CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  Principle: According to law, a person who fin... Start Learning for Free
Principle: According to law, a person who find goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee. Bailee is a person or party to whom goods are delivered for a purpose, such as custody or repair, without transfer of ownership. The finder of the goods legally can sell the goods found by him under certain circumstances including the situation that the owner refuses to pay the lawful charges of the finder.
Facts: P, a college student, while coming out of a Cricket stadium found a necklace, studded with apparently precious diamonds. P kept it for two days thinking that the owner would notify it in a local newspaper. Since he did not notice any such notification, P published a small classified advertisement in a local newspaper. In two days’ time, P was contacted by a film actor claiming that it was her Necklace and requested P to return it to her. P told her that she should compensate him for the advertisement charges then only he would return it otherwise he will sell it and make good his expenses. The film star told P that she had advertised in a national newspaper about her lost Necklace which was lost somewhere in the Cricket Stadium. The advertisement was published for three consecutive days incurring a large expenditure for her. Mentioning all this she refuses to pay P and claims the Necklace back. Which among the following is the most appropriate answer to this?
  • a)
    P was requesting the film star for the actual expenditure incurred by him before returning the Necklace. This request is legally sustainable.
  • b)
    The film star was right in refusing P, as she did not offer any reward for anyone who would return the Necklace.
  • c)
    As it was wrong on the part of P to bargain over a property belonging to a celebrity and he should have accepted some gift which might have been given by the film star and returned the Necklace instead of threatening her that he would sell it.
  • d)
    As the film star had notified in the newspaper, P ought to have read it and contacted her instead of publishing another notification. So he cannot claim any compensation.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Most Upvoted Answer
Principle: According to law, a person who find goods belonging to anot...
Read the last part of the principle he can sell including if the owner refuses to give the lawful charges of finder.NOTE:never apply ur emotions and mind in legal reasoning just apply the principles.
Free Test
Community Answer
Principle: According to law, a person who find goods belonging to anot...
Principle:
According to the law, a person who finds goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee. The finder of the goods legally can sell the goods found by him under certain circumstances, including the situation where the owner refuses to pay the lawful charges of the finder.
Facts:
- P, a college student, found a necklace studded with apparently precious diamonds while coming out of a Cricket stadium.
- P kept the necklace for two days, hoping that the owner would notify it in a local newspaper.
- As there was no notification, P published a small classified advertisement in a local newspaper.
- The film actor, claiming the necklace to be hers, contacted P after two days.
- P asked the film star to compensate him for the advertisement charges before returning the necklace or else he would sell it to cover his expenses.
- The film star informed P that she had already advertised about her lost necklace in a national newspaper for three consecutive days, incurring a large expenditure.
- The film star refused to pay P and demanded the necklace back.
Analysis:
In this case, the following points need to be considered:
1. P's Request for Compensation:
- P requested the film star to compensate him for the advertisement charges before returning the necklace.
- The request for compensation can be legally sustainable as per the principle, which states that the finder of the goods can sell them if the owner refuses to pay the lawful charges.
- P's request aligns with this principle as he is asking for compensation for his expenses before returning the necklace.
2. Film Star's Obligation to Offer a Reward:
- The film star claims that she did not offer any reward for anyone who would return the necklace.
- However, the principle does not mention any obligation for the owner to offer a reward.
- Therefore, the film star's argument about not offering a reward is not relevant in this case.
3. P's Bargaining and Threatening:
- It is mentioned that P should have accepted some gift or reward offered by the film star and returned the necklace instead of threatening to sell it.
- However, the principle does not mention any obligation for the finder of the goods to accept a gift or reward.
- P's decision to request compensation for his expenses is within his rights as per the principle.
4. Film Star's Notification:
- The film star claims that she had notified in the newspaper about her lost necklace and P should have read it and contacted her instead of publishing another notification.
- However, the principle does not mention any obligation for the finder of the goods to contact the owner based on their newspaper notification.
- P's decision to publish his own notification is within his rights as per the principle.
Conclusion:
Based on the analysis of the facts and the applicable principle, the most appropriate answer to this scenario would be:
A: P was requesting the film star for the actual expenditure incurred by him before returning the necklace. This request is legally sustainable.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Bill, 2017 that seeks to amend the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was passed on July 23, 2018 by the Lok Sabha. The Central Government has notified amendment to one of the most essential legislation, i.e. the Negotiable Instrument (Amendment) Act, 2018. In the age of netbanking, businesses across India use cheques. Cheques are issued for the purpose of keeping the money as security in any business. They are valid only for three months. After three months of period, the particular cheque gets cancelled and has no value. Cheques also include the post-dated ones, to make and receive payments from vendors, suppliers and customers.In some cases, such cheques bounce and the matter ends up in court. The complaint can be filed under Section 138. After the cheque bounces, one has to send a notice to the defaulter of the cheque given by. If the creditor does not get any reply from the debtor, then within 15 days, the creditor of the cheque can send a notice to the debtor and file a case. If a cheque bounces and the amount is not paid to you, then send a demand notice letter to the party (drawer) that gave cheque to you, and inform them about the actions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.One can file a complaint from the place where the cheque was drawn, cheque was presented, returned by the bank or the place from where he or she sent a demand notice to the defaulter/debtor. One cannot take legal action if the cheque given to you was for gift, advertisement or a donation. According to RBIs rule, the bank has the right to stop issuing cheque books to the customer who had a record of bounced cheque more than 4 times.It is easy for the drawer of a dishonoured cheque to file an appeal and obtain a stay on court proceedings. This reduces the credibility of cheques in the world of business.The Negotiable Instrument (Amendment) Act, 2018 aims to amend the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, asking the drawer of a cheque that has been dishonoured to pay interim compensation to the complainant. The interim compensation will, however, not exceed 20% of the amount of the cheque that was dishonoured. The interim compensation is to be paid by the drawer of the dishonoured cheque in a summary trial or a summons case. It is applicable even if he pleads not guilty to the charge made in the complaint. The drawer of the cheque has to pay interim compensation within 60 days from the date of the order.Q.Athena issued a cheque to Amit of Rs 7,00,000 on 24.12.2019. The Cheque was dishonored on 02.02.2020. Amit filed a case against Athena and demanded interim compensation of Rs. 1,75,000. Will the compensation of the above amount be provided?

Direction: You have been given some passages followd by questions based on each passage. You are required to choose the mot appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.The Parliament passed the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which promises to strengthen the rights of consumers and provides a mechanism for redressal of complaints regarding defects in goods and deficiency in services.Union Food and Consumer Affairs Minister stressed that the overall purpose of the legislation was to ease the process of addressing grievances of consumers. TheAct also seeks to bring in ecommerce under their jurisdiction and hold celebrities accountable for false and misleading advertisements of products that they endorse. The Act proposed strict action against the advertiser in case of misleading advertisements but not against the media through which the advertisement is being publicised. It also provides for product liability action on account of harm caused to consumers due to defective products or deficient services.Product liability means the liability of a product manufacturer, service provider or seller to compensate a consumer for any harm or injury caused by a defective good or deficient service.Under the Act, a consumer is defined as a person who buys any good or avails a service for a consideration. It does not include a person who obtains a good for resale or a good or service for commercial purpose. It covers transactions through all modes including offline, and online through electronic means, teleshopping, multilevel marketing or direct selling. Only a consumer can bring an action under the Act.Certain consumer rights have been defined in the Act, including the right to: (i) be protected against marketing of goods and services which are hazardous to life and property; (ii) be informed of the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods or services; (iii) be assured of access to a variety of goods or services at competitive prices; and (iv) seek redressal against unfair or restrictive trade practices.The central government will set up a Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCP

Passage - 6It is a fact that air and noise pollution in Delhi and NCR is increasing day-by-day. The measures for abatement of pollution are taken under the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and rules made thereunder. Noise pollution is regulated under Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 notified under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The legal framework provided by above rules is adequate to dealwith the problem of pollution and allows for revision of norms related to noise, emission or effluent to bring about a stricter regime.Government has taken several other steps to address the issue of pollution which inter alia, include notification of National Ambient Air Quality Standards; setting up of monitoring network for assessment of ambient air quality; introduction of cleaner / alternate fuels like gaseous fuel (CNG, LPG etc.), ethanol blending, launching of National Air Quality index; universalization of BS-IV by 2017; leapfrogging from BS-IV to BS-VI fuel standards by 1st April, 2020; notification of Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules; banning of burning of biomass; promotion of public transport network; Pollution Under Control Certificate; issuance of directions under Section 18(1 )( b) of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 comprising of action points to counter air pollution in major cities include control and mitigation measures related to vehicular emissions, re-suspension of road dust and other fugitive emissions, bio-mass/ municipal solid waste burning, industrial pollution, construction and demolition activities, and other general steps; installation of on-line continuous (24x7) monitoring devices by major industries; collection of Environmental Protection Charge on more than 2000 CC diesel vehicles; ban on bursting of sound emitting crackers between 10 PM to 6 AM; wide publicity on the ill effects of firecrackers and awareness programme among students and public at large to avoid bursting of fire-crackers; advisories for noise monitoring on the occasion of Deepawali; notification of graded response action plan for Delhi and NCR etc.Q.The right to life and liberty includes the right to a clean and free environment. The polluter pays principle states that whoever is responsible for damage to the environment should bear the costs associated with it. Carbonator was a multi-national corporation that had set up one of its factories in Surat. They released voluminous effluents into the river that flowed near the factory without employing any methods to filter them. P.C.Gupta was a conscientious citizen who filed a PIL against them asking them to employ some filtration methods so that the river would not be polluted to such a great extent. The corporation opted instead for the polluter pays way of compensation. The petitioner challenged their option in Court asking for a motion to compel the corporation to adopt the filtration method instead. Can he do so?

It is a fact that air and noise pollution in Delhi and NCR is increasing day-by-day. The measures for abatement of pollution are taken under the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and rules made thereunder. Noise pollution is regulated under Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 notified under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The legal framework provided by above rules is adequate to deal with the problem of pollution and allows for revision of norms related to noise, emission or effluent to bring about a stricter regime.Government has taken several other steps to address the issue of pollution which inter alia, include notification of National Ambient Air Quality Standards; setting up of monitoring network for assessment of ambient air quality; introduction of cleaner / alternate fuels like gaseous fuel (CNG, LPG etc.), ethanol blending, launching of National Air Quality index; universalization of BS-IV by 2017; leapfrogging from BS-IV to BS-VI fuel standards by 1st April, 2020; notification of Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules; banning of burning of biomass; promotion of public transport network; Pollution Under Control Certificate; issuance of directions under Section 18(1)( b) of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 comprising of action points to counter air pollution in major cities include control and mitigation measures related to vehicular emissions, re-suspension of road dust and other fugitive emissions, bio-mass/ municipal solid waste burning, industrial pollution, construction and demolition activities, and other general steps; installation of on-line continuous (24x7) monitoring devices by major industries; collection of Environmental Protection Charge on more than 2000 CC diesel vehicles; ban on bursting of sound emitting crackers between 10 PM to 6 AM; wide publicity on the ill effects of firecrackers and awareness programme among students and public at large to avoid bursting of fire-crackers; advisories for noise monitoring on the occasion of Deepawali; notification of graded response action plan for Delhi and NCR etc.Q. The right to life and liberty includes the right to a clean and free environment. The 'polluter pays principle' states that whoever is responsible for damage to the environment should bear the costs associated with it. Carbonator was a multi-national corporation that had set up one of its factories in Surat. They released voluminous effluents into the river that flowed near the factory without employing any methods to filter them. P.C.Gupta was a conscientious citizen who filed a PIL against them asking them to employ some filtration methods so that the river would not be polluted to such a great extent. The corporation opted instead for the 'polluter pays' way of compensation. The petitioner challenged their option in Court asking for a motion to compel the corporation to adopt the filtration method instead.Can he do so?

Direction: You have been given some passages followd by questions based on each passage. You are required to choose the mot appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.The Parliament passed the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which promises to strengthen the rights of consumers and provides a mechanism for redressal of complaints regarding defects in goods and deficiency in services.Union Food and Consumer Affairs Minister stressed that the overall purpose of the legislation was to ease the process of addressing grievances of consumers. TheAct also seeks to bring in ecommerce under their jurisdiction and hold celebrities accountable for false and misleading advertisements of products that they endorse. The Act proposed strict action against the advertiser in case of misleading advertisements but not against the media through which the advertisement is being publicised. It also provides for product liability action on account of harm caused to consumers due to defective products or deficient services.Product liability means the liability of a product manufacturer, service provider or seller to compensate a consumer for any harm or injury caused by a defective good or deficient service.Under the Act, a consumer is defined as a person who buys any good or avails a service for a consideration. It does not include a person who obtains a good for resale or a good or service for commercial purpose. It covers transactions through all modes including offline, and online through electronic means, teleshopping, multilevel marketing or direct selling. Only a consumer can bring an action under the Act.Certain consumer rights have been defined in the Act, including the right to: (i) be protected against marketing of goods and services which are hazardous to life and property; (ii) be informed of the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods or services; (iii) be assured of access to a variety of goods or services at competitive prices; and (iv) seek redressal against unfair or restrictive trade practices.The central government will set up a Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCP

Top Courses for CLAT

Principle: According to law, a person who find goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee. Bailee is a person or party to whom goods are delivered for a purpose, such as custody or repair, without transfer of ownership. The finder of the goods legally can sell the goods found by him under certain circumstances including the situation that the owner refuses to pay the lawful charges of the finder.Facts: P, a college student, while coming out of a Cricket stadium found a necklace, studded with apparently precious diamonds. P kept it for two days thinking that the owner would notify it in a local newspaper. Since he did not notice any such notification, P published a small classified advertisement in a local newspaper. In two days’ time, P was contacted by a film actor claiming that it was her Necklace and requested P to return it to her. P told her that she should compensate him for the advertisement charges then only he would return it otherwise he will sell it and make good his expenses. The film star told P that she had advertised in a national newspaper about her lost Necklace which was lost somewhere in the Cricket Stadium. The advertisement was published for three consecutive days incurring a large expenditure for her. Mentioning all this she refuses to pay P and claims the Necklace back. Which among the following is the most appropriate answer to this?a)P was requesting the film star for the actual expenditure incurred by him before returning the Necklace. This request is legally sustainable.b)The film star was right in refusing P, as she did not offer any reward for anyone who would return the Necklace.c)As it was wrong on the part of P to bargain over a property belonging to a celebrity and he should have accepted some gift which might have been given by the film star and returned the Necklace instead of threatening her that he would sell it.d)As the film star had notified in the newspaper, P ought to have read it and contacted her instead of publishing another notification. So he cannot claim any compensation.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Principle: According to law, a person who find goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee. Bailee is a person or party to whom goods are delivered for a purpose, such as custody or repair, without transfer of ownership. The finder of the goods legally can sell the goods found by him under certain circumstances including the situation that the owner refuses to pay the lawful charges of the finder.Facts: P, a college student, while coming out of a Cricket stadium found a necklace, studded with apparently precious diamonds. P kept it for two days thinking that the owner would notify it in a local newspaper. Since he did not notice any such notification, P published a small classified advertisement in a local newspaper. In two days’ time, P was contacted by a film actor claiming that it was her Necklace and requested P to return it to her. P told her that she should compensate him for the advertisement charges then only he would return it otherwise he will sell it and make good his expenses. The film star told P that she had advertised in a national newspaper about her lost Necklace which was lost somewhere in the Cricket Stadium. The advertisement was published for three consecutive days incurring a large expenditure for her. Mentioning all this she refuses to pay P and claims the Necklace back. Which among the following is the most appropriate answer to this?a)P was requesting the film star for the actual expenditure incurred by him before returning the Necklace. This request is legally sustainable.b)The film star was right in refusing P, as she did not offer any reward for anyone who would return the Necklace.c)As it was wrong on the part of P to bargain over a property belonging to a celebrity and he should have accepted some gift which might have been given by the film star and returned the Necklace instead of threatening her that he would sell it.d)As the film star had notified in the newspaper, P ought to have read it and contacted her instead of publishing another notification. So he cannot claim any compensation.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 Principle: According to law, a person who find goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee. Bailee is a person or party to whom goods are delivered for a purpose, such as custody or repair, without transfer of ownership. The finder of the goods legally can sell the goods found by him under certain circumstances including the situation that the owner refuses to pay the lawful charges of the finder.Facts: P, a college student, while coming out of a Cricket stadium found a necklace, studded with apparently precious diamonds. P kept it for two days thinking that the owner would notify it in a local newspaper. Since he did not notice any such notification, P published a small classified advertisement in a local newspaper. In two days’ time, P was contacted by a film actor claiming that it was her Necklace and requested P to return it to her. P told her that she should compensate him for the advertisement charges then only he would return it otherwise he will sell it and make good his expenses. The film star told P that she had advertised in a national newspaper about her lost Necklace which was lost somewhere in the Cricket Stadium. The advertisement was published for three consecutive days incurring a large expenditure for her. Mentioning all this she refuses to pay P and claims the Necklace back. Which among the following is the most appropriate answer to this?a)P was requesting the film star for the actual expenditure incurred by him before returning the Necklace. This request is legally sustainable.b)The film star was right in refusing P, as she did not offer any reward for anyone who would return the Necklace.c)As it was wrong on the part of P to bargain over a property belonging to a celebrity and he should have accepted some gift which might have been given by the film star and returned the Necklace instead of threatening her that he would sell it.d)As the film star had notified in the newspaper, P ought to have read it and contacted her instead of publishing another notification. So he cannot claim any compensation.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 Principle: According to law, a person who find goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee. Bailee is a person or party to whom goods are delivered for a purpose, such as custody or repair, without transfer of ownership. The finder of the goods legally can sell the goods found by him under certain circumstances including the situation that the owner refuses to pay the lawful charges of the finder.Facts: P, a college student, while coming out of a Cricket stadium found a necklace, studded with apparently precious diamonds. P kept it for two days thinking that the owner would notify it in a local newspaper. Since he did not notice any such notification, P published a small classified advertisement in a local newspaper. In two days’ time, P was contacted by a film actor claiming that it was her Necklace and requested P to return it to her. P told her that she should compensate him for the advertisement charges then only he would return it otherwise he will sell it and make good his expenses. The film star told P that she had advertised in a national newspaper about her lost Necklace which was lost somewhere in the Cricket Stadium. The advertisement was published for three consecutive days incurring a large expenditure for her. Mentioning all this she refuses to pay P and claims the Necklace back. Which among the following is the most appropriate answer to this?a)P was requesting the film star for the actual expenditure incurred by him before returning the Necklace. This request is legally sustainable.b)The film star was right in refusing P, as she did not offer any reward for anyone who would return the Necklace.c)As it was wrong on the part of P to bargain over a property belonging to a celebrity and he should have accepted some gift which might have been given by the film star and returned the Necklace instead of threatening her that he would sell it.d)As the film star had notified in the newspaper, P ought to have read it and contacted her instead of publishing another notification. So he cannot claim any compensation.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Principle: According to law, a person who find goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee. Bailee is a person or party to whom goods are delivered for a purpose, such as custody or repair, without transfer of ownership. The finder of the goods legally can sell the goods found by him under certain circumstances including the situation that the owner refuses to pay the lawful charges of the finder.Facts: P, a college student, while coming out of a Cricket stadium found a necklace, studded with apparently precious diamonds. P kept it for two days thinking that the owner would notify it in a local newspaper. Since he did not notice any such notification, P published a small classified advertisement in a local newspaper. In two days’ time, P was contacted by a film actor claiming that it was her Necklace and requested P to return it to her. P told her that she should compensate him for the advertisement charges then only he would return it otherwise he will sell it and make good his expenses. The film star told P that she had advertised in a national newspaper about her lost Necklace which was lost somewhere in the Cricket Stadium. The advertisement was published for three consecutive days incurring a large expenditure for her. Mentioning all this she refuses to pay P and claims the Necklace back. Which among the following is the most appropriate answer to this?a)P was requesting the film star for the actual expenditure incurred by him before returning the Necklace. This request is legally sustainable.b)The film star was right in refusing P, as she did not offer any reward for anyone who would return the Necklace.c)As it was wrong on the part of P to bargain over a property belonging to a celebrity and he should have accepted some gift which might have been given by the film star and returned the Necklace instead of threatening her that he would sell it.d)As the film star had notified in the newspaper, P ought to have read it and contacted her instead of publishing another notification. So he cannot claim any compensation.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: According to law, a person who find goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee. Bailee is a person or party to whom goods are delivered for a purpose, such as custody or repair, without transfer of ownership. The finder of the goods legally can sell the goods found by him under certain circumstances including the situation that the owner refuses to pay the lawful charges of the finder.Facts: P, a college student, while coming out of a Cricket stadium found a necklace, studded with apparently precious diamonds. P kept it for two days thinking that the owner would notify it in a local newspaper. Since he did not notice any such notification, P published a small classified advertisement in a local newspaper. In two days’ time, P was contacted by a film actor claiming that it was her Necklace and requested P to return it to her. P told her that she should compensate him for the advertisement charges then only he would return it otherwise he will sell it and make good his expenses. The film star told P that she had advertised in a national newspaper about her lost Necklace which was lost somewhere in the Cricket Stadium. The advertisement was published for three consecutive days incurring a large expenditure for her. Mentioning all this she refuses to pay P and claims the Necklace back. Which among the following is the most appropriate answer to this?a)P was requesting the film star for the actual expenditure incurred by him before returning the Necklace. This request is legally sustainable.b)The film star was right in refusing P, as she did not offer any reward for anyone who would return the Necklace.c)As it was wrong on the part of P to bargain over a property belonging to a celebrity and he should have accepted some gift which might have been given by the film star and returned the Necklace instead of threatening her that he would sell it.d)As the film star had notified in the newspaper, P ought to have read it and contacted her instead of publishing another notification. So he cannot claim any compensation.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Principle: According to law, a person who find goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee. Bailee is a person or party to whom goods are delivered for a purpose, such as custody or repair, without transfer of ownership. The finder of the goods legally can sell the goods found by him under certain circumstances including the situation that the owner refuses to pay the lawful charges of the finder.Facts: P, a college student, while coming out of a Cricket stadium found a necklace, studded with apparently precious diamonds. P kept it for two days thinking that the owner would notify it in a local newspaper. Since he did not notice any such notification, P published a small classified advertisement in a local newspaper. In two days’ time, P was contacted by a film actor claiming that it was her Necklace and requested P to return it to her. P told her that she should compensate him for the advertisement charges then only he would return it otherwise he will sell it and make good his expenses. The film star told P that she had advertised in a national newspaper about her lost Necklace which was lost somewhere in the Cricket Stadium. The advertisement was published for three consecutive days incurring a large expenditure for her. Mentioning all this she refuses to pay P and claims the Necklace back. Which among the following is the most appropriate answer to this?a)P was requesting the film star for the actual expenditure incurred by him before returning the Necklace. This request is legally sustainable.b)The film star was right in refusing P, as she did not offer any reward for anyone who would return the Necklace.c)As it was wrong on the part of P to bargain over a property belonging to a celebrity and he should have accepted some gift which might have been given by the film star and returned the Necklace instead of threatening her that he would sell it.d)As the film star had notified in the newspaper, P ought to have read it and contacted her instead of publishing another notification. So he cannot claim any compensation.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Principle: According to law, a person who find goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee. Bailee is a person or party to whom goods are delivered for a purpose, such as custody or repair, without transfer of ownership. The finder of the goods legally can sell the goods found by him under certain circumstances including the situation that the owner refuses to pay the lawful charges of the finder.Facts: P, a college student, while coming out of a Cricket stadium found a necklace, studded with apparently precious diamonds. P kept it for two days thinking that the owner would notify it in a local newspaper. Since he did not notice any such notification, P published a small classified advertisement in a local newspaper. In two days’ time, P was contacted by a film actor claiming that it was her Necklace and requested P to return it to her. P told her that she should compensate him for the advertisement charges then only he would return it otherwise he will sell it and make good his expenses. The film star told P that she had advertised in a national newspaper about her lost Necklace which was lost somewhere in the Cricket Stadium. The advertisement was published for three consecutive days incurring a large expenditure for her. Mentioning all this she refuses to pay P and claims the Necklace back. Which among the following is the most appropriate answer to this?a)P was requesting the film star for the actual expenditure incurred by him before returning the Necklace. This request is legally sustainable.b)The film star was right in refusing P, as she did not offer any reward for anyone who would return the Necklace.c)As it was wrong on the part of P to bargain over a property belonging to a celebrity and he should have accepted some gift which might have been given by the film star and returned the Necklace instead of threatening her that he would sell it.d)As the film star had notified in the newspaper, P ought to have read it and contacted her instead of publishing another notification. So he cannot claim any compensation.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Principle: According to law, a person who find goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee. Bailee is a person or party to whom goods are delivered for a purpose, such as custody or repair, without transfer of ownership. The finder of the goods legally can sell the goods found by him under certain circumstances including the situation that the owner refuses to pay the lawful charges of the finder.Facts: P, a college student, while coming out of a Cricket stadium found a necklace, studded with apparently precious diamonds. P kept it for two days thinking that the owner would notify it in a local newspaper. Since he did not notice any such notification, P published a small classified advertisement in a local newspaper. In two days’ time, P was contacted by a film actor claiming that it was her Necklace and requested P to return it to her. P told her that she should compensate him for the advertisement charges then only he would return it otherwise he will sell it and make good his expenses. The film star told P that she had advertised in a national newspaper about her lost Necklace which was lost somewhere in the Cricket Stadium. The advertisement was published for three consecutive days incurring a large expenditure for her. Mentioning all this she refuses to pay P and claims the Necklace back. Which among the following is the most appropriate answer to this?a)P was requesting the film star for the actual expenditure incurred by him before returning the Necklace. This request is legally sustainable.b)The film star was right in refusing P, as she did not offer any reward for anyone who would return the Necklace.c)As it was wrong on the part of P to bargain over a property belonging to a celebrity and he should have accepted some gift which might have been given by the film star and returned the Necklace instead of threatening her that he would sell it.d)As the film star had notified in the newspaper, P ought to have read it and contacted her instead of publishing another notification. So he cannot claim any compensation.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Principle: According to law, a person who find goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee. Bailee is a person or party to whom goods are delivered for a purpose, such as custody or repair, without transfer of ownership. The finder of the goods legally can sell the goods found by him under certain circumstances including the situation that the owner refuses to pay the lawful charges of the finder.Facts: P, a college student, while coming out of a Cricket stadium found a necklace, studded with apparently precious diamonds. P kept it for two days thinking that the owner would notify it in a local newspaper. Since he did not notice any such notification, P published a small classified advertisement in a local newspaper. In two days’ time, P was contacted by a film actor claiming that it was her Necklace and requested P to return it to her. P told her that she should compensate him for the advertisement charges then only he would return it otherwise he will sell it and make good his expenses. The film star told P that she had advertised in a national newspaper about her lost Necklace which was lost somewhere in the Cricket Stadium. The advertisement was published for three consecutive days incurring a large expenditure for her. Mentioning all this she refuses to pay P and claims the Necklace back. Which among the following is the most appropriate answer to this?a)P was requesting the film star for the actual expenditure incurred by him before returning the Necklace. This request is legally sustainable.b)The film star was right in refusing P, as she did not offer any reward for anyone who would return the Necklace.c)As it was wrong on the part of P to bargain over a property belonging to a celebrity and he should have accepted some gift which might have been given by the film star and returned the Necklace instead of threatening her that he would sell it.d)As the film star had notified in the newspaper, P ought to have read it and contacted her instead of publishing another notification. So he cannot claim any compensation.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
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