be encashed. The banker, who did have the sufficient amount of cash required, and deposited in her account, refused to encash it without giving her any valid reason.Stuti then goes to a different bank, gets her cheque encashed, and successfully applies for the exchange programme. Will the banker still be liable for his act?a)The banker will be liable, as he has refused to encash Stuti‘s cheque without a valid reason, and has violated her legal right. Although there was no real damage that Stuti suffered, he will still be liable.b)No, the banker will not be liable as Stuti still managed to get the required sum from a different bank, and successfully applied for the exchange programme. She has not suffered any damage.c)The banker‘s refusal to encash a cheque does not amount to violation of a legal right, so he will not be held liable.d)Can‘t say. The facts are inadequate to decide.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of PRINCIPLE 1 - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability. PRINCIPLE 2 – When a person owes a duty of care to another, and causes breach of such duty of care, he can be said to have violated the other person‘s legal right. FACTS – Stuti studies in a law school, and she wishes to avail the University‘s exchange programme through which she will get an opportunity to study at a foreign law school for one semester. According to the rules to apply for the exchange programme, she must deposit a certain sum with the university before a specified date. So, Stuti goes to the bank, which has a branch in her university‘s campus, and hands over a cheque to be encashed. The banker, who did have the sufficient amount of cash required, and deposited in her account, refused to encash it without giving her any valid reason.Stuti then goes to a different bank, gets her cheque encashed, and successfully applies for the exchange programme. Will the banker still be liable for his act?a)The banker will be liable, as he has refused to encash Stuti‘s cheque without a valid reason, and has violated her legal right. Although there was no real damage that Stuti suffered, he will still be liable.b)No, the banker will not be liable as Stuti still managed to get the required sum from a different bank, and successfully applied for the exchange programme. She has not suffered any damage.c)The banker‘s refusal to encash a cheque does not amount to violation of a legal right, so he will not be held liable.d)Can‘t say. The facts are inadequate to decide.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for PRINCIPLE 1 - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability. PRINCIPLE 2 – When a person owes a duty of care to another, and causes breach of such duty of care, he can be said to have violated the other person‘s legal right. FACTS – Stuti studies in a law school, and she wishes to avail the University‘s exchange programme through which she will get an opportunity to study at a foreign law school for one semester. According to the rules to apply for the exchange programme, she must deposit a certain sum with the university before a specified date. So, Stuti goes to the bank, which has a branch in her university‘s campus, and hands over a cheque to be encashed. The banker, who did have the sufficient amount of cash required, and deposited in her account, refused to encash it without giving her any valid reason.Stuti then goes to a different bank, gets her cheque encashed, and successfully applies for the exchange programme. Will the banker still be liable for his act?a)The banker will be liable, as he has refused to encash Stuti‘s cheque without a valid reason, and has violated her legal right. Although there was no real damage that Stuti suffered, he will still be liable.b)No, the banker will not be liable as Stuti still managed to get the required sum from a different bank, and successfully applied for the exchange programme. She has not suffered any damage.c)The banker‘s refusal to encash a cheque does not amount to violation of a legal right, so he will not be held liable.d)Can‘t say. The facts are inadequate to decide.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of PRINCIPLE 1 - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability. PRINCIPLE 2 – When a person owes a duty of care to another, and causes breach of such duty of care, he can be said to have violated the other person‘s legal right. FACTS – Stuti studies in a law school, and she wishes to avail the University‘s exchange programme through which she will get an opportunity to study at a foreign law school for one semester. According to the rules to apply for the exchange programme, she must deposit a certain sum with the university before a specified date. So, Stuti goes to the bank, which has a branch in her university‘s campus, and hands over a cheque to be encashed. The banker, who did have the sufficient amount of cash required, and deposited in her account, refused to encash it without giving her any valid reason.Stuti then goes to a different bank, gets her cheque encashed, and successfully applies for the exchange programme. Will the banker still be liable for his act?a)The banker will be liable, as he has refused to encash Stuti‘s cheque without a valid reason, and has violated her legal right. Although there was no real damage that Stuti suffered, he will still be liable.b)No, the banker will not be liable as Stuti still managed to get the required sum from a different bank, and successfully applied for the exchange programme. She has not suffered any damage.c)The banker‘s refusal to encash a cheque does not amount to violation of a legal right, so he will not be held liable.d)Can‘t say. The facts are inadequate to decide.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice PRINCIPLE 1 - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability. PRINCIPLE 2 – When a person owes a duty of care to another, and causes breach of such duty of care, he can be said to have violated the other person‘s legal right. FACTS – Stuti studies in a law school, and she wishes to avail the University‘s exchange programme through which she will get an opportunity to study at a foreign law school for one semester. According to the rules to apply for the exchange programme, she must deposit a certain sum with the university before a specified date. So, Stuti goes to the bank, which has a branch in her university‘s campus, and hands over a cheque to be encashed. The banker, who did have the sufficient amount of cash required, and deposited in her account, refused to encash it without giving her any valid reason.Stuti then goes to a different bank, gets her cheque encashed, and successfully applies for the exchange programme. Will the banker still be liable for his act?a)The banker will be liable, as he has refused to encash Stuti‘s cheque without a valid reason, and has violated her legal right. Although there was no real damage that Stuti suffered, he will still be liable.b)No, the banker will not be liable as Stuti still managed to get the required sum from a different bank, and successfully applied for the exchange programme. She has not suffered any damage.c)The banker‘s refusal to encash a cheque does not amount to violation of a legal right, so he will not be held liable.d)Can‘t say. The facts are inadequate to decide.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up
within 7 days!
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup