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.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?a)Annubai. She was driving in an inebriated condition and she should alone be liable for it.b)Aggubai. Annubai was transporting the bottles of spirit on her instructions and the employment would be completed only once the spirit was handed over to Aggubai at Mumbai.c)Annubai. She was no longer operating within the course of her employment. Her employment was over once the purchase was made from Tagesh.d)The people sleeping on the footpath. It was a clear case of volenti non fit injuria.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about 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?a)Annubai. She was driving in an inebriated condition and she should alone be liable for it.b)Aggubai. Annubai was transporting the bottles of spirit on her instructions and the employment would be completed only once the spirit was handed over to Aggubai at Mumbai.c)Annubai. She was no longer operating within the course of her employment. Her employment was over once the purchase was made from Tagesh.d)The people sleeping on the footpath. It was a clear case of volenti non fit injuria.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 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.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?a)Annubai. She was driving in an inebriated condition and she should alone be liable for it.b)Aggubai. Annubai was transporting the bottles of spirit on her instructions and the employment would be completed only once the spirit was handed over to Aggubai at Mumbai.c)Annubai. She was no longer operating within the course of her employment. Her employment was over once the purchase was made from Tagesh.d)The people sleeping on the footpath. It was a clear case of volenti non fit injuria.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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.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?a)Annubai. She was driving in an inebriated condition and she should alone be liable for it.b)Aggubai. Annubai was transporting the bottles of spirit on her instructions and the employment would be completed only once the spirit was handed over to Aggubai at Mumbai.c)Annubai. She was no longer operating within the course of her employment. Her employment was over once the purchase was made from Tagesh.d)The people sleeping on the footpath. It was a clear case of volenti non fit injuria.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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.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?a)Annubai. She was driving in an inebriated condition and she should alone be liable for it.b)Aggubai. Annubai was transporting the bottles of spirit on her instructions and the employment would be completed only once the spirit was handed over to Aggubai at Mumbai.c)Annubai. She was no longer operating within the course of her employment. Her employment was over once the purchase was made from Tagesh.d)The people sleeping on the footpath. It was a clear case of volenti non fit injuria.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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.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?a)Annubai. She was driving in an inebriated condition and she should alone be liable for it.b)Aggubai. Annubai was transporting the bottles of spirit on her instructions and the employment would be completed only once the spirit was handed over to Aggubai at Mumbai.c)Annubai. She was no longer operating within the course of her employment. Her employment was over once the purchase was made from Tagesh.d)The people sleeping on the footpath. It was a clear case of volenti non fit injuria.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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.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?a)Annubai. She was driving in an inebriated condition and she should alone be liable for it.b)Aggubai. Annubai was transporting the bottles of spirit on her instructions and the employment would be completed only once the spirit was handed over to Aggubai at Mumbai.c)Annubai. She was no longer operating within the course of her employment. Her employment was over once the purchase was made from Tagesh.d)The people sleeping on the footpath. It was a clear case of volenti non fit injuria.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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.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?a)Annubai. She was driving in an inebriated condition and she should alone be liable for it.b)Aggubai. Annubai was transporting the bottles of spirit on her instructions and the employment would be completed only once the spirit was handed over to Aggubai at Mumbai.c)Annubai. She was no longer operating within the course of her employment. Her employment was over once the purchase was made from Tagesh.d)The people sleeping on the footpath. It was a clear case of volenti non fit injuria.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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.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?a)Annubai. She was driving in an inebriated condition and she should alone be liable for it.b)Aggubai. Annubai was transporting the bottles of spirit on her instructions and the employment would be completed only once the spirit was handed over to Aggubai at Mumbai.c)Annubai. She was no longer operating within the course of her employment. Her employment was over once the purchase was made from Tagesh.d)The people sleeping on the footpath. It was a clear case of volenti non fit injuria.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.