Legal Principles- 2 Previous Year Questions with Solutions

Legal Principles:
1. Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
2. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
3. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour.
4. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance.

Q.182. Factual Situation: During 2011, a European Directive was issued requiring nations of the European Community to establish standards on the presence of Perchloroethene (PCE) in water, which the Kingsland did in 2013.
Alfa Water Co. purchased a borehole in 2007 to extract water to supply to the public in Kingsland. In 2014, it tested the water to ensure that it met minimum standards for human consumption and discovered that it was contaminated with an organochlorine solvent (PCE), On investigation, it emerged that the solvent seeped into the soil through the building floor of the Light & Soft Leather Tannery, about 3 miles from the borehole that eventually contaminated the Alfa's borehole. Since the tanner)' opened in 1910, until 2007, the solvent it used had been delivered in 40-gailon drums which were transported by fork lift truck and then tipped into a sump. Since 2007, solvents had been delivered in bulk and stored in tanks. It was then piped to the tanning machinery. There was no evidence of any spills from the tanks or pipes, and it was concluded that the water had been contaminated by frequent spills under the earlier system. Alfa Water brought a claim against the Tannery on the grounds of nuisance. Whether the Tanner)' owners are liable?    (AILET, 2018)
(a) Yes, the escape of the solvent which contaminated the water is sufficient for making them liable.
(b) No, the damage is too remote as it was not possible for the Tannery owners to reasonably foresee a spillage which would eventually lead to contamination of a water borehole so far away.
(c) No, because Alfa Water Co. should have been careful in using good purifying mechanisms to ensure that the water is fit for human consumption. They cannot shift the blame on the Tannery owners.
(d) Yes, the damage is not remote as it was possible for the Tannery owners to reasonably foresee a spillage which would eventually lead to contamination of a water borehole just 3 miles away.

Correct Answer is Option (b)

Q.183. Factual Situation: M.G. Ltd, was constructing Crystal Heights, a posh state-of-the- art tower for commercial and residential purposes, in Gurugram. During construction, hundreds of claimants alleged that, in addition to dust and noise caused by the erection of the building, their television signals had been interrupted by the tower. The claimants, some of whom were absolute owners, and many others who were renting, sued in both negligence and in nuisance for the harm done to their amenity by the loss of their television signals. Whether the respondent's action in causing the appellant's television signals to be interrupted with the construction of their tower could constitute a private nuisance?    (AFLET, 2018)
(a) The interference with the television signal caused by the construction of the tower could not amount to a private nuisance at law. Effective town planning can sort this matter, instead.
(b) Yes, the large tower had interrupted their television reception, and caused private nuisance - for loss of enjoyment - and remuneration for their wasted television license fee, from the time their signal had been impaired.
(c) No, it cannot constitute private nuisance but the claimants can claim damages for loss of television signals.
(d) Yes, the respondent's conduct was unreasonable because the act of building the tower caused impairment of enjoyment of the land.

Correct Answer is Option (a)

Q.184. Legal Principle:
1. Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.
2. The statement must tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. 
3. A mere vulgar abuse is not defamation. 
4. Sometimes a statement may not be defamatory on the face of it but contain an innuendo, which has a defamatory meaning. 
5. Defamation encompasses both written statements, known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander.
Factual Situation: In May 2017, a memorial commemorating the women of World War II was vandalized during an anti-government demonstration following the General Flection. An offensive political slogan was spray painted across the plinth of the memorial. This act caused public outrage and widespread condemnation.
On Twitter, a political writer, Asha Mehta said that she did not have a problem with the vandalism of the memorial building. Chandna reacted to this negatively, suggesting that Asha should be sent to join Terrorist Organization. Asha's comments and Chandna's reactions both received national media coverage.
A few days later, Chandna' published a tweet asking the question "Scrawled on any war memorials recently?" to Anshika Chauhan, another political activist. Anshika Chauhan responded stating that they had never vandalised any memorial building, and moreover had family members serving in the armed forces. Chandna followed with a second tweet, in which she asked if someone could explain the difference between Mehta (an "irritant") and Anshika Chauhan (whom she described as "social anthrax").
Anshika Chauhan asked for a retraction via Twitter and was promptly blocked by Chandna. Anshika Chauhan asked Chandna to make a public apology and claimed compensation for libel alleging that the First Tweet suggested that she had either vandalised a war memorial, which was a criminal act; and the Second Tweet suggested that she approved or condoned that vandalisation. What is the meaning of the Tweets and whether those meanings had defamatory tendency?    (ATLET, 2018)
(a) Both the tweets were defamatory to Anshika Chauhan as the hypothetical ordinary reader can be expected to understand defamatory tendency of the tweet in the context of the situation.
(b) Second tweet was not defamatory as it was not referring directly to Anshika Chauhan. So, she cannot claim compensation.
(c) Natural and ordinary meaning of the tweets are not defamatory. So, she cannot claim compensation.
(d) First tweet was not defamatory because the natural and ordinary meaning of the statement which is conveyed to a hypothetical ordinary reader is not defamatory.

Correct Answer is Option (a)

Q.185. Legal Principle:
1. An assault is an act which intentionally causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on a person.
2. A battery consists of an intentional application of force to another person without any lawful justification.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Jagan was in his car when he was approached by a police officer who told him to move the vehicle. Jagan did so, reversed his car and rolled it on to the foot of the police officer. The officer forcefully told him to move the car off his foot at which point Jagan swore at him and refused to move his vehicle and turned the engine off. Jagan was convicted for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. Is he liable for battery or assault?    (AILET, 2018) 
(a) He is not liable because there cannot be an assault in omitting to act and that driving on to the officer's foot was accidental, meaning that he was lacking mens rea when the act causing damage had occurred.
(b) He is not liable as the act neither amount to an attempt nor a threat to commit a battery that amounts to an actionable tort of assault.
(c) Jagan's crime was not the refusal to move the car but that of having driven on to the foot of the officer and decided not to cease the act, he had established a continual act of battery.
(d) He is neither liable for assault nor battery as he accidentally drove his car on the police officer's foot.

Correct Answer is Option (c)

Legal Principle
1. Consideration is something that moves from the promisee to the promisor, at the implied or express request of the latter, in return for his promise. The item that moves can be a right, interest, profit, loss, responsibility given or suffered, forbearance or a benefit which is of some value in the eyes of law. 
2. An offer may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards.

Q.186. Factual Situation: The defendant, Mr. Dhawan, wrote to tire complainant, Mr. Charnan, with an offer to sell his house to him f o r " 8,00,000. He promised that he would keep this offer open to him until Friday. However, on the Thursday Mr. Dhawan accepted an offer from a third party and sold his house. According to Mr. Charnan, he was going to accept this offer but had not said anything to Mr. Dhawan because he understood that he had time until Friday. Mr. Dhawan communicated to Mr. Charnan that the offer had been withdrawn, through a friend to the complainant. After hearing this, Mr. Charnan went to find the defendant, informing of his acceptance to the offer. Thereafter, the complainant brought an action for specific performance and breach of contract against the defendant. Whether the defendant's promise to keep the offer open until Friday morning was a binding contract between the parties and whether he was allowed to revoke this offer and sell to a third party?    (AILET, 2018)
(a) The statement made by Mr. Dhawan amounts to a valid contract and he has committed a breach by selling the house before Friday.
(b) The statement made by Mr. Dhawan was nothing more than a promise; there was no binding contract formed. He had communicated an offer for buying his house to the complainant and this offer can be revoked any time before there is acceptance.
(c) The communication by a friend or other party that an offer had been withdrawn is invalid and could not be treated as if it came from the person himself.
(d) Promises to keep an offer open until acertain time is a binding agreement as it is accepted by the other party.

Correct Answer is Option (b)

Q.187. Factual Situation: MXM Co. is a building contractor who entered into an agreement with Star Heights Housing Association to refurbish a block of 27 flats. This contract was subject to a liquidated damages clause if they did not complete the contract on time. The MXM Co. engaged Hasan to do the carpentry work for an agreed price of ' 20,000. After six months of commencing the work, Hasan realised he had priced the job too low and would be unable to complete at the originally agreed price. He approached MXM Co, who recognised that the price was particularly low and was concerned about completing the contract on time, MXM Co. agreed to make additional payments to Hasan in return for his promise to carry out his existing obligations. MXM Co, agreed to pay Hasan an additional ' 575 per flat. Hasan continued work on the flats for a further period of 6 weeks but only received an additional' 5,000. He then ran out of money and refused to continue unless payment was made. MXM Co. engaged another carpenter to complete the contract and refused to pay Hasan any further sums. Hasan sued for payment under the original agreement and the subsequent agreement. MXM Co. argued that the agreement to make additional payments was unenforceable as Hasan has not provided any consideration to make this agreement a valid contract.    (AILET, 2018)
(a) The agreement to pay extra was unenforceable as Hasan had provided no consideration as he was already under an existing contractual duty to complete the work.
(b) Consideration was provided by Hasan in the form of conferring a benefit on the MXM Co. by helping them to avoid the penalty clause. Therefore, MXM Co. was liable to make the extra payments promised.
(c) There was no consideration provided by Hasan as to avoid the penalty clause was the main object of the contract. Therefore, MXM Co. was not liable to make the extra payments promised.
(d) MXM Co. is liable to pay compensation to Hasan as they have committed a breach of contract by employing another carpenter.

Correct Answer is Option (b)

Q.188.  Factual Situation: Boumville ran a sales promotion whereby if persons sent in 3 chocolate bar wrappers and a postal order for100 they would be sent a record. Big Beats owned the copyright in one of the records offered and disputed the right of Boumville to offer the records and sought an injunction to prevent the sale of the records which normally retailed at 1,000. Under the Copyright Act, retailers are protected from breach of copyright if they gave notice to the copyright holders of the ordinary retail selling price and paid them 6.25% of this. Boumville gave notice stating the ordinary selling price was ' 100 and three chocolate bar wrappers. The issue is whether the chocolate bar wrappers formed part of the consideration?     (AILET, 2018)
(a) The wrappers were a mere token or condition of sale and not consideration.
(b) The wrappers did form part of the consideration for the sale of records despite the fact that they had no intrinsic economic value in themselves.
(c) The wrappers did not form part of the consideration for the sale of records as they had no intrinsic economic value in themselves.
(d) There was consideration for the sale of records in the form of postal order for ₹100.

Correct Answer is Option (b)

Legal principles
1. Offer is a proposal made by one person to another to do an act or abstain from doing it. The person who makes the offer is known as the promisor or offeror and the person to whom an offer is made* is known as the promisee or the offeree.
2. A contract comes into being by the acceptance of an offer. When the person to whom the offer is made signifies his consent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted and the parties are at consensus ad idem regarding the terms of the agreement.

Q.189. Factual Situation: Tejas drove his car to a car park named Super Car Park (SCP). Outside the car park, the prices were displayed and a notice stated cars were parked at the owner's risk. An automatic ticket vending machine provided a ticket, a barrier was raised and Tejas parked his car. In small print on the ticket it was stated that the ticket is issued subject to conditions displayed on the premises. On a pillar opposite to the machine was a notice stating the owners would not be liable for any injuries occurring on their premises. Tejas met with an accident and sought damages from SCP. SCP denied any liability on the basis of the exclusion clause which was mentioned in the notice on the pillar. Whether there is an offer and acceptance of the exclusion clause?    (AILET, 2018)
(a) There is a valid contract between Tejas and SCP as SCP had taken reasonable steps to bring exclusion clause to Tejas's attention at the time of making the contract.
(b) The contract was made when Tejas received the ticket and parked his car. The ticket amounted to a contractual document which effectively referred to the terms which were clearly visible on the premises.
(c) The machine itself constituted the offer. The acceptance was by putting the money into the machine. The ticket was dispensed after the acceptance took place and therefore the exclusion clause was not incorporated into the contract.
(d) The machine itself constituted the offer. The acceptance was by putting the money into the machine and acceptance of the offer mean acceptance of all the terms of the offer and hence SCP is not liable.

Correct Answer is Option (c)

Q.190. Factual Situation: The plaintiffs offered to provide delivery of a machine tool for a price of ' 75,535. The delivery of the tool was set for 10 months, with the condition that orders only qualified as accepted once the terms in the quotation were met and prevailed over any of the buyer's terms. The buyer responded to the offer with their own terms and conditions, which did not include the 'price variation clause' listed in the seller's terms. This included a response section which required a signature and to be returned in order to accept the order. The sellers returned this response slip with a cover letter signaling that delivery would be in accordance with their original quotation. The tool was ready for delivery but the buyers could not accept delivery, for which the sellers increased the price which was in line with their initial terms. This was denied by the buyer and an action was brought by the seller to claim the cost of delay and interest. Was a contract made with or without a price variation clause?    (AILET, 2018)
(a) The buyer's order was not an acceptance of the initial offer from the seller but a counteroffer which the sellers had accepted by returning the signature section of the buyer's letter and so the contract was completed without the price variation clause and therefore the seller could not increase the cost of the tool.
(b) The buyer's order was an acceptance of the initial offer from the seller and so the contract was completed with the price variation clause and therefore the seller can increase the cost of the tool.
(c) The contract was made with price variation clause due to the condition that orders only qualified as accepted once the terms in the quotation were met and prevailed over any of the buyer's terms.
(d) The contract between the buyer and seller is not valid as both the parties are not agreeing to the same thing in the same sense.

Correct Answer is Option (a)

Q.191. Legal Principle:
1. 'Misrepresentation' means and includes the positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true; any breach of duty 'which, without an intent to deceive, gains an advantage of the person committing it, or any one claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him; causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement, to make a ihistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement.
2. The tort of negligent misstatement is defined as an inaccurate statement made honestly but carelessly usually in the form of advice given by a party with special skill/knowledge to a party that doesn't possess this skill or knowledge.
Factual Situation: The plaintiff, Mr. Madan, entered into a tenancy agreement with the defendant, Esso Petroleum, in respect of a petrol station owned by the latter. During the course of the negotiation of the agreement, 'expert' advisers employed by the defendant had provided an estimate of the sales which the petrol station could expect which was based on inaccurate information and consequently was significantly inflated. The value of the rent on the agreement had been calculated based on this inflated figure. As a result, it was impossible for the plaintiff to operate the petrol station profitably. Whether the plaintiff could have any action for negligent misrepresentation?    (AILET, 2018)
(a) The contract could not be held void for misrepresentation as the defendants presented the inflated figure as an estimate rather than as a hard fact.
(b) The defendant has no obligation to disclose as the parties contracting should obtain the necessary information themselves without relying upon the other party.
(c) As the defendant had taken it upon themselves to employ experts for the purpose of providing an estimate of sales, they owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to ensure that this was done on the basis of accurate information. Hence, the plaintiff can recover the losses which he had suffered as a result of the defendant's negligent misstatement.
(d) Both (a) and (c).

Correct Answer is Option (d)

Legal Principles
1. The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
3. The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred 'but for' the negligence of the defendant. The claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant's breach of duty caused the harm.
Q.192. Factual Situation: Amar worked for an iron works, Luxmi Mills & Co. Ltd. operating a remotely controlled crane, Amar galvanized items by dipping them into a large tank of molten metal. In order to protect its crane operators, whose controls were located just a few feet from the tank, Luxmi Mills erected a low wall around the tank and also provided a sheet of corrugated iron that crane operators placed between themselves and the wall. The operators were not facing the tank while opening the crane. Thus, they could not see the operation of the crane and therefore relied upon signals from another worker located farther from the tank. Many other galvanizes at the time situated their operators in enclosed, windowed spaces from which they could safely see and perform their work. Luxmi Mills eventually adopted that practice as well. One day, Amar was working on the crane. At one point, he either turned toward the tank or leaned out to see the worker giving him instructions, thereby placing his head outside the iron sheet. A spray of molten metal burned Amar's lip. When it failed to heal and began to ulcerate, he consulted a doctor who diagnosed the wound as cancerous, Amar ultimately died from tire spread of cancer after three years. His widow sued Luxmi Mills for negligence. Whether the employers would be liable for the full extent of the burn and cancer that had developed as a result?    (AILET, 2018)
(a) The employers are liable for all of the consequences of their negligence; thus, liable for the employee's death. His predisposition to cancer did not matter, nor did the results of tire injury. The question of liability was, whether the defendant could reasonably foresee the injury.
(b) The employers are not liable because the duty of care towards Amar was not breached by them as they were using the same practices which were used by other companies at that time.
(c) The employers are not liable because Amar suffered injury due to his own negligence in stepping out of the protective shield.
(d) The employers are liable for burps and not for the death which happened due to Amar's cancerous condition which could not have been known to the employers.

Correct Answer is Option (a)

Q.193. Factual Situation: A 13-year-old boy fell from a tree. He went to a hospital where his hip was examined, but an incorrect diagnosis was made. After 5 days it was found that he was suffering from avascular necrosis. This was more advanced and serious than if it had been spotted straight away. Despite receiving treatment, it was determined that he had suffered from a muscular condition (avascular necrosis) which left the boy with a permanent disability and further left a strong probability that he would develop severe osteoarthritis later in life. The expert medical testimony indicated that had his fractured hip been identified on his initial hospital visit, there was a 25% chance of his condition having been successfully treated. He is claiming compensation for the negligence of hospital. Whether the hospital's negligence on his initial visit had caused his injury?
(a) No, because there are very less chances that correct diagnosis and treatment would have prevented the disability from occurring.
(b) Where there are a number of possible causes, the claimant must still prove the defendant's breach of duty caused the harm or was a material contribution.
(c) Yes, because there are some chances that correct diagnosis and treatment would have prevented the disability from occurring.
(d) Both (a) and (b).

Correct Answer is Option (d)

Q.194. Legal Principle: Vicarious liability is when employers are held liable for the torts committed by their employees during the course of employment.
Factual Situation: New Vision School opened a boarding house (Shivaji House) for boys in the year 2000 for the students having behavioural and emotional difficulties. The claimants in the instant case had resided there between 2000 to 2003, being aged 12 to 15 during that time, under the care of a warden, who was in charge of maintaining discipline and the running of the house. The warden lived in the House, with his disabled wife, and together they were the only two members of staff in the House. His duties were ensuring order, in making sure the children went to bed, went to school, engaged in evening activities, and supervising other staff. It had been alleged by some of the boys that the warden had sexually abused them, including inappropriate advances and taking trips alone with them. A criminal investigation took place some ten years later, resulting in the warden being sentenced to seven years imprisonment. Following this, the victims brought an action for personal injury against the employers, alleging that they were vicariously liable. Whether the employers of the warden may be held vicariously liable for their employee's intentional sexual abuse of school boys placed under his care?    (AILET, 2018)
(a) No, vicarious liability could only arise when the employee is acting during the course of his employment and for his employer's benefit.
(b) No, the employers cannot be made liable for acts which are not authorised by them.
(c) Yes, there was a sufficient connection between the work that the warden was employed to do and the abuse that he committed to render it within the scope of employment. The abuse was committed at the time, premises and during the course of the warden's care of the boys.
(d) Yes, because the employers should be made liable in cases of sexual abuse of differently abled children.

Correct Answer is Option (c)

Q.195. Principle 1: When a person voluntarily consents to infliction of some harm upon himself/herscif, he/she cannot complain for the harm suffered and his/her consent acts as a good defence against him/her.
Principle 2: The consent may be express or implied.
Facts: The plaintiff was a spectator at Formula One Car race. Despite due care by the organisers, there was a collision between two cars during the race and one of the cars was thrown among the audience, gravely injuring Hasan. Hasan was paralysed waist down due to tills injury.    (D.U. LL.B., 2018)
(a) Organisers are liable to compensate Hasan as even though he agreed to take the risk of being injured, he did not agree to be paralysed.
(b) Organisers are liable to compensate Hasan as he did not expressly consent to being gravely injured.
(c) Organisers are liable to compensate Hasan for the harm caused to him, as he did not voluntarily agree to be gravely injured.
(d) Organisers are not liable to compensate as Hasan impliedly took the risk of injury. The danger of car collision is inherent in Formula 1 Car Race. The possibility of spectators being injured by such collision is foreseeable.

Correct Answer is Option (d)

Q.196. PRINCIPLE: If the offeror has prescribed a particular mode or manner of acceptance, the acceptance must be made in the prescribed manner only. In the event of the acceptor not following the prescribed mode of acceptance, no valid contract comes into existence.
FACTS: Arora Enterprises made an offer to buy desks from Bharucha Co. Ltd. According to the terms of the contract, the acceptance was to be made through e-mail. Bharucha Co. and Ltd. sent the acceptance through post. Arora Enterprises received this letter but entered into contract with Abdulla Enterprises. Bharucha Co. Ltd. sued Arora Enterprises for breach of contract.    (D.U. LL.B., 2018)
(a) Bharucha Co. Ltd can successfully sue Arora Enterprises as it has conveyed its acceptance and fulfilled essential conditions required by contract.
(b) Arora Enterprises can be sued as it entered into contract with Abdulla Enterprises after receiving the acceptance of Bharucha Co. Ltd.
(c) Arora Enterprises cannot be sued, as the acceptance was invalid.
(d) The acceptance is valid as what is necessary is that the acceptance must reach the offeror.

Correct Answer is Option (c)

Q.197. Principle: A contract to do an act, which, after the contract is made becomes impossible is void when the act becomes impossible.
Facts: Sheela owned a two story building. She agreed to lease the property to Harleen for a period of 1 year for a rent of fifty thousand rupees per month. The contract was signed by both the parties on April 30, 2015. It was agreed that the lease period would start from May 5, 2015. On May 3, 2015, a massive fire broke out and the building was completely destroyed.    (D.U. LL.B., 2018)
(a) The contract is void as the subject matter of the contract has ceased to exist.
(b) The contract is void as the fire broke out two days before the start of the lease period.
(c) The contract is valid as the performance of the contract does not depend on the existence of the subject matter of contract, i.e., the building.
(d) The contract is valid as it was already signed before the fire broke out.

Correct Answer is Option (a)

Q.198. Principle: Unreasonable interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land constitutes nuisance.
Facts: A brick grinding machine was installed by Mihir adjoining the premises of George who was a medical practitioner. The dust from the machine used to enter George's medical chamber and cause inconvenience to the patients.    (D.U. LL.B., 2018)
(a) George cannot sue Mihir for nuisance as every nuisance is not inconvenience. 
(b) George cannot sue Mihir for nuisance as Mihir has a right to use his property as he deems fit.
(c) George cannot sue Mihir for nuisance as the use of land by George was not illegal.
(d) George can sue Mihir for nuisance as the dust interfered with the physical comfort of George and his patients.

Correct Answer is Option (d)

Q.199. Principle: Whoever takes away with him any minor less than sixteen years of age if a male, or less than eighteen years of age if a female, out of the custody of parents of such minor without the consent of such parents, is said to commit no offence.
Facts: 'A', a man, took away a girl below sixteen years to Mumbai without informing the parents of the girl.    (CLAT, 2017)
(a) 'A' committed no offence against the parents of the girl
(b) 'A' committed no offence against the girl as well as her parents
(c) 'A' committed an offence against the girl
(d) 'A' committed an offence against the girl as well as her parents.

Correct Answer is Option (b)

Q.200. Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
Facts: 'A', under the influence of madness, attempts to kill ' B ' B ' to save his life kills 'A'.    (CLAT, 2017)
(a) 'B' has committed an offence
(b) 'A' has not committed an offence because he was mad
(c) 'B' has not committed any offence
(d) ‘A ’ has committed the offence o f attempt to murder.

Correct Answer is Option (c)

Q.201. Principle: A person is said to do a thing fraudulently, if he does that thing with intent to defraud, but not otherwise.
Facts: 'A' occasionally hands over his ATM card to ‘B’ to withdraw money for 'A'. On one occasion 'B' without the knowledge of ‘A' uses 'A's ATM card to find out the balance in 'A's account, but does not withdraw any money.    (CLAT, 2017)
(a) 'B' has not committed the act fraudulently
(b) 'B' has committed the act fraudulently.
(c) 'B' has committed misappropriation
(d) 'B' has committed breach of faith.

Correct Answer is Option (a)

Q.202. Principle: Assault is causing bodily injury to another person by use of physical force. Rustum while entering into compartment of a train raised his fist in anger towards a person Sheetal, just in front of him in the row, to get way to enter into the train first, but did not hit him. Rustum has    (CLAT, 2017)
(a) insulted Sheetal
(b) Rightly showed his anger
(c) committed an assault on Sheetal.
(d) not committed an assault on Sheetal.

Correct Answer is Option (d)

Q.203. Principle: In criminal law, misappropriation is the intentional, illegal use of the property or fluids of another person for one's own use or other unauthorized purpose, particularly by a public official, a trustee of a trust, an executor or administrator of a dead person's estate or by any person with a responsibility to care for and protect another's assets. Embezzlement is misappropriation when the funds involved have been lawfully entrusted to the embezzler. On the contrary, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.
Facts: A went for swimming at the Municipal Swimming Pool. A handed over all his valuables, including some cash to X, the guard on duty for safe custody, as notified by the Municipality. After swimming for an hour, A came out and searched for X. He found another guard on duty and that guard informed A that X had gone home after completing his shift and did not hand over anything to be given to A. A registered a complaint with the police. X was traced but he told the police that he sold all the valuables and the entire cash was used for drinking liquor. What offence, if any, was/were committed by X?    (CLAT, 2017)
(a) If at all X is liable, it is for criminal misappropriation only.
(b) X is liable for criminal misappropriation and embezzlement
(c) X is not guilty of criminal misappropriation as he did not make any personal gain out of those items with him
(d) X is liable for theft as he took A's property without X's permission.

Correct Answer is Option (b)

Q.204. Principle: Penal laws provide that whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man or woman, shall be punished for rape.
Facts: A Police Officer found a man engaged in carnal intercourse with an animal. The Police Officer arrested the man and produced him before the Court.    (CLAT, 2017)

(a) Court will not punish the police officer
(b) Court will punish the police officer
(c) Court will not punish the man for rape
(d) Court will punish the man for rape.

Correct Answer is Option (c)

Q.205. Principle: There are legal provisions to give authority to a person to use necessary force against an assailant or wrong-doer for the purpose of protecting one's own body and property as also another's body and property when immediate aid from the state machinery is not readily available; and in so doing he is not answerable in law for his deeds.
Facts: X, a rich man was taking his morning walk. Due to the threat of robbers in the locality, he was carrying his pistol also. From the opposite direction, another person was coming with a ferocious looking dog. All of a sudden, the dog which was on a chain held by the owner, started barking at X. The owner of the dog called the dog to be calm. They crossed each other without any problem. But suddenly, the dog started barking again from a distance. X immediately took out his pistol. By seeing the pistol the dog stopped barking and started walking with the owner. However, X shot at the dog which died instantly. The owner of the dog files a complaint against X, which in due course reached the Magistrate Court. X pleads the right of private defence. Decide    (CLAT, 2017)
(a) There was no imminent danger to X as the dog stopped barking and was walking with the owner. Hence, shooting it amounted to excessive use of the right of private defence and hence liable for killing the dog.
(b) The right of private defence is available to persons against assailants or wrong-doers only and a dog does not fall in this category.
(c) Shooting a fierce dog is not to be brought under the criminal law. So the case should be dismissed.
(d) As there was no guarantee that the dog would not bark again, shooting it was a precautionary measure and hence within the right available to X under law.

Correct Answer is Option (a)

Q.206. Principle: When a person falsifies something with the intent to deceive another person or entity is forgery and is a criminal act. Changing or adding the signature on a document, deleting it, using or possessing the false writing is also considered forgery. In the case of writing/painting to fall under the definition, the material included must have been fabricated or altered significantly in order to represent something it is actually not.
Facts: David made a living traveling from city to city, selling paintings that he claimed were done by great artists. Since the artists' signatures were in place, many people fell for them and purchased the paintings. One of these artists saw three of his alleged paintings in a City gallery containing his name. He knew these were not his works and he complained to the police. Police traced David and initiated legal proceedings. Is David guilty of any offence?    (CLAT, 2017)
(a) There is no point in taking legal action against David as the signature has not done any alteration to the art work
(b) David is guilty of forgery as the addition of the signature was with an intention to make people believe that those were the paintings of the great artists.
(c) Those who buy the art pieces from David ought to have been careful in checking it and ensuring that they were originals before purchasing it
(d) David is not guilty of any offence as he was selling the art pieces for his living.

Correct Answer is Option (b)

Q.208. Principle: Section 34 of Indian Penal Code provides that 'When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.'

Facts: Three vagabonds, Sanju, Dilbag and Sushil decided to commit burglary. In the night, Sushil opened the lock and they broke into a rich man's house when the entire family was on a pilgrimage. Sanju had gone to that house earlier in connection with some cleaning job. There was only a servant lady in the house. Hearing some sounds from the master bed room, the servant switched on the lights and went up to the room from where she heard the sound. Noticing that the servant was going to cry for help, Sanju grabbed her and covered her mouth with his hands and dragged her into the nearby room. The other two were collecting whatever they could from the room. When they were ready to go out of the house, they looked for Sanju and found him committing rape on the servant. They all left the house and the servant reported the matter to the police and identified Sanju. Subsequently, all three were arrested in connection with the offences of house breaking, burglary and rape. Identify the legal liability of the three.    (CLAT, 2017)
(a) Only Sanju will be liable for rape as he was the one who actually committed the offence
(b) All three are liable for all the offences as there was common intention to commit the crimes
(c) Only Dilbag and Sushil are liable for burglar}' in looting the house, and all three will be liable for housebreaking and rape as they did riot stop Sanju from committing the offence and hence were accomplice to the offence.
(d) Sanju will be liable only for housebreaking and rape as he did not participate in the burglary.

Correct Answer is Option (a)

Q.209. Principle: When a person falsifies something with the intent to deceive another person or entity is forgery and is a criminal act. Changing or adding the signature on a document, deleting it, using or possessing the false writing is also considered forgery. In the case of writing to fall under the definition, the material included must have been fabricated or altered significantly in order to represent something it is actually not.
Facts: John was a publisher of ancient books and papers. In one of his books on the World Wars, he gave photograph of some letters written by famous historic personalities. A researcher in history noted that in the pictures of some of the letters printed in the book, John had added some words or sentences in his own handwriting to give completeness to the sentences, so that the readers will get a clear picture of the writer's intention. The researcher challenges the originality of those pictures and claims that the book containing the forged letters should be banned. Examine the validity of the researcher's demand.    (CLAT, 2017)
(a) The additions were made to give clarity to the original document and did not in any sense change the contents of the documents and hence there is no forgery as alleged by the researcher.
(b) As forgery amounts to adding or deleting anything from an original document, the demand of the researcher is valid
(c) The additions in the letters were made by the publisher in his own handwriting would have made material alteration to the original meaning and hence amounted to forgery
(d) Allowing forged publications to be circulated among the public is as good as committing fraud on the public, so the publication should be banned.

Correct Answer is Option (a)

Q.210. Prinnciple: When any person with an intention to cause damage to the public or to any person, causes destruction of any property, he is said to have committed the offence of mischief.
Facts: The workers of Ubzuki Mobiles went on strike for the non-payment of bonus to them. In order to force the management to pay the bonus, one of the workers, Mr. X threw a stone with full force and damaged the premises of the company. Did X commit any offence?    (D.U. LL.B., 2017)
Decision:
(a) X committed the offence of mischief.
(b) As X was on strike with other workers to get their demands fulfilled, he didn't commit any offence.
(c) X was right as the management was not fulfilling their legitimate demands and this was the only way to make their voice heard.
(d) X didn't commit any offence, as the labour laws of India allow the workers to get their legitimate demands fulfilled from the management. X is, therefore immune from any legal action.

Correct Answer is Option (a)

Q.211. Principle: Whoever, by words, or by signs or otherwise brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites disaffection towards the Government established by law in India shall be punished with imprisonment for life. This is the law on sedition.
Facts: X made the following two statements at a public gathering:
(i) This is a Government of scoundrels, bootleggers, fools, and scamsters. Throw them out this time by voting against them. They don't deserve to be in power.
(ii) Kill all these corrupts and rascals who are running this nation, whether they are leaders of the ruling party or the government servants. Come help me to clean this nation from these evils.     (D.U. LL.B., 2017)
Decision:
(a) X is not guilty of sedition for having made the statements (i) and (ii) as he was exercising his fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.
(b) X is guilty of sedition for haying made the statements (i) and (ii).
(c) X is guilty of sedition for making statement (i) only.
(d) X is guilty of sedition for making statement (ii) only.

Correct Answer is Option (d)

Q.212. Legal Principle: When a person makes such a statement which lowers other person's reputation in the estimation of other persons, is liable for committing defamation.
Factual Situation: 'A' writes a letter to 'B' in which he uses abusive language against 'B' and also states that 'B' is a dishonest person. 'A' put the letter in a sealed envelope and delivered it to 'B'.    (CLAT, 2017)
(a) 'A' has committed defamation
(b) 'A' has not committed moral wrong
(c) ‘A' has not committed defamation
(d) 'A' has committed a moral wrong.

Correct Answer is Option (c)

Q.213. Legal Principle: When a person interferes with peaceful possession of another person without the permission of the person in possession of those premises, commits trespass to land.
Factual Situation: 'T' just walked over the land of 'T' to reach his house as it was a short cut. 'P' had displayed a notice that it is not a thoroughfare. 'T' did not cause any damage to the land.    (CLAT, 2017)
(a) 'T' has not committed any trespass on the land of
(b) 'T' has violated privacy o f 'P'
(c) 'T' has com mitted trespass to land
(d) ‘T' has created nuisance for 'P'.

Correct Answer is Option (c)

Q.214. Legal Principle: Negligence is actionable in law. In simple terms, negligence is the failure to take proper care over something.
Factual Situation: A, a doctor, conducted a hysterectomy sincerely on B and left a small cotton swab inside the abdomen. As a consequence of which B developed some medical problems and had to undergo another surgery. Is A liable?    (CLAT, 2017)
(a) A is not liable as he did not foresee any consequences at the time of surgery.
(b) As only a small swab was left in the abdomen, there was no negligence.
(c) A is liable for the negligence as he failed to take proper care during the surgery.
(d) Liability for negligence does not arise here as A performed the operation sincerely.

Correct Answer is Option (c)

Q.215. Legal Principle: A violation of a legal right of someone, whether results in a legal injury or not, gives rise to an action in tort for compensation. At the same time, an action by someone, which results in some loss or damage to somebody else is not actionable, if there is no violation of a right of that somebody.
Factual Situation: AB Coaching Centre was a popular CLAT coaching academy with several good trainers. A lot of aspirants used to attend its coaching classes from all over and was making good profit. This was going on for the past several years. During a session, T, one of the very good and popular trainers of ABCC, had some difference of opinion with the owner of ABCC and left the coaching centre. In August 20J6, T started another Entrance Coaching Centre closer to ABCC which resulted in a substantial drop in its students and huge financial loss. The owner of ABCC wants to file a case against T for the loss sustained by ABCC. What do you think is the right legal position?    (CLAT, 2017)
(a) T will be liable to compensate the loss to ABCC.
(b) T started the new coaching centre near ABCC intentionally, and shall be liable to compensate the loss of ABCC.
(c) T ' should have consulted ABCC before starting his coaching centre.
(d) T has not violated any of ABCC's legal right though they sustained some financial loss, and not legally bound to compensate ABCC.

Correct Answer is Option (d)

Q.216. Legal Principle: A master shall be liable for the fraudulent acts of his servants committed in the course of employment. However, the master and third parties must exercise reasonable care in this regard.
Factual Situation: Rahul was a door to door salesman with United Manufacturing Company (the Company). The Company was manufacturing Water Purifiers. Rahul, along with the Company's products, used to carry Water Purifiers manufactured by his Cousin in a local Industrial Estate. He used to sell the local product at a lower rate giving the impression to the buyers that he is offering a discount on the Company's product. The Company Management detected the fraudulent activity of Rahul and dismissed him from service. Rahul still continued to carry on with his activity of selling the local product pretending that he was still a salesman of the Company. Several customers got cheated in this process. The fraud was noticed by the Company when the customers began to complain about the product. The customers demanded the Company to compensate their loss.    (CLAT, 2017)
(a) The Company is liable to compensate all the customers as it did not inform the public about Rahul's fraudulent conduct and the subsequent dismissal
(b) The liability rests with the local manufacturer as it was a defective product,
(c) The Company is not liable as Rahul was dismissed by the Company
(d) The Company is liable to the customers who purchased the local product from Rahul only till he remained as a salesman of the Company.

Correct Answer is Option (a)

Q.217. Legal Principles:
1. Negligence is the absence of care on the part of one party which results in some damage to the other party. 
2. Generally, a person is under no duty to control another to prevent his doing damage to a third party. 
3. The foreseeability test basically asks whether the person causing the injury should have reasonably foreseen the general consequences that would result because of his or her conduct. 
4. Statutory authority implies that an act is done by a person to fulfil his duty imposed by the State. Statutory authority is a valid defence under the law of torts.
Factual Situation: Ten borstal trainees were working on an island in a harbour in the custody and under the control of three officers. During the night, seven of them escaped. It was claimed that at the time of the escape the officers had retired to bed. The seven got on board a yacht, moored off the island and set it in motion. They collided with another yacht, the property of X and damaged it. X sued the Home office for the amount of the damage. Decide whether on the facts pleaded in the statement of claim the Home Office, its servants or agents owed any duty of care to X capable of giving rise to a liability in damages with respect to the detention of persons undergoing sentences of borstal training or with respect to the manner in which such persons were treated, employed, disciplined, controlled or supervised whilst undergoing such sentences.    (NLU, Delhi, 2017)
Decision:
(a) The Home office is not liable as they are performing statutory duty and has immunity from liability in negligence.
(b) The trainees are liable and not the Home Officers as the injury to X's property could not be reasonably foreseen by the officers.
(c) The fact that the immediate damage to the property of X was caused by the acts of third persons, the trainees, prevent the existence of a duty on the part of the officers towards X. 
(d) The taking by the trainees of the nearby yacht and tine causing of damage to the other yacht which belonged to X ought to have been foreseen by the borstal officers as likely to occur if they failed to exercise proper control or supervision; in the particular circumstances, the officers prima facie owed a duty of care to X.

Correct Answer is Option (d)

Q.218. Legal Principle: An unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it is a nuisance in tort. The fact that the plaintiff "came to the nuisance" by knowingly acquiring property in the vicinity of the defendant's premises is not a defense to nuisance. However, an act cannot be a nuisance if it is imperatively demanded by public convenience. Thus, when the public welfare requires it, a nuisance may be permitted for special purposes.
Factual Situation: D owned and occupied an estate about two miles from RAF Wittering, an operational and training base for Harrier Jump  Jets. D claimed that they suffered severe noise disturbance every time the Harrier pilots carried out training circuits: an average of 70 times a day. D alleged that the noise nuisance constituted a very serious interference with their enjoyment of their land. D instituted judicial proceedings against the defendants, the Ministry of Defence (MoD), damages amounting to ₹1,00,00,000.
The MoD denied liability and raised defence that the Harrier training was undertaken for the public benefit and that they had prescriptive right over the land as D had bought their property at a time when RAF Wittering was already established so he cannot claim compensation as he already knew about existence of RAF Wittering near his property.    (NLU, Delhi, 2017)
Decision:
(a) D is not entitled to compensation as the training of pilots is a public welfare activity'
(b) The Harrier training is not an ordinary use of land and that although there was a public benefit to the continued training of Harrier pilots, D should not be required to bear the cost of the public benefit
(c) D is not entitled to compensation as his property is two miles away from the training base
(d) D will not get compensation as the training activity does not amount to nuisance and D had full knowledge about the training activities when he purchased the land.

Correct Answer is Option (b)

Q.219. Legal Principles:
1. A careless person becomes liable for his negligence when he owed a duty of care to others.
2. Volenti non fit injuriais defence to negligence.
Factual Situation: K was a friend of L and was teaching her to drive. Prior to such an arrangement K had sought assurances from L that appropriate insurance had been purchased in the event of accident. On the third day, L was executing a simple manoeuvre at slow speed when she panicked which resulted in the car crashing into a lamp-post injuring K. L was subsequently convicted of driving without due care and attention. L denied liability to pay compensation to K on the ground of volenti non fit injuria and also that she was just learning to drive and was not in complete control of the vehicle.    (NLU, Delhi, 2017)
Decision:
(a) L is liable as the defence of volenti non fit injuria was not applicable. Secondly, that the duty of care owed by a learner driver to the public (including passengers) was to be measured against the same standard that would be applied to any other driver 
(b) L is not liable as K voluntarily accompanied her
(c) L is not liable as she is just learning to drive and duty of care rests upon the instructor
(d) L is not liable as a learner driver do not owe a duty of care towards public in general and towards the passenger in specific.

Correct Answer is Option (a)

Q.220. Legal Principles:
1. Battery is the intentional causation of harmful or offensive contact with another's person without that person's consent. 
2. When lawfully exercising power of arrest or some other statutory power a police officer had greater rights than an ordinary citizen to restrain another.
Factual Situation: Two police officers on duty in a police car observed two women in the street who appeared to be soliciting for the purpose of prostitution. One of the women was known to the police as a prostitute but the other, X, was not a known prostitute. When the police officers requested X to get into the car for questioning she refused to do so and instead walked away from the car. One of the officers, a policewoman, got out of the car and followed X in order to question her regarding her identity and conduct and to caution her, if she was suspected of being a prostitute, in accordance with the approved police procedure for administering cautions for suspicious behaviour before charging a woman with being a prostitute. X refused to speak to the policewoman and walked away, whereupon the policewoman took hold of X's arm to detain her. X then swore at the policewoman and scratched the officer's arm with her fingernails. X was convicted of assaulting a police officer in the execution of her duty. She appealed against the conviction, contending that when the assault occurred the officer was not exercising her power of arrest and was acting beyond the scope of her duty in detaining X by taking hold of her arm. The police contended that the officer was acting in the execution of her duty when the assault occurred because the officer had good cause to detain X for the purpose of questioning her to see whether a caution for suspicious behaviour should be administered. Decide whether the police officer is liable for battery?    (NLU, Delhi, 2017)
Decision:
(a) X is liable for trespass on the person of a police officer while performing her official duty
(b) The policewoman had not been exorcising her power of arrest when she detained X, and since in taking hold of the appellant's arm to detain her the policewoman's conduct went beyond acceptable lawful physical contact between two citizens, hence the officer's act constituted a battery on X and that she had not been acting in the execution of her duty when the assault occurred
(c) The fact that the reason the police officer detained X was to caution her regarding her suspicious behaviour render the officer's conduct lawful if in detaining her she used a degree of physical contact that went beyond lawful physical contact as between two ordinary citizens
(d) The police officer was on duty and performing her duty in the regular course of the work so is not liable for battery.

Correct Answer is Option (b)

Q.221. Legal Principle: Employers/Principles are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees/agents in the course of employment/agency. A servant/agent may be defined as any person employed by another to do work for him on the terms that he, the servant/agent, is to be subject to the control and directions of his employer/principal in respect of the manner in which his work is to be done.
Factual Situation: A motor car was owned by and registered and insured in the name of A (wife) but was regarded by her and her husband (B) as "our car." B used it to go to work, and A for shopping at the weekends. B told A that if ever he was drunk and unfit to drive through, he would get a sober friend to drive him or else telephone her to come and fetch him. On the day in question the husband telephoned the wife after work and told her that he was going out with friends. He visited a number of public houses and had drinks. At some stage, he realised that he was unable to drive safely and asked a friend, C, to drive. C drove them to other public houses. After the last had been visited C offered the three friends (X, V and Z) a lift and they got in, together with B who was in a soporific condition. C then proceeded, at his own suggestion, to drive in a direction away from the B's home to have a meal. On the way, due to C's negligent driving, an accident occurred in which both B and C were killed and the other friends got injured. X, Y and Z brought an action against the wife both in her personal capacity and as administratrix of the husband's estate. Decide whether A is liable?    (NLU, Delhi, 2017)
Decision:
(a) Yes, she was vicariously liable for the negligent driving of C as the principle of vicarious liability was to put responsibility on to the person, namely, in the case of a motor car, the owner, who ought in justice to bear it, and that in the case of a "family car" the owner was responsible for the use of it by the other spouse.
(b) No, C had not been the wife's agent in driving the husband about as he had been doing at the time of the accident. To fix vicarious liability' on the owner of a motor car in a case such as the present, it must be shown that the driver was using it for the owner's purposes under delegation of a task or duty.
(c) No, because this is a case of volenti non fit injuriaas X, Y and Z voluntarily took the lift knowing that C was also drunk.
(d) No, because C was not employed by A to drive her husband back to the home on the day of accident.

Correct Answer is Option (b)

Q.222. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A master is liable for those acts of his servant which are committed in the course of employment.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A travelling agency asked its driver to drop a customer at the Delhi University. After dropping the customer, when he was returning back to the office of agency, he found his girlfriend on the way who was waiting for a bus to her residence which is one kilometer away from the office of agency. The driver offered her the lift. On the way, the car met with an accident and the girl got severely injured. She now claims compensation from the agency.    (D.U. LL.B., 2017)
(a) The girl will succeed as the driver was driving in the course of employment.
(b) The girl will not succeed as the driver was not driving in the course of employment.
(c) The girl will succeed on the basis of strict liability of the agency.
(d) The girl will succeed as she took free lift from her boyfriend. She would rather be liable to pay the fare to the agency and be prosecuted.

Correct Answer is Option (b)

Q.223. Principle: Qui facit per alium facit per se, i.e., he who does things through others does it himself.
Facts: Nisha, the owner of a car, asked her friend Saurabh to take her car and drive the same to her office. As the car was near her office, it hit a pedestrian Srikant on account of Saurabh's negligent driving and injured him seriously. Now Srikant files a suit for damages against Nisha.    (CLAT, 2013)
(a) Nisha is not liable as it was the negligence of Saurabh
(b) Saurabh is solely liable as Nisha was not driving the car
(c) Nisha is liable as Saurabh was driving under her authority and for her purpose
(d) Saurabh will be exempted from liability under the principle of inevitable accident.

Correct Answer is Option (c)

Q.224. Principle: Resipsa loquitur i.e., the thing speaks for itself.
Facts: Seema got herself operated for the removal of her uterus in the defendant's hospital, as she was diagnosed having a cyst in one of her ovaries. Due to negligence of the surgeon, who performed the operation, abdominal pack was left in her abdomen. The same was removed by a second surgery.    (CLAT, 2013)
(a) Surgeon cannot be held responsible because it is merely a human error
(b) Surgeon can be held responsible but Seema will have to prove in the Court of Law that the surgeon was grossly negligent
(c) Surgeon will be responsible and Seema need not to prove surgeon's negligence because presence of abdominal pack in her abdomen is sufficient proof therefor.
(d) None of the above.

Correct Answer is Option (c)

Q.225. Principle: An employer is liable for the negligence of his employee. But an employer is not liable for the negligence of his employee if the victim of such negligence is one of his other employees.
Facts: ‘A’ and 'B' were working in a factory as unskilled labourers. A was carrying a basket of stones on his head. B was sitting on the ground. When A crossed B, all of a sudden a stone fell down from the basket and hit B on his head. B died immediately.    (CLAT, 2013)
(a) The owner of the factory will be liable
(b) A and the owner of the factory shall be jointly liable
(c) The owner of the factory will not be liable
(d) None of the above.

Correct Answer is Option (c)