This Questions based on a common set of principles and facts. Answer accordingly.Principle 1: Any person (Principal) authorizing another person (Agent) to do a certain act will be liable for all acts of such person done within the course of employment. The tests of control and direction must be complied with. Principle 2: A wrongful act authorized by the Principal as well as a lawful act done in a wrongful manner would be considered to have been within the course of employment unless specific directions were given regarding the mode of performance of the act. Principle 3: For an act to fall outside the scope of employment, the act should either have been performed after the authorized act had come to an end or must be of such nature that it can be completely divorced from the authorized act. Principle 4: Such a relationship need not be a long term arrangement and can be set up for one specific transaction.Facts: Aggubai instructed her long standing childhood friend Annubai to go to Palampur and strike a deal with Tagesh, a spirit supplier, for the purchase of 1000 bottles of McDowells No.1 whisky, which Aggubai intended to sell at her retail store in Mumbai. Annubai was also instructed to keep in touch with Aggubai over phone regarding the deal. Accordingly, Annubai took a train to Palampur, planned a meeting with Tagesh and made the requisite purchase.Q.Did Annubai and Aggubai have a principal agent relationship?a)No. Even though Annubai was acting on the instructions of Aggubai she was beyond her control once she left for Palampur.b)No. They were childhood friends and Annubai was only helping her friend.c)Yes. Annubai was acting on the instructions of Aggubai and was under the control and direction of Aggubai.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > This Questions based on a common set of princ...

This Questions based on a common set of principles and facts. Answer accordingly.

Principle 1: Any person (Principal) authorizing another person (Agent) to do a certain act will be liable for all acts of such person done within the course of employment. The tests of control and direction must be complied with.

Principle 2: A wrongful act authorized by the Principal as well as a lawful act done in a wrongful manner would be considered to have been within the course of employment unless specific directions were given regarding the mode of performance of the act.

Principle 3: For an act to fall outside the scope of employment, the act should either have been performed after the authorized act had come to an end or must be of such nature that it can be completely divorced from the authorized act.

Principle 4: Such a relationship need not be a long term arrangement and can be set up for one specific transaction.

Facts: Aggubai instructed her long standing childhood friend Annubai to go to Palampur and strike a deal with Tagesh, a spirit supplier, for the purchase of 1000 bottles of McDowell‘s No.1 whisky, which Aggubai intended to sell at her retail store in Mumbai. Annubai was also instructed to keep in touch with Aggubai over phone regarding the deal. Accordingly, Annubai took a train to Palampur, planned a meeting with Tagesh and made the requisite purchase.

Q. Did Annubai and Aggubai have a principal agent relationship?

a)
No. Even though Annubai was acting on the instructions of Aggubai she was beyond her control once she left for Palampur.
b)
No. They were childhood friends and Annubai was only helping her friend.
c)
Yes. Annubai was acting on the instructions of Aggubai and was under the control and direction of Aggubai.
d)
None of the above.

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

Join for Free

Join for Free

Most Upvoted Answer

This Questions based on a common set of principles and facts. Answer a...

C is correct because annubai was working accordingly how aggubai was guiding and has instructed her she was not doing the work of her own

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Questions 4 - 6 are based on a common set of principles and facts. Answer accordingly.Principle 1: Any person (Principal) authorizing another person (Agent) to do a certain act will be liable for all acts of such person done within the course of employment. The tests of control anddirection must be complied with.Principle 2: A wrongful act authorized by the Principal as well as a lawful act done in a wrongfulmanner would be considered to have been within the course of employment unless specific directions were given regarding the mode of performance of the act.Principle 3: For an act to fall outside the scope of employment, the act should either have beenperformed after the authorized act had come to an end or must be of such nature that it can becompletely divorced from the authorized act.Principle 4: Such a relationship need not be a long term arrangement and can be set up for one specific transaction.Facts: Aggubai instructed her long standing childhood friend Annubai to go to Palampur and strike a deal with Tagesh, a spirit supplier, for the purchase of 1000 bottles of McDowell‘s No.1 whisky, which Aggubai intended to sell at her retail store in Mumbai. Annubai was also instructed to keep in touch with Aggubai over phone regarding the deal. Accordingly, Annubai took a train to Palampur, planned a meeting with Tagesh and made the requisite purchase.Q.Did Annubai and Aggubai have a principalagent relationship?

View answer

Directions: Questions 4 - 6are based on a common set of principles and facts. Answer accordingly.Principle 1: Any person (Principal) authorizing another person (Agent) to do a certain act will be liable for all acts of such person done within the course of employment. The tests of control anddirection must be complied with.Principle 2: A wrongful act authorized by the Principal as well as a lawful act done in a wrongfulmanner would be considered to have been within the course of employment unless specific directions were given regarding the mode of performance of the act.Principle 3: For an act to fall outside the scope of employment, the act should either have beenperformed after the authorized act had come to an end or must be of such nature that it can becompletely divorced from the authorized act.Principle 4: Such a relationship need not be a long term arrangement and can be set up for one specific transaction.Facts: Aggubai instructed her long standing childhood friend Annubai to go to Palampur and strike a deal with Tagesh, a spirit supplier, for the purchase of 1000 bottles of McDowells No.1 whisky, which Aggubai intended to sell at her retail store in Mumbai. Annubai was also instructed to keep in touch with Aggubai over phone regarding the deal. Accordingly, Annubai took a train to Palampur, planned a meeting with Tagesh and made the requisite purchase.Que: On her way back, Annubai decided to drivedown for a part of the journey as her friendBhavinder told her it was a scenic drive.Annubai got tempted and downed 4 bottlesof whisky in the car. Owing to herinebriated state, Annubai sped and her carran into a family of three sleeping on thefootpath. Who will be liable for theaccident?

View answer

This Questions based on a common set of principles and facts. Answer accordingly.Principle 1: Any person (Principal) authorizing another person (Agent) to do a certain act will be liable for all acts of such person done within the course of employment. The tests of control and direction must be complied with.Principle 2: A wrongful act authorized by the Principal as well as a lawful act done in a wrongful manner would be considered to have been within the course of employment unless specific directions were given regarding the mode of performance of the act.Principle 3: For an act to fall outside the scope of employment, the act should either have been performed after the authorized act had come to an end or must be of such nature that it can be completely divorced from the authorized act.Principle 4: Such a relationship need not be a long term arrangement and can be set up for one specific transaction.Facts: Aggubai instructed her long standing childhood friend Annubai to go to Palampur and strike a deal with Tagesh, a spirit supplier, for the purchase of 1000 bottles of McDowell‘s No.1 whisky, which Aggubai intended to sell at her retail store in Mumbai. Annubai was also instructed to keep in touch with Aggubai over phone regarding the deal. Accordingly, Annubai took a train to Palampur, planned a meeting with Tagesh and made the requisite purchase.Q.On her way back, Annubai decided to drive down for a part of the journey as her friend Bhavinder told her it was a scenic drive. Annubai got tempted and downed 4 bottles of whisky in the car. Owing to her inebriated state, Annubai sped and her car ran into a family of three sleeping on the footpath. Who will be liable for the accident?

View answer

Directions: Questions 4 - 6are based on a common set of principles and facts. Answer accordingly.Principle 1: Any person (Principal) authorizing another person (Agent) to do a certain act will be liable for all acts of such person done within the course of employment. The tests of control anddirection must be complied with.Principle 2: A wrongful act authorized by the Principal as well as a lawful act done in a wrongfulmanner would be considered to have been within the course of employment unless specific directions were given regarding the mode of performance of the act.Principle 3: For an act to fall outside the scope of employment, the act should either have beenperformed after the authorized act had come to an end or must be of such nature that it can becompletely divorced from the authorized act.Principle 4: Such a relationship need not be a long term arrangement and can be set up for one specific transaction.Facts: Aggubai instructed her long standing childhood friend Annubai to go to Palampur and strike a deal with Tagesh, a spirit supplier, for the purchase of 1000 bottles of McDowell‘s No.1 whisky, which Aggubai intended to sell at her retail store in Mumbai. Annubai was also instructed to keep in touch with Aggubai over phone regarding the deal. Accordingly, Annubai took a train to Palampur, planned a meeting with Tagesh and made the requisite purchase.Que: Had Aggubai clearly instructed Annubai totravel only by train, who would then beliable for the accident?

View answer

Relationships are how we relate to others. We have relationships with everyone we know and those who are close to us. Each and every interaction we have with another person is the act of relating. If we have a problem relating to others, it affects our ability to have supportive relationships. We have to ask ourselves if our relationships are supportive, and if they are not, then ask why they are not,Everyone wants the perfect romance or marriage, but not everyone looks at the mechanics of how to have one. If we fail to have supportive relationships in our life, how can we have the "perfect love" relationships? Through the act of supporting, we honour and validate who the other person is.This is turn, validates who we are. So, both are supported; no one loses; no egos are involved; and, so doing, we honour the relationship.This is what it means to have a supportive relationship. This is the desired goal. Now, how do we accomplish it?Our conduct patterns, 'positive' or 'negative' get set as we grow up. In order to clear a problem, one must identify the original cause which created a behavioural pattern, move through the experience of that situation and experience the emotions associated with it.The healing process is a time when we must love the self. If we beat up the self about the experience which had caused us harm or our past reaction to it, then we cannot heal. In being loving to the self, we validate what we had experienced at that time.Our emotions are always valid. So, it is important for us to do this self-validation in order to heal. Love is the energy which helps us heal-whether we give this love to ourselves or receive it from another.Loving relations start with the self. When we look at having supportive relationship in our life, why not start with the self?Because that is where love comes from. This is what transforms our relationships and our lives. We must love the self first. And we cannot do that until we have healed and become whole. Spiritually we must rise, and our spiritual quotient must be high.For, it is not about what we can receive from love, but what we can contribute or give to love. The more we give, the more are the returns.Q. According to the author from where does love start?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

This Questions based on a common set of principles and facts. Answer accordingly.Principle 1: Any person (Principal) authorizing another person (Agent) to do a certain act will be liable for all acts of such person done within the course of employment. The tests of control and direction must be complied with. Principle 2: A wrongful act authorized by the Principal as well as a lawful act done in a wrongful manner would be considered to have been within the course of employment unless specific directions were given regarding the mode of performance of the act. Principle 3: For an act to fall outside the scope of employment, the act should either have been performed after the authorized act had come to an end or must be of such nature that it can be completely divorced from the authorized act. Principle 4: Such a relationship need not be a long term arrangement and can be set up for one specific transaction.Facts: Aggubai instructed her long standing childhood friend Annubai to go to Palampur and strike a deal with Tagesh, a spirit supplier, for the purchase of 1000 bottles of McDowell‘s No.1 whisky, which Aggubai intended to sell at her retail store in Mumbai. Annubai was also instructed to keep in touch with Aggubai over phone regarding the deal. Accordingly, Annubai took a train to Palampur, planned a meeting with Tagesh and made the requisite purchase.Q.Did Annubai and Aggubai have a principal agent relationship?a)No. Even though Annubai was acting on the instructions of Aggubai she was beyond her control once she left for Palampur.b)No. They were childhood friends and Annubai was only helping her friend.c)Yes. Annubai was acting on the instructions of Aggubai and was under the control and direction of Aggubai.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
This Questions based on a common set of principles and facts. Answer accordingly.Principle 1: Any person (Principal) authorizing another person (Agent) to do a certain act will be liable for all acts of such person done within the course of employment. The tests of control and direction must be complied with. Principle 2: A wrongful act authorized by the Principal as well as a lawful act done in a wrongful manner would be considered to have been within the course of employment unless specific directions were given regarding the mode of performance of the act. Principle 3: For an act to fall outside the scope of employment, the act should either have been performed after the authorized act had come to an end or must be of such nature that it can be completely divorced from the authorized act. Principle 4: Such a relationship need not be a long term arrangement and can be set up for one specific transaction.Facts: Aggubai instructed her long standing childhood friend Annubai to go to Palampur and strike a deal with Tagesh, a spirit supplier, for the purchase of 1000 bottles of McDowell‘s No.1 whisky, which Aggubai intended to sell at her retail store in Mumbai. Annubai was also instructed to keep in touch with Aggubai over phone regarding the deal. Accordingly, Annubai took a train to Palampur, planned a meeting with Tagesh and made the requisite purchase.Q.Did Annubai and Aggubai have a principal agent relationship?a)No. Even though Annubai was acting on the instructions of Aggubai she was beyond her control once she left for Palampur.b)No. They were childhood friends and Annubai was only helping her friend.c)Yes. Annubai was acting on the instructions of Aggubai and was under the control and direction of Aggubai.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 This Questions based on a common set of principles and facts. Answer accordingly.Principle 1: Any person (Principal) authorizing another person (Agent) to do a certain act will be liable for all acts of such person done within the course of employment. The tests of control and direction must be complied with. Principle 2: A wrongful act authorized by the Principal as well as a lawful act done in a wrongful manner would be considered to have been within the course of employment unless specific directions were given regarding the mode of performance of the act. Principle 3: For an act to fall outside the scope of employment, the act should either have been performed after the authorized act had come to an end or must be of such nature that it can be completely divorced from the authorized act. Principle 4: Such a relationship need not be a long term arrangement and can be set up for one specific transaction.Facts: Aggubai instructed her long standing childhood friend Annubai to go to Palampur and strike a deal with Tagesh, a spirit supplier, for the purchase of 1000 bottles of McDowell‘s No.1 whisky, which Aggubai intended to sell at her retail store in Mumbai. Annubai was also instructed to keep in touch with Aggubai over phone regarding the deal. Accordingly, Annubai took a train to Palampur, planned a meeting with Tagesh and made the requisite purchase.Q.Did Annubai and Aggubai have a principal agent relationship?a)No. Even though Annubai was acting on the instructions of Aggubai she was beyond her control once she left for Palampur.b)No. They were childhood friends and Annubai was only helping her friend.c)Yes. Annubai was acting on the instructions of Aggubai and was under the control and direction of Aggubai.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for This Questions based on a common set of principles and facts. Answer accordingly.Principle 1: Any person (Principal) authorizing another person (Agent) to do a certain act will be liable for all acts of such person done within the course of employment. The tests of control and direction must be complied with. Principle 2: A wrongful act authorized by the Principal as well as a lawful act done in a wrongful manner would be considered to have been within the course of employment unless specific directions were given regarding the mode of performance of the act. Principle 3: For an act to fall outside the scope of employment, the act should either have been performed after the authorized act had come to an end or must be of such nature that it can be completely divorced from the authorized act. Principle 4: Such a relationship need not be a long term arrangement and can be set up for one specific transaction.Facts: Aggubai instructed her long standing childhood friend Annubai to go to Palampur and strike a deal with Tagesh, a spirit supplier, for the purchase of 1000 bottles of McDowell‘s No.1 whisky, which Aggubai intended to sell at her retail store in Mumbai. Annubai was also instructed to keep in touch with Aggubai over phone regarding the deal. Accordingly, Annubai took a train to Palampur, planned a meeting with Tagesh and made the requisite purchase.Q.Did Annubai and Aggubai have a principal agent relationship?a)No. Even though Annubai was acting on the instructions of Aggubai she was beyond her control once she left for Palampur.b)No. They were childhood friends and Annubai was only helping her friend.c)Yes. Annubai was acting on the instructions of Aggubai and was under the control and direction of Aggubai.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for This Questions based on a common set of principles and facts. Answer accordingly.Principle 1: Any person (Principal) authorizing another person (Agent) to do a certain act will be liable for all acts of such person done within the course of employment. The tests of control and direction must be complied with. Principle 2: A wrongful act authorized by the Principal as well as a lawful act done in a wrongful manner would be considered to have been within the course of employment unless specific directions were given regarding the mode of performance of the act. Principle 3: For an act to fall outside the scope of employment, the act should either have been performed after the authorized act had come to an end or must be of such nature that it can be completely divorced from the authorized act. Principle 4: Such a relationship need not be a long term arrangement and can be set up for one specific transaction.Facts: Aggubai instructed her long standing childhood friend Annubai to go to Palampur and strike a deal with Tagesh, a spirit supplier, for the purchase of 1000 bottles of McDowell‘s No.1 whisky, which Aggubai intended to sell at her retail store in Mumbai. Annubai was also instructed to keep in touch with Aggubai over phone regarding the deal. Accordingly, Annubai took a train to Palampur, planned a meeting with Tagesh and made the requisite purchase.Q.Did Annubai and Aggubai have a principal agent relationship?a)No. Even though Annubai was acting on the instructions of Aggubai she was beyond her control once she left for Palampur.b)No. They were childhood friends and Annubai was only helping her friend.c)Yes. Annubai was acting on the instructions of Aggubai and was under the control and direction of Aggubai.d)None of the above.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 This Questions based on a common set of principles and facts. Answer accordingly.Principle 1: Any person (Principal) authorizing another person (Agent) to do a certain act will be liable for all acts of such person done within the course of employment. The tests of control and direction must be complied with. Principle 2: A wrongful act authorized by the Principal as well as a lawful act done in a wrongful manner would be considered to have been within the course of employment unless specific directions were given regarding the mode of performance of the act. Principle 3: For an act to fall outside the scope of employment, the act should either have been performed after the authorized act had come to an end or must be of such nature that it can be completely divorced from the authorized act. Principle 4: Such a relationship need not be a long term arrangement and can be set up for one specific transaction.Facts: Aggubai instructed her long standing childhood friend Annubai to go to Palampur and strike a deal with Tagesh, a spirit supplier, for the purchase of 1000 bottles of McDowell‘s No.1 whisky, which Aggubai intended to sell at her retail store in Mumbai. Annubai was also instructed to keep in touch with Aggubai over phone regarding the deal. Accordingly, Annubai took a train to Palampur, planned a meeting with Tagesh and made the requisite purchase.Q.Did Annubai and Aggubai have a principal agent relationship?a)No. Even though Annubai was acting on the instructions of Aggubai she was beyond her control once she left for Palampur.b)No. They were childhood friends and Annubai was only helping her friend.c)Yes. Annubai was acting on the instructions of Aggubai and was under the control and direction of Aggubai.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of This Questions based on a common set of principles and facts. Answer accordingly.Principle 1: Any person (Principal) authorizing another person (Agent) to do a certain act will be liable for all acts of such person done within the course of employment. The tests of control and direction must be complied with. Principle 2: A wrongful act authorized by the Principal as well as a lawful act done in a wrongful manner would be considered to have been within the course of employment unless specific directions were given regarding the mode of performance of the act. Principle 3: For an act to fall outside the scope of employment, the act should either have been performed after the authorized act had come to an end or must be of such nature that it can be completely divorced from the authorized act. Principle 4: Such a relationship need not be a long term arrangement and can be set up for one specific transaction.Facts: Aggubai instructed her long standing childhood friend Annubai to go to Palampur and strike a deal with Tagesh, a spirit supplier, for the purchase of 1000 bottles of McDowell‘s No.1 whisky, which Aggubai intended to sell at her retail store in Mumbai. Annubai was also instructed to keep in touch with Aggubai over phone regarding the deal. Accordingly, Annubai took a train to Palampur, planned a meeting with Tagesh and made the requisite purchase.Q.Did Annubai and Aggubai have a principal agent relationship?a)No. Even though Annubai was acting on the instructions of Aggubai she was beyond her control once she left for Palampur.b)No. They were childhood friends and Annubai was only helping her friend.c)Yes. Annubai was acting on the instructions of Aggubai and was under the control and direction of Aggubai.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for This Questions based on a common set of principles and facts. Answer accordingly.Principle 1: Any person (Principal) authorizing another person (Agent) to do a certain act will be liable for all acts of such person done within the course of employment. The tests of control and direction must be complied with. Principle 2: A wrongful act authorized by the Principal as well as a lawful act done in a wrongful manner would be considered to have been within the course of employment unless specific directions were given regarding the mode of performance of the act. Principle 3: For an act to fall outside the scope of employment, the act should either have been performed after the authorized act had come to an end or must be of such nature that it can be completely divorced from the authorized act. Principle 4: Such a relationship need not be a long term arrangement and can be set up for one specific transaction.Facts: Aggubai instructed her long standing childhood friend Annubai to go to Palampur and strike a deal with Tagesh, a spirit supplier, for the purchase of 1000 bottles of McDowell‘s No.1 whisky, which Aggubai intended to sell at her retail store in Mumbai. Annubai was also instructed to keep in touch with Aggubai over phone regarding the deal. Accordingly, Annubai took a train to Palampur, planned a meeting with Tagesh and made the requisite purchase.Q.Did Annubai and Aggubai have a principal agent relationship?a)No. Even though Annubai was acting on the instructions of Aggubai she was beyond her control once she left for Palampur.b)No. They were childhood friends and Annubai was only helping her friend.c)Yes. Annubai was acting on the instructions of Aggubai and was under the control and direction of Aggubai.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of This Questions based on a common set of principles and facts. Answer accordingly.Principle 1: Any person (Principal) authorizing another person (Agent) to do a certain act will be liable for all acts of such person done within the course of employment. The tests of control and direction must be complied with. Principle 2: A wrongful act authorized by the Principal as well as a lawful act done in a wrongful manner would be considered to have been within the course of employment unless specific directions were given regarding the mode of performance of the act. Principle 3: For an act to fall outside the scope of employment, the act should either have been performed after the authorized act had come to an end or must be of such nature that it can be completely divorced from the authorized act. Principle 4: Such a relationship need not be a long term arrangement and can be set up for one specific transaction.Facts: Aggubai instructed her long standing childhood friend Annubai to go to Palampur and strike a deal with Tagesh, a spirit supplier, for the purchase of 1000 bottles of McDowell‘s No.1 whisky, which Aggubai intended to sell at her retail store in Mumbai. Annubai was also instructed to keep in touch with Aggubai over phone regarding the deal. Accordingly, Annubai took a train to Palampur, planned a meeting with Tagesh and made the requisite purchase.Q.Did Annubai and Aggubai have a principal agent relationship?a)No. Even though Annubai was acting on the instructions of Aggubai she was beyond her control once she left for Palampur.b)No. They were childhood friends and Annubai was only helping her friend.c)Yes. Annubai was acting on the instructions of Aggubai and was under the control and direction of Aggubai.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice This Questions based on a common set of principles and facts. Answer accordingly.Principle 1: Any person (Principal) authorizing another person (Agent) to do a certain act will be liable for all acts of such person done within the course of employment. The tests of control and direction must be complied with. Principle 2: A wrongful act authorized by the Principal as well as a lawful act done in a wrongful manner would be considered to have been within the course of employment unless specific directions were given regarding the mode of performance of the act. Principle 3: For an act to fall outside the scope of employment, the act should either have been performed after the authorized act had come to an end or must be of such nature that it can be completely divorced from the authorized act. Principle 4: Such a relationship need not be a long term arrangement and can be set up for one specific transaction.Facts: Aggubai instructed her long standing childhood friend Annubai to go to Palampur and strike a deal with Tagesh, a spirit supplier, for the purchase of 1000 bottles of McDowell‘s No.1 whisky, which Aggubai intended to sell at her retail store in Mumbai. Annubai was also instructed to keep in touch with Aggubai over phone regarding the deal. Accordingly, Annubai took a train to Palampur, planned a meeting with Tagesh and made the requisite purchase.Q.Did Annubai and Aggubai have a principal agent relationship?a)No. Even though Annubai was acting on the instructions of Aggubai she was beyond her control once she left for Palampur.b)No. They were childhood friends and Annubai was only helping her friend.c)Yes. Annubai was acting on the instructions of Aggubai and was under the control and direction of Aggubai.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam