Question Description
Principle 1 - In the case of tortious liability, a duty of care is owed to the world at large, and anybody affected by such breach of duty of care can sue for damages.Principle 2 - When two parties enter into a contract and there is a breach of contractual terms, only the party to the contract affected by such breach may sue.Facts – Sushma and her friends were having a party to celebrate their good grades in the recent semester examinations. Sushma ordered several pizzas from a famous pizza chain called Pizzalicious. Reveling in the party atmosphere, Ravali, Sushma‘s friend helped herself to a slice of pizza and took a bite. After she had eaten it, she saw something resembling part of a worm in the remaining slice of the pizza. Ravali was shocked and greatly traumatized by this, and also fell sick subsequently. When she recovered, she wished to sue Pizzalicious for the bad quality of pizza provided by them. Pizzalicious, however, took the defence that they may only be sued by Sushma, who had placed the order for the pizzas and paid for them. Decide.a)Only Sushma can sue, as she had ordered the pizzas and the contract was between Pizzalicious and Sushma.b)Ravali can sue, as she sustained injury due to the worm in the pizza.c)Sushma can sue for contractual liability, as the pizzas provided were not fit for consumption, and Ravali can sue for tortious liability as Pizzalicious owed a general duty of care to provide food fit for consumption.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 Principle 1 - In the case of tortious liability, a duty of care is owed to the world at large, and anybody affected by such breach of duty of care can sue for damages.Principle 2 - When two parties enter into a contract and there is a breach of contractual terms, only the party to the contract affected by such breach may sue.Facts – Sushma and her friends were having a party to celebrate their good grades in the recent semester examinations. Sushma ordered several pizzas from a famous pizza chain called Pizzalicious. Reveling in the party atmosphere, Ravali, Sushma‘s friend helped herself to a slice of pizza and took a bite. After she had eaten it, she saw something resembling part of a worm in the remaining slice of the pizza. Ravali was shocked and greatly traumatized by this, and also fell sick subsequently. When she recovered, she wished to sue Pizzalicious for the bad quality of pizza provided by them. Pizzalicious, however, took the defence that they may only be sued by Sushma, who had placed the order for the pizzas and paid for them. Decide.a)Only Sushma can sue, as she had ordered the pizzas and the contract was between Pizzalicious and Sushma.b)Ravali can sue, as she sustained injury due to the worm in the pizza.c)Sushma can sue for contractual liability, as the pizzas provided were not fit for consumption, and Ravali can sue for tortious liability as Pizzalicious owed a general duty of care to provide food fit for consumption.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Principle 1 - In the case of tortious liability, a duty of care is owed to the world at large, and anybody affected by such breach of duty of care can sue for damages.Principle 2 - When two parties enter into a contract and there is a breach of contractual terms, only the party to the contract affected by such breach may sue.Facts – Sushma and her friends were having a party to celebrate their good grades in the recent semester examinations. Sushma ordered several pizzas from a famous pizza chain called Pizzalicious. Reveling in the party atmosphere, Ravali, Sushma‘s friend helped herself to a slice of pizza and took a bite. After she had eaten it, she saw something resembling part of a worm in the remaining slice of the pizza. Ravali was shocked and greatly traumatized by this, and also fell sick subsequently. When she recovered, she wished to sue Pizzalicious for the bad quality of pizza provided by them. Pizzalicious, however, took the defence that they may only be sued by Sushma, who had placed the order for the pizzas and paid for them. Decide.a)Only Sushma can sue, as she had ordered the pizzas and the contract was between Pizzalicious and Sushma.b)Ravali can sue, as she sustained injury due to the worm in the pizza.c)Sushma can sue for contractual liability, as the pizzas provided were not fit for consumption, and Ravali can sue for tortious liability as Pizzalicious owed a general duty of care to provide food fit for consumption.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Principle 1 - In the case of tortious liability, a duty of care is owed to the world at large, and anybody affected by such breach of duty of care can sue for damages.Principle 2 - When two parties enter into a contract and there is a breach of contractual terms, only the party to the contract affected by such breach may sue.Facts – Sushma and her friends were having a party to celebrate their good grades in the recent semester examinations. Sushma ordered several pizzas from a famous pizza chain called Pizzalicious. Reveling in the party atmosphere, Ravali, Sushma‘s friend helped herself to a slice of pizza and took a bite. After she had eaten it, she saw something resembling part of a worm in the remaining slice of the pizza. Ravali was shocked and greatly traumatized by this, and also fell sick subsequently. When she recovered, she wished to sue Pizzalicious for the bad quality of pizza provided by them. Pizzalicious, however, took the defence that they may only be sued by Sushma, who had placed the order for the pizzas and paid for them. Decide.a)Only Sushma can sue, as she had ordered the pizzas and the contract was between Pizzalicious and Sushma.b)Ravali can sue, as she sustained injury due to the worm in the pizza.c)Sushma can sue for contractual liability, as the pizzas provided were not fit for consumption, and Ravali can sue for tortious liability as Pizzalicious owed a general duty of care to provide food fit for consumption.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Principle 1 - In the case of tortious liability, a duty of care is owed to the world at large, and anybody affected by such breach of duty of care can sue for damages.Principle 2 - When two parties enter into a contract and there is a breach of contractual terms, only the party to the contract affected by such breach may sue.Facts – Sushma and her friends were having a party to celebrate their good grades in the recent semester examinations. Sushma ordered several pizzas from a famous pizza chain called Pizzalicious. Reveling in the party atmosphere, Ravali, Sushma‘s friend helped herself to a slice of pizza and took a bite. After she had eaten it, she saw something resembling part of a worm in the remaining slice of the pizza. Ravali was shocked and greatly traumatized by this, and also fell sick subsequently. When she recovered, she wished to sue Pizzalicious for the bad quality of pizza provided by them. Pizzalicious, however, took the defence that they may only be sued by Sushma, who had placed the order for the pizzas and paid for them. Decide.a)Only Sushma can sue, as she had ordered the pizzas and the contract was between Pizzalicious and Sushma.b)Ravali can sue, as she sustained injury due to the worm in the pizza.c)Sushma can sue for contractual liability, as the pizzas provided were not fit for consumption, and Ravali can sue for tortious liability as Pizzalicious owed a general duty of care to provide food fit for consumption.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Principle 1 - In the case of tortious liability, a duty of care is owed to the world at large, and anybody affected by such breach of duty of care can sue for damages.Principle 2 - When two parties enter into a contract and there is a breach of contractual terms, only the party to the contract affected by such breach may sue.Facts – Sushma and her friends were having a party to celebrate their good grades in the recent semester examinations. Sushma ordered several pizzas from a famous pizza chain called Pizzalicious. Reveling in the party atmosphere, Ravali, Sushma‘s friend helped herself to a slice of pizza and took a bite. After she had eaten it, she saw something resembling part of a worm in the remaining slice of the pizza. Ravali was shocked and greatly traumatized by this, and also fell sick subsequently. When she recovered, she wished to sue Pizzalicious for the bad quality of pizza provided by them. Pizzalicious, however, took the defence that they may only be sued by Sushma, who had placed the order for the pizzas and paid for them. Decide.a)Only Sushma can sue, as she had ordered the pizzas and the contract was between Pizzalicious and Sushma.b)Ravali can sue, as she sustained injury due to the worm in the pizza.c)Sushma can sue for contractual liability, as the pizzas provided were not fit for consumption, and Ravali can sue for tortious liability as Pizzalicious owed a general duty of care to provide food fit for consumption.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Principle 1 - In the case of tortious liability, a duty of care is owed to the world at large, and anybody affected by such breach of duty of care can sue for damages.Principle 2 - When two parties enter into a contract and there is a breach of contractual terms, only the party to the contract affected by such breach may sue.Facts – Sushma and her friends were having a party to celebrate their good grades in the recent semester examinations. Sushma ordered several pizzas from a famous pizza chain called Pizzalicious. Reveling in the party atmosphere, Ravali, Sushma‘s friend helped herself to a slice of pizza and took a bite. After she had eaten it, she saw something resembling part of a worm in the remaining slice of the pizza. Ravali was shocked and greatly traumatized by this, and also fell sick subsequently. When she recovered, she wished to sue Pizzalicious for the bad quality of pizza provided by them. Pizzalicious, however, took the defence that they may only be sued by Sushma, who had placed the order for the pizzas and paid for them. Decide.a)Only Sushma can sue, as she had ordered the pizzas and the contract was between Pizzalicious and Sushma.b)Ravali can sue, as she sustained injury due to the worm in the pizza.c)Sushma can sue for contractual liability, as the pizzas provided were not fit for consumption, and Ravali can sue for tortious liability as Pizzalicious owed a general duty of care to provide food fit for consumption.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Principle 1 - In the case of tortious liability, a duty of care is owed to the world at large, and anybody affected by such breach of duty of care can sue for damages.Principle 2 - When two parties enter into a contract and there is a breach of contractual terms, only the party to the contract affected by such breach may sue.Facts – Sushma and her friends were having a party to celebrate their good grades in the recent semester examinations. Sushma ordered several pizzas from a famous pizza chain called Pizzalicious. Reveling in the party atmosphere, Ravali, Sushma‘s friend helped herself to a slice of pizza and took a bite. After she had eaten it, she saw something resembling part of a worm in the remaining slice of the pizza. Ravali was shocked and greatly traumatized by this, and also fell sick subsequently. When she recovered, she wished to sue Pizzalicious for the bad quality of pizza provided by them. Pizzalicious, however, took the defence that they may only be sued by Sushma, who had placed the order for the pizzas and paid for them. Decide.a)Only Sushma can sue, as she had ordered the pizzas and the contract was between Pizzalicious and Sushma.b)Ravali can sue, as she sustained injury due to the worm in the pizza.c)Sushma can sue for contractual liability, as the pizzas provided were not fit for consumption, and Ravali can sue for tortious liability as Pizzalicious owed a general duty of care to provide food fit for consumption.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Principle 1 - In the case of tortious liability, a duty of care is owed to the world at large, and anybody affected by such breach of duty of care can sue for damages.Principle 2 - When two parties enter into a contract and there is a breach of contractual terms, only the party to the contract affected by such breach may sue.Facts – Sushma and her friends were having a party to celebrate their good grades in the recent semester examinations. Sushma ordered several pizzas from a famous pizza chain called Pizzalicious. Reveling in the party atmosphere, Ravali, Sushma‘s friend helped herself to a slice of pizza and took a bite. After she had eaten it, she saw something resembling part of a worm in the remaining slice of the pizza. Ravali was shocked and greatly traumatized by this, and also fell sick subsequently. When she recovered, she wished to sue Pizzalicious for the bad quality of pizza provided by them. Pizzalicious, however, took the defence that they may only be sued by Sushma, who had placed the order for the pizzas and paid for them. Decide.a)Only Sushma can sue, as she had ordered the pizzas and the contract was between Pizzalicious and Sushma.b)Ravali can sue, as she sustained injury due to the worm in the pizza.c)Sushma can sue for contractual liability, as the pizzas provided were not fit for consumption, and Ravali can sue for tortious liability as Pizzalicious owed a general duty of care to provide food fit for consumption.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.