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.Q. 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 2025 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.Q. 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 2025 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.Q. 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.Q. 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.Q. 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.Q. 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.Q. 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.Q. 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.Q. 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.