Question Description
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?a)Annubai. By deciding to drive she clearlyoperated outside the course of heremployment.b)Aggubai. Even though she asked Annubai totravel by train, she never asked Annubai notto consume alcohol. The accident happenedbecause of the alcohol not because Annubaitravelled by car.c)Both Annubai and Aggubai.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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 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?a)Annubai. By deciding to drive she clearlyoperated outside the course of heremployment.b)Aggubai. Even though she asked Annubai totravel by train, she never asked Annubai notto consume alcohol. The accident happenedbecause of the alcohol not because Annubaitravelled by car.c)Both Annubai and Aggubai.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for 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?a)Annubai. By deciding to drive she clearlyoperated outside the course of heremployment.b)Aggubai. Even though she asked Annubai totravel by train, she never asked Annubai notto consume alcohol. The accident happenedbecause of the alcohol not because Annubaitravelled by car.c)Both Annubai and Aggubai.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for 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?a)Annubai. By deciding to drive she clearlyoperated outside the course of heremployment.b)Aggubai. Even though she asked Annubai totravel by train, she never asked Annubai notto consume alcohol. The accident happenedbecause of the alcohol not because Annubaitravelled by car.c)Both Annubai and Aggubai.d)None of the above.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 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?a)Annubai. By deciding to drive she clearlyoperated outside the course of heremployment.b)Aggubai. Even though she asked Annubai totravel by train, she never asked Annubai notto consume alcohol. The accident happenedbecause of the alcohol not because Annubaitravelled by car.c)Both Annubai and Aggubai.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of 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?a)Annubai. By deciding to drive she clearlyoperated outside the course of heremployment.b)Aggubai. Even though she asked Annubai totravel by train, she never asked Annubai notto consume alcohol. The accident happenedbecause of the alcohol not because Annubaitravelled by car.c)Both Annubai and Aggubai.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for 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?a)Annubai. By deciding to drive she clearlyoperated outside the course of heremployment.b)Aggubai. Even though she asked Annubai totravel by train, she never asked Annubai notto consume alcohol. The accident happenedbecause of the alcohol not because Annubaitravelled by car.c)Both Annubai and Aggubai.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of 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?a)Annubai. By deciding to drive she clearlyoperated outside the course of heremployment.b)Aggubai. Even though she asked Annubai totravel by train, she never asked Annubai notto consume alcohol. The accident happenedbecause of the alcohol not because Annubaitravelled by car.c)Both Annubai and Aggubai.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice 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?a)Annubai. By deciding to drive she clearlyoperated outside the course of heremployment.b)Aggubai. Even though she asked Annubai totravel by train, she never asked Annubai notto consume alcohol. The accident happenedbecause of the alcohol not because Annubaitravelled by car.c)Both Annubai and Aggubai.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.