Legal Awareness & Legal Aptitude- 1 Previous Year Questions with Solutions

For questions, apply the given legal principles to the facts provided in each of the questions and select the most appropriate answer.

Q.1. Principle 1 : A misrepresentation arises when a person makes a false statement of fact to another which induces the other party to enter into a contract, resulting in loss to that other party.
Principle 2 : When consent to an agreement is caused by misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.
Facts : It was Kritika's mother's 50'h birthday on 9'h February 2021. Kritika decided to organise a lavish celebration to celebrate the event. Kritika's mother used to play the piano before her marriage. However, after Kritika was born, she was unable to take out any time to pursue her interest in playing the instrument. Kritika learnt about this from her maternal grandmother a few' days before her mother's birthday ’ She decided to give her mother a piano on her 50'h birthday.
She visited Himanshu's piano store for this purpose. Himanshu showed Kritika all the pianos available at his store and explained the features of each model. Kritika had no prior knowledge of pianos and hence relied upon Himanshu's opinion. She saw a vintage piano and was immediately drawn to it. Being a shrewd businessman, Himanshu saw an opportunity to sell the piano and said "They don't make them like this anymore. It's got a fine tone and it's really cheap at ₹ 50,000".
Kritika purchased the piano and gifted the same to her mother. However, when her mother started playing it, she immediately realized that the piano was of an inferior quality and that the tone was not proper. Kritika and her mother approached Himanshu and asked him to either replace the piano or refund the money. Himanshu refused to do either. What would be the strongest argument that Himanshu could make?    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) Himanshu is not liable to do either because it is only Kritika's mother's subjective opinion that the piano was 'inferior' and that the tone was not 'proper'.
(b) Himanshu is not liable to do either because there is nothing to suggest that Kritika's decision was based purely on Himanshu's statement.
(c) Himanshu is not liable to do either the piano since Kritika should have done her due diligence and should have been more careful in selecting the piano.
(d) Himanshu is not liable to do either because he only gave Kritika his opinion and did not make any false statement of fact.

Correct Answer is Option (d)

Q.2. Principle : No confession made to a Police Officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
Facts : Ritu was accused of having murdered Akash over a property dispute. After arrest, Ritu made a confession to the Inspector that she had in fact murdered Akash. The confessional statement of Ritu was written on a paper and Ritu signed the same. The police carried on further investigation but were not able to find any other evidence to produce before the court. Can the confessional statement signed by Ritu be proved in court?    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) No, such a confessional statement cannot be proved since the confession was made to a Police Officer.
(b) Yes, such a confessional statement can be proved since it is not an oral confession. It has been duly signed by Ritu and hence there is no doubt that she made the confession herself.
(c) Yes, since there is no other evidence, it is necessary to rely on this statement or else a serious offender will escape the clutches of criminal law.
(d) Both (b) and (c)

Correct Answer is Option (a)

Q.3. Principle : No tenant of immovable property shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property.
Facts : Aishwarya rented a flat from Nidhi for 2 years. She signed a rent agreement and regularly paid the monthly rent to Nidhi for 6 months. In the seventh month, Ashish approached Aishwarya and told her that he is the real owner of the property and that Nidhi is defrauding Aishwarya as well as Ashish. Ashish showed Aishwarya the original property papers which showed him to be the real owner. Satisfied that the papers were genuine and that Ashish is the actual owner, Aishwarya stopped paying the rent to Nidhi and started paying the same to Ashish. Nidhi filed a suit against Aishwarya for the recovery of rent arrears. Aishwarya took the defence that Nidhi was never the real owner of the flat and that she will pay the rent to the real owner i.e. Ashish. Decide.    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) Aishwarya should pay the rent to Nidhi since she took the property on rent from Nidhi and now she cannot deny Nidhi's title over the property 
(b) Aishwarya has checked the property papers herself and it is clear to her that A slush is the actual owner. Thus, she can deny Nidhi's title and should pay the rent to Ashish 
(c) Aishwarya should deposit the money in court and let the court decide who to give the money to
(d) A disputed property should never be given on rent until the dispute is resolved

Correct Answer is Option (a)

Q.4. Principle : A person who suffers an injury caused as a result of a risk to which they consented, cannot complain of the consequent damage. The defendant must have the capacity to give consent to risks involved, have complete knowledge of the extent as well as nature of risks and agree to the risk voluntarily.
Facts: Q urged his older brother Z to allow him to ride Z's motorbike. Q had recently obtained a motorbike driving license and was eager to ride Z's motorbike. The motorbike had a complex operation mechanism, which Q did not understand. Z did not bother to explain this to Q and let him ride the bike. Q met with an accident and is suing Z for the injuries caused. Z contends that Q consented to the risk. Decide.    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) Q did not consent to the risk because he did not have capacity to consent to the risk
(b) Q did not consent to the risk because his consent was not voluntary
(c) Q consented to the risk because he urged Z to let him ride the motorbike
(d) Q did not consent to the risk because he did not have knowledge of the extent and nature of risk

Correct Answer is Option (d)

Q.5. Principle: An employer is liable for the acts of their employee if a tort is committed by the employee in the course of employment.
To determine whether an act falls within the course of employment , one must look at the functions/work that the employee was tasked with and then evaluate if there was a close connection between the employee's job function and the wrongful act in question.
Facts: G was employed as a security guard by a restaurant. He was tasked with maintaining security around the restaurant and escorting guests inside. One night after G's shift, a group of unruly passers-by initiated tin altercation with G near the restaurant. Greatly upset by the altercation, G went home and got into an inebriated state. In this state, he negligently caused a fire in his home. G's family members wish to make the restaurant liable.    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) The restaurant is liable for G's actions because G would not have had the altercation but for being present in that location due to his job
(b) The restaurant is liable for G's actions because a security guard is likely to have altercations with people in the course of employment
(c) The restaurant is not liable for G's actions because his acts were outside the course of employment
(d) None of the above

Correct Answer is Option (c)

Q.6. Principle: An employer is liable for the acts of their employee if a tort is committed by the employee in the course of employment.
To determine whether an act falls within the course of employment , one must look at the functions/work that the employee was tasked with and then evaluate if there was a close connection between the employee's job function and the wrongful act in question.
Facts : G was employed as a security guard by a restaurant. He was tasked with maintaining security' in and around the restaurant as well as escorting guests inside. One night a group of unruly guests got into a verbal altercation with G in the restaurant. G, being short-tempered, got irritated and ended up hitting one of the guests. The guests wish to make the restaurant liable.    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) The restaurant is liable for G's actions because his acts were within the course of employment
(b) The restaurant is not liable for G's actions because the guests had started the fight
(c) The restaurant is not liable for G's actions because his acts were outside the course of employment
(d) None of the above

Correct Answer is Option (a)

Q.7. Principle: Whoever, takes any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
Facts: W visits her friend B's house for a party. She noticed that B possessed a rare gold ornament. Fearing search and detection if she took the ornament, W hid it in an air duct in the ceiling, where it was unlikely to be discovered by B. W intended on returning to B's house at a future date to take the ornament. Has W committed theft ?    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) No, because she did not take the ring with her
(b) Yes, W committed theft when she moved the ring
(c) No, because she did not take the ring out of the possession of B
(d) None of the above

Correct Answer is Option (b)

Q.8. Principle : Whoever, intending to dishonestly take any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
Facts : R owns an antique watch but is unsure of its value. She took it to a jeweller Y for a free valuation that was offered by Y. Y took the watch home instead of valuing it and does not provide any explanation. R enters Y's home, pushes Y to one side, and retrieves her watch by force. Has R committed theft?    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) Yes, because R took the watch out of Y's possession
(b) Yes, because R unlawfully entered Y's home
(c) Yes, because R assaulted Y
(d) None of the above

Correct Answer is Option (d)

Q.9. Principle: Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence in relation to that property or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property is said to commit criminal trespass.
Facts : H entered his friend L's property because it was adjoining C's home. From L's garden, H shouted insults and tried to intimidate C. C seeks to sue for criminal trespass.    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) H committed criminal trespass
(b) L committed criminal trespass
(c) H did not commit criminal trespass
(d) None of the above

Correct Answer is Option (c)

Q.10. Principle : Whoever gives a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right commits the offence of bribery.
Facts: Mr. T, a candidate for elections, decided to visit rural households as part of an election campaign. He visited a household where an elderly man 'A' required an immediate but extremely expensive life-saving medical procedure. Mr. T gave money to the family for the operation. While leaving, he drew the family's attention towards his party's symbol in light of the upcoming elections. Has Mr. T committed the offence of bribery?    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) Yes, he has committed the offence of bribery
(b) No, he has not committed the offence of bribery. His intentions were noble
(c) No, as doing public good outweighs criminal intentions
(d) None of the above

Correct Answer is Option (a)

Q.11. Principle : Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
Facts : P was hunting in a small forested area which he knew to be inhabited by villagers and frequented by other hunters in large numbers. His friends did not know that other persons were likely to be present in the area. P wagered with his friends that he could hunt without using his visual senses. P put on a blindfold and on hearing some rustling leaves, shot multiple times, killing three people in the process. Has P committed culpable homicide?    (A1ELT, 2021)
(a) P has committed culpable homicide
(b) P has not committed culpable homicide
(c) P has committed battery
(d) None of the above

Correct Answer is Option (a)

Q.12. Principle : Fraud includes the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true or the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact, with intent to deceive another party or her agent to enter into the contract.
Facts : Wind-on Ltd. is a leading manufacturer of wind turbines to harness wind energy to produce electricity. It is based out of Nagaland in India and has been manufacturing wind turbines since the early 1990s with national and international fame. Z Infrastructures Ltd. is a leading infrastructure firm with a proven track record in building energy installations and highways across India. Z Infrastructures wanted to expand its portfolio and operate a wind energy park to supply clean electricity. Representatives from Wind-on and Z Infrastructures carried out extensive negotiations, advised by leading law firms and commercial advisory firms on both sides, for the latter to establish a wind park in Odisha. Z Infrastructure wanted Wind-on to guarantee that the turbines will generate 54 lakhs Kwh of energy per turbine annually. Wind-on's stated position was that generation of energy is dependent on availability of wind and they could not guarantee it. However, they provided an "estimate" in the contract for supply of turbines that the turbines will be able to generate around 50 lakhs Kwh per turbine annually. The turbines were supplied by Wind-on and operated by Z Infrastructure in Odisha for over 2 years. During this period, Z Infrastructure found that the average energy generation of each turbine came to around 35 lakhs Kwh annually. They were frustrated as the actual generation of each turbine was significantly lower than the generation estimate provided by Wind-on. They reached out to Lai & Co., a leading dispute resolution law' firm to understand if they could initiate action against Wind-on for fraudulently representing the generation estimate of each turbine.
You are a lawyer at Lai & Co., and were asked if Wind-on had committed fraud by providing an inflated energy generation estimate     (AIELT, 2021)
(a) Yes, as Wind-on was an expert in the wind turbine business and Z infrastructure relied on its expertise as a new entrant in the field
(b) No, as Wind-on clearly specified that the energy generation figure was merely an estimate and it could not provide a guarantee
(c) Yes, as Wind-on should have predicted a figure that was closer to the actual generation figure of 35 lakhs Kwh per turbine per annum
(d) Yes, as Wind-on should not have provided any estimate at all

Correct Answer is Option (b)

Q.13. Principle 1 : A 'bailment' is the delivery of goods by one person to another for some purpose, upon a contract that they shall, when the purpose is accomplished, be returned. The person delivering the goods is called the 'bailor'. The person to whom they are delivered is called the 'bailee'.
Principle 2 : In all cases of bailment the bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him/her as a person of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances, take of his/her own goods of the same bulk, quantity and value as the goods bailed.
Facts : Aparna entered into a contract with Gagan to keep her goods in his warehouse until she was able to find a suitable buyer for them. Gagan kept his own goods also at the same warehouse. One night, certain thieves entered the warehouse and stole the goods of both Gagan and Aparna. It was discovered that even though Gagan had locked the main door, he had carelessly left the windows open and that the thieves had entered through the open windows. Aparna sued Gagan for damages as Gagan had failed to take due care of her goods. Decide.    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) Gagan is liable since he left the windows open which shows that he did not take as much care as a person of ordinary prudence
(b) Gagan is not liable since he took as much care of Aparna's goods as he took of his own goods
(c) Gagan is not liable since he locked the door and a person of ordinary prudence cannot be expected to check the windows as well
(d) None of the above

Correct Answer is Option (a)

Q.14. Principle 1: There are four stages of commission of any offence- formation of intention, preparation, attempt and commission of offence. The first two stages arc not punishable but the last two stages are punishable. The attempt to commit an offence is an offence in itself.
Principle 2 : In order to be designated as an attempt to commit an offence, the act or series of acts done must be sufficiently proximate to the accomplishment of the intended offence.
Facts : Sachin bought a matchbox and lit a match near a haystack. He was about to light the haystack on fire and commit the offence of arson. However, before he could do the same, he realized that someone was secretly recording a video of him. Fearing that he would be easily caught, he extinguished the match. Sachin is prosecuted for the attempt to commit arson.    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) Sachin is not guilty of having committed attempt to arson as his act of lighting the match was not the penultimate act before the commission of the intended offence
(b) Sachin is guilty of having committed attempt to arson as lighting the match was the penultimate act before the commission of the intended offence
(c) Sachin is not guilty since the match was extinguished by him on his own
(d) Sachin is guilty of having committed attempt to arson since there is sufficient proximity between the act of lighting the match and the intended offence of arson

Correct Answer is Option (d)

Q.15. Principle : Double jeopardy : No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
Facts : Arun was a Government Employee working in the examination and admissions department of Indian Institute of Science and Technology (IIST), the best engineering college in India. Arun was accused of having leaked the entrance examination paper to Kamlesh for a hefty bribe. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Kamlesh by IIST wherein he was found guilty and as a penalty, he was removed from employment. Thereafter, a criminal case was registered against him for having committed the offence of cheating by leaking the entrance paper. Arun takes the defence that the criminal prosecution is not permitted by the principle of double jeopardy. Decide.    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) The principle of double jeopardy will not apply as the disciplinary proceedings by IIST cannot be termed as prosecution since they were mere departmental proceedings and not criminal prosecution
(b) The principle of double jeopardy will apply as Arun has already been found guilty and punished by IIST
(c) The principle of double jeopardy will not apply as Arun is accused of a serious offence of cheating the public at large
(d) Both (a) and (c)

Correct Answer is Option (a)

Q.16. Principle : Nuisance shall be defined as use of land in a manner that causes unreasonable interference with another's enjoyment of their land.
It is no defence to a claim of nuisance to say that the plaintiff(s) knew of the interference that would be caused.
Facts : The village of Xandiapur has a centuries old cricket ground which is owned by Xandiapur Cricket Club and hosts matches between local teams every week. It is the only sports ground in the village and serves as a critical source of recreation for the villagers. Mr. and Mrs. XYZ purchased a home right on the edge of the cricket ground's boundary. Balls from cricket matches frequently fall into their residence's garden and have caused severe damage to their windows. They have unsuccessfully tried to request the Cricket Club to install nets around the part of the boundary that is adjacent to their home. They seek to claim nuisance against the Xandiapur Cricket Club.    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) Mr. and Mrs. XYZ will be unsuccessful because it is their fault-they purchased a home on the edge of a cricket ground. Further, the cricket ground is important for recreation
(b) Mr. and Mrs. XYZ will be successful because use of the cricket ground is causing unreasonable interference with their enjoyment of their home. Further, the Cricket Club cannot claim that Mr. and Mrs. XYZ brought trouble on their head
(c) Mr. and Mrs. XYZ will be unsuccessful because even though the ground is a source of interference, it is not unreasonable interference
(d) Mr. and Mrs. XYZ will be successful because they are old and have a right to live peacefully

Correct Answer is Option (b)

Q.17. Principle : Any invasion of private property, howsoever minor, is a trespass unless it is expressly authorised by the law.
Police personnel may enter and/or search private property only on express authorisation from a Judicial Officer.
Facts : Ms. A, a vocal critic of certain policies of the Queen of Asgardia, was due to lead a protest against prevailing government policies. Solely on the instructions of the Queen, a Police Officer secretly entered Ms. A residence to search through her computer and discover her plan for the protest. However, Ms. A's laptop was at the repair shop and the Police Officer was forced to exit Ms. A's house after a few seconds. Ms. A seeks to sue for trespass.    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) Ms. A will be successful since the Queen was planning on quelling dissent through illegal means.
(b) Ms. A will be unsuccessful since the search was authorised by the Queen.
(c) Ms. A will be successful since the entry of the Police Officer constituted an invasion of personal property without authorisation from a Judicial Officer.
(d) Ms. A will be unsuccessful since the Police Officer was at her residence for only a few seconds and was unable to access her computer. There was no invasion of personal property.

Correct Answer is Option (c)

Q.18. Principle: The doctrine of privity mandates that only a party to a contract can claim upon it.
Facts: P started the business of manufacturing table lamps which he sold to a distributor ("Q") who in turn sold the lamps to a store owner ("R") in the city. P entered into an agreement with Q which mandated that Q can only sell the lamps to store owners at a minimum retail price of t 50, failing which Q would have to pay P t 5 for each lamp sold below t 50. Q entered into an identical contract with R, mandating that R can only sell the lamps to customers for t 50, failing which R would have to pay Q t 5 for each lamp sold below t 50. R sold a lamp to a customer for t 40 and P seeks to claim against R.    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) P will not be successful since there is no privity of contract between P and R
(b) P will not be successful since R is free to sell the product at the price of their choosing
(c) P will not be successful since Q has not been made a party to the proceedings
(d) P will not be successful since there is no privity of contract between P and Q

Correct Answer is Option (a)

Q.19. Principle: Competence to contract is essential for an agreement to be considered a contract.
'Competence to contract': Any person who is of the age of majority according to the applicable law and is of sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting by any applicable law.
'Age of majority' : Every person shall attain the age of majority on their completing 18 years of age and not before.
Facts: Z sought to purchase a property belonging to K (a minor) two days before K completed 18 years of age. K really liked Z's offer and six months later they entered into a contract for sale of the property to Z. Was K competent to contract ?    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) K was not competent to contract because he was influenced by Z when K was a minor
(b) K is competent to contract because he entered into the contract after completing 18 years of age
(c) K was not competent to contract because Z had approached him before he completed 18 years of age
(d) None of the above

Correct Answer is Option (b)

Q.20. Principle: Acceptance must be communicated to the offeror to constitute a binding contract. Mere intention to accept, without communication does not lead to a contract.
Facts: J wanted to purchase her uncle T's television .J wrote a letter to T indicating that she wished to purchase his television for 5,000. T was pleased with J's offer and decided to call J to accept the offer. T called J twice, but J did not pick up her phone. The next day, T found a buyer for the television for 6,000 and sold the  television to this buyer. J is alleging breach of contract.     (AIELT, 2021)
(a) J will be unsuccessful because even though the contract was binding, T found a buyer who offered a higher price for the television
(b) J will be successful because T's action of calling J is equivalent to communication of acceptance
(c) J will be successful because T was happy with J's offer and had intended to accept
(d) J will be unsuccessful since T's acceptance had not been communicated to constitute a binding contract

Correct Answer is Option (d)

Q.21. Principle: In relation to the law of contracts, in instances where both parties to an agreement are under a mistake about a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void.
Facts: L agrees to sell to M a consignment of food grains which was supposed to be on a ship on its way from Africa to Mumbai. However, two days before the agreement was reached, the ship carrying the grains met with an accident and all the goods were lost. L's agent had informed L about dais on the day the accident happened. Is the agreement void because of a mistake as to a matter of fact?     (AIELT, 2021)
(a) Yes, since both parties committed a mistake by entering into the contract
(b) No, since L had dishonest intentions
(c) No, since L was aware that the goods were lost
(d) None of the above

Correct Answer is Option (c)

Q.22. Principle: Both parties to a contract are discharged from their respective outstanding obligations in situations where a supervening event significantly changes the nature of contractual rights and/or obligations from what the parties could have reasonably contemplated at the time of executing the contract.
The supervening event must not be a result of default by either party, nor should the contract make a provision for it.
Facts: In the city of Vortoria which is highly susceptible to public health crises, S (a supplier of raw food products) entered into a contract with H (a restaurant owner) for 2 years, whereby S would supply certain raw products to H at predetermined prices. Their agreement also provided that - "In case of interruption of operations of H on account of epidemics, pandemics or any other public health crisis, the contract will be suspended until the crisis is declared to be over by the government and thereafter pending contractual obligations shall resume."
Three months were left on the contract when there was a highly contagious virus outbreak in the city, which caused restaurant owners (including H) to suspend operations. Once the outbreak was declared to be over six months later, H refused to purchase raw materials from S arguing that he was discharged from obligations under the contract.    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) H is discharged from his obligations because the virus outbreak was a supervening event which changed the nature of contractual rights and obligations
(b) H is not discharged from his obligations because the contract contained a provision dealing with outbreaks. Further the parties could have reasonably contemplated the occurrence of an outbreak
(c) H is not discharged from his obligations because the contract had ended by the time the virus was declared to be over
(d) H is discharged from his obligations because the outbreak is likely to have affected his business badly

Correct Answer is Option (b)

Q.23. Principle: When a defendant brings onto then- land anything that is likely to do mischief in case it escapes, they must do so at their own peril. If such a thing does escape and causes foreseeable harm, then the defendant is liable for damage caused provided that the land from which escape occurs had been changed such that it would be considered a non-natural use of the land.
The defendant can avoid liability if they can show that the situation that caused damage was a result of an unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not be controlled by the defendant.
Facts: M decided to keep a tiger as a pet and to that end, he brought a caged tiger to his house. Jealous of M's pet, M's neighbour S (whom M had never met) decided to break into M's heavily guarded house while M was away and open the tiger's cage. The tiger escaped and mauled pedestrians near the house. The pedestrians wish to sue M for damages.    (AIELT, 2021) 
(a) The pedestrians will be successful because it is illegal to keep a tiger as a pet
(b) The pedestrians can claim against M because he brought a dangerous thing onto his land (amounting to non-natural use) and it escaped, causing foreseeable damage. The escape should have been foreseen by M
(c) M can escape liability because the escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not have been controlled by M
(d) None of the above 

Correct Answer is Option (b)

Q.24. Principle: Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void.
Facts: Ila Nayak wants to buy a motorbike to reduce her waiting time for her daily commute to work. She can pay up to ₹35,000 for a second hand motorbike. Dev Patnaik agrees to sell his recently purchased Honda motorbike to Ila for ₹31,000 or ₹30,000.    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) This is a valid agreement since Ila can pay up to thirty five thousand rupees for Dev's motorbike
(b) This agreement is void for uncertainty since there is nothing to show which of the two prices was finally agreed
(c) This agreement is voidable at the option of Ila
(d) This agreement is valid as there is an offer from Dev and acceptance from Ila

Correct Answer is Option (b)

Q.25. Principle: Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void.
Facts: Ila Nayak wants to buy a motorbike to reduce her waiting time for her daily commute to work. She can pay up to ₹35,000 for a second hand motorbike. Dev and Ila agree that Ila will initially pay a sum of ₹31,000 for the motorbike and if the mileage given by the motorbike exceeds 60 km per litre on an average for five months following the sale - then Ila will pay an additional sum of ₹3,000. Is this a valid agreement?    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) This is an invalid agreement since Ila is not paying the entire price of the motorbike at once
(b) This is a valid agreement as the price of the motorbike is capable of being made certain
(c) This is a valid agreement as Ila has already paid thirty one thousand rupees which was accepted by Dev
(d) This is an invalid agreement since Dev and Ila can disagree if the motorbike was actually able to give a mileage of 60 km per litre for five months

Correct Answer is Option (b)

Q.26. Principle: Damages consequent to a breach of contract seek to compensate the innocent party for the loss suffered by it so that the innocent party is put in the same situation, with respect to damages so far as money can do it, as if the contract had been performed.
Facts: A agrees to sell 30 kgs of strawberries to B knowing that B uses the strawberries to run his juice center. B's juice center is located off St. John's College of Delhi University, and is very popular with the students. A supplies substandard quality of strawberries to B. However, B is able to use all the strawberries for his juice centre. None of the customers of B are able to make out the difference or complain about the juice or for that matter (ace any issues after drinking the juice. Can B recover damages from A?    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) A is liable to compensate B for supplying sub-standard quality of strawberries
(b) A is not liable to compensate B since B suffers no monetary loss
(c) A is not liable to compensate B because the contract did not prevent A from supplying sub-standard quality of strawberries
(d) A is not liable to compensate B since none of the customers of B have proceeded against A for supplying bad quality strawberry juice

Correct Answer is Option (b)

Q.27. Name the only erstwhile princely State in India that was allowed to have its own separate Constitution on its accession to India.    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) Hyderabad
(b) Jammu & Kashmir
(c) Baroda
(d) Gwalior

Correct Answer is Option (b)

Q.28. Which of the following statements accurately captures India's position on torture?    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) India is a not a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture.
(b) India has signed the UN Convention Against Torture but has not ratified it.
(c) The Supreme Court has asked the Union of India to introduce a domestic legislation against torture.
(d) Torture is defined as a crime in the Indian Penal Code.

Correct Answer is Option (b)

Q.29. Basmati' rice is an example of what type of intellectual property?     (AIELT, 2021)
(a) Geographical indication
(b) Copyright
(c) Trade secret
(d) Domain name

Correct Answer is Option (a)

Q.30. In Part VIII of the Constitution of India, the Parliament is empowered to create local legislature and council of ministers for certain Union Territories. Name the Union Territory or Territories in India that have a legislative assembly and council of ministers.    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) NCT of Delhi only
(b) Chandigarh only
(c) NCT of Delhi, Puducherry and Jammu & Kashmir
(d) NCT of Delhi and Puducherry

Correct Answer is Option (c)

Q.31. Who is the only Judge of the Supreme Court of India to also have been the Vice-President of India ?    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) Justice A. N. Ray
(b) Justice Mohammad Hidayatullah
(c) Justice Patanjali Sastri
(d) Justice P. N. Bhagwati

Correct Answer is Option (b)

Q.32. Who replaced justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court of the United States?    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) Neil Gorsuch
(b) Brett Kavanaugh
(c) Amy Coney Barrett
(d) Sonia Sotomayor

Correct Answer is Option (c)

Q.33. Which of the following positions is not provided for in the Constitution of India?    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) Attorney General for India
(b) Solicitor General of India
(c) Advocate General of the State
(d) Chairperson of the Union Public Service Commission

Correct Answer is Option (b)

Q.34. In Kulbhushan Jadhav's case between India and Pakistan before the International Court of Justice, the 15-1 majority found Pakistan to be in violation of obligations under which international law instrument?     (AIELT, 2021)
(a) Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
(b) International Convention on Civil and Political Rights
(c) United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
(d) United Nations Convention Against Torture

Correct Answer is Option (a)

Q.35. Who among the following was not a judge of the Supreme Court of India ?    (AIELT, 2021)
(a) Justice R. Banumathi
(b) Justice Cyan Sudha Mishra
(c) Justice Manjula Chellur
(d) Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai

Correct Answer is Option (c)

Directions: Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Directions: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
1. Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who has a duty to take care but 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.
4. Duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others.
5. Conversations between a doctor and patient are generally confidential but there are few exceptions.

Q.36. A company called KLM, manufacturers of electrical equipment, was the target of a takeover by ABS Industries. KLM was not doing well. In March 2019, KLM had issued a profit warning, which had halved its share price. In May 2019, KLM's directors made a preliminary announcement in its annual profits for the year up to March. This confirmed that the position was bad. The share price fell again. At this point, ABS had begun buying up shares in large numbers. In June 2019, the annual accounts, which were done with the help of the accountant Dinesh, were issued to the shareholders, which now included ABS. ABS reached a shareholding of 29.9% of the company, at which point it made a general offer for the remaining shares, as the City Code's rules on takeovers required. But once it had control, ABS found that KLM's accounts were in an even worse state than had been revealed by the directors or the auditors. It sued Dinesh for negligence in preparing the accounts and sought to recover its losses. This was the difference in value between the company as it had and what it would have had if the accounts had been accurate.
Which of the following answers in incorrect?    (N.L.U.D., 2020)
(a) No duty of care had arisen in relation to existing or potential shareholders. The only duty of care the auditor's owed was to the governance of the firm.
(b) Dinesh is not liable as it is a. case of pure economic loss in the absence of contractual agreements between parties.
(c) There are circumstances where an auditor will owe a duty of care in respect of reports produced. These are conditional that at the time the report is prepared it is known by the auditors that the results are for a specific class and for a specific purpose.
(d) An ability to foresee indirect or economic loss to another person as the result of a defendant's conduct automatically impose on the defendant a duty to take care to avoid that loss.

Correct Answer is Option (d)

Q.37. In 2005, the local council of Delhi approved building plans for the erection of a block of apartments. The approved plans showed the base wall and concrete foundations of the block to be three feet or deeper to the approval of local authority. The notice of approval said that the bylaws of the council required that notice should be given to the council both at the commencement of the work and when the foundations were ready to be covered by the rest of the building work. The council had the power to inspect the foundations and require any corrections necessary to bring the work into conformity with the bylaws, but was not under an obligation to do so.
The block of apartments was finished in 2006. The builder (who was also the owner) granted 99-year leases for the apartments, the last conveyance taking place in 2010. In 2017 structural movements occurred resulting in failure of the building comprising cracks in the wall, sloping of the floors and other defects. In 2019, the plaintiffs who were lessees of the apartments filed cases for negligence against the builder and the council.
The plaintiffs claimed that the damage was a consequence of the block having been built on inadequate foundations, there being a depth of two feet six inches only as against the three feet or deeper shown on the plans and required under the bylaws. The plaintiffs claimed damages in negligence against the council for approving the foundations and/or in failing to inspect the foundations. Decide whether the council owed a duty of care to the claimants in respect of the incorrect depth of the foundations laid by the third-party builder?    (N.L.U.D., 2020)
(a) The Council is not liable for damages to the plaintiff as failing to inspect would not render the council liable unless it was considered that it had failed to properly exercise its discretion to inspect and that they had failed to ensure proper compliance with building regulations.
(b) The Council is liable for negligence as they failed to inspect the foundation.
(c) There is no negligence in building the apartments as there is minor difference between a foundation which is three feet deep and a foundation which is two feet six inches deep.
(d) The tenets have a duty to inspect the property properly before entering into such a long lease agreement.

Correct Answer is Option (a)

Q.38. Soman was the student of PRQ University. He met Pamela in a youth festival and fell in love with her. However, Pamela was not interested in having any serious relationship with Soman.

Due to this, Soman went into emotional crisis and started consulting a psychologist in the PRQ Memorial Hospital. In October 2018, Soman murdered Pamela. Pamela's parents contended that only a short time prior, Soman had expressed his intention to murder their daughter to his therapist, Dr. Surana, a psychologist employed by the University. They further alleged that Dr. Surana had warned campus police of Soman's intentions, and that the police had briefly detained him, but then released him. Pamela's parents filed a case of negligence against the Police Department and the University officials on two grounds: the failure to confine Soman, in spite of his expressed intentions to kill Pamela, and failure to warn Pamela or her parents. Defendants maintained that they owed no duty of care to the victim, and were immune from suit. Which of the following is incorrect?    (N.L.U.D., 2020)
(a) The police did not have the requisite proximity or special relationship with family of Pamela, sufficient to impose a duty to warn her of Soman's intention.
(b) The public policy favoring protection of the confidential character of patient psychotherapist communications must yield to the extent to which disclosure is essential to avert danger to others. The protective privilege ends where the public peril begins.
(c) The therapists and Regents of University are liable for breach of duty to exercise reasonable care.
(d) Soman only once expressed the desire to kill Pamela. Such kinds of feelings are normal in any mentally ill patient. Moreover, information received during a counselling session is confidential in nature and so therapists cannot reveal it to the parents of Pamela.

Correct Answer is Option (d)

Q.39. R, T and U were watchmen in Skypark Society. They were on night shift and began vomiting after drinking tea. They went to the SEM Hospital and complained to the nurse about it. The nurse thought they were vomiting because of alcohol they had been drinking earlier in the evening. However, the nurse reported it to the medical officer who refused to examine them and said that they needed to go home and contact their own doctors.
They returned to their workplace, where U's condition deteriorated. U died of arsenic poisoning five hours later on way to hospital.
U's wife brought a claim of negligence against the Hospital administration. She argued that the hospital was negligent in not identifying that U had been poisoned, and the doctor should therefore have seen to him when they first approached the hospital. The hospital denied they were negligent, and in any event said they did not cause his death. Decide.    (N.L.U.D., 2020)
(a) The hospital is not liable for negligence because even if the patient was examined five hours earlier to the death he would have died anyways. The test of causation was not satisfied. The Hospital did not cause U's death - But for the defendant's negligence, U would have died anyways. 
(b) It was highly possible that the doctor would have identified U's condition as arsenical poisoning, and therefore U would have received the treatment he needed to survive.
(c) 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.
(d) Both (a) & (c)

Correct Answer is Option (d)

Q.40. Legal Principle: Generally, the owner of the property has a duty to maintain his property so as to make it reasonably safe for use. However, the occupier also owes a duty to take such care as is reasonable to see that the visitor is reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be therein.
Facts: Sheila is a painter. She went to her friend Ruchi's house for meeting her. Sheila requested to use the bathroom and injured her right hand on a broken water faucet handle. Sheila filed a personal injury action for hand injuries suffered alleging that Ruchi failed to warn her that her bathroom fixtures were cracked and dangerous. Ruchi says she had complained to the landlord about the broken handle so the landlord is liable. Decide whether the Sheila's injury the proximate cause of Ruchi's negligence?    (N.L.U.D., 2020)
(a) A licensee or social guest was obliged to take the premises as he or she found them, and the possessor of the premises owed a duty only to refrain from wanton or wilful injury.
(b) The landlord is liable as Ruchi had complained to the landlord about the broken handle and it is the duty of the landlord to get the repair work done.
(c) Ruchi is not liable as the use of toilet is not the purposes for which Sheila was invited or permitted by the occupier to be therein.
(d) Ruchi owes a duty to warn of a dangerous condition so the guest can take special precautions, like the host would, when they come in contact with it.

Correct Answer is Option (d)

Q.41. Legal Principle: Intimidation involves a threat to do something unlawful or' illegitimate'; it must be intended to coerce the claimant to take or not take certain action.
Facts: Hari, a skilled draughtsman and employee of the Overseas Airways Corporation (OAC), resigned his membership of the Association of Engineering and Shipbuilding Draughtsmen (AESD), a registered trade union. It was agreed between OAC and AESD (among others) that no strike or lockout should take place and disputes should be handled by arbitration. He resigned from his union, the Association of Engineering and Shipbuilding Draftsman (AESD), after a disagreement. The Corporation and AESD had a contract that stipulates that the employer will only hire workers from a specific union and those workers can only remain with that employer while they are a part of the union so AESD threatened a strike unless Hari resigned also from his job or was fired. Corporation suspended Hari and, after some months, dismissed him with one week's salary in lieu of notice. Hari brought an action for damages alleging that he was the victim of a tortious intimidation. Decide.    (N.L.U.D., 2020)
(a) The union was guilty of the tort of intimidation. It was unlawful intimidation to use a threat to break their contracts with their employer as a weapon to make him do something which he was legally entitled to do but which they knew would cause loss to Hari.
(b) The Union was not guilty of intimidation as no unlawful means were used to induce Corporation to terminate his contract of service.
(c) There was a contract between Union and Corporation that stipulates that the employer will only hire workers from a specific union and those workers can only remain with that employer while they arc a part of the union so the Union is not liable.
(d) Hari cannot claim damages as he was paid one week's salary in lieu of notice.

Correct Answer is Option (c)

Q.42. Legal Principles:
1. A deceit occurs when a misrepresentation is made with the express intention of defrauding a party, subsequently causing loss to that party. 
2. "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 mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement.
Fact: XY Company in its prospectus stated that the company was permitted to make-engines that were powered by electricity, rather than by fuel. In reality, the company did not possess such a right as this had to be approved by the Government Board. Gaining the approval for such a claim from the Board was considered a formality in such circumstances and the claim was put forward in the prospectus with this information in mind. However, the claim of the company for this right was later refused by the Board. The individuals who had purchased a stake in the business, upon reliance on the statement, brought a claim for deceit against the defendant's business. Decide.    (N.L.U.D., 2020)
(a) The company is liable for false representation as their claims were eventually turned out to be false.
(b) The company is liable as their false statements have resulted in causing loss to the shareholders.
(c) The company is not liable as the statement in its prospectus was simply incorrect and not fraudulent.
(d) The shareholders should have collected as much information regarding the company as possible before purchasing a stake in it.

Correct Answer is Option (c)

Q.43. 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. Generally, nuisances cannot be justified on the ground of necessity, pecuniary interest, convenience, or economic advantage to a defendant.
3. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would be likely to injure his neighbour.
4. In cases of nuisance, the court may grant an injunction restricting the nuisance from occurring in the future when the loss could not adequately compensated.
Facts: Tina purchased a house in an estate which was adjacent to a functioning, in use, cricket field. The members of Super Eleven Cricket Club used to play Cricket in that field for over 70 years. After Tina moved into the property, cricket balls began to fly over the field's protective barrier and into the Tina's property. Tina complained, which caused Super Eleven Cricket Club to erect a chain link fence. This improved matters as less balls were now flying onto the Tina's property but it did not fully solve the issue as some still got through. The club offered Tina to pay for any damage done or injuries received as a result of the balls landing onto her land, including fixing any broken windows and similar. Tina, however, refused all of the club's offers and filed a case against the members of the Club alleging nuisance and negligence and requested court to grant an injunction to prevent the club from playing cricket on their ground. Tina argued that even though the club offered to make good any damage and that there had been no injuries, she was not able to use her garden when matches were being played for fear of being struck by a cricket ball. Decide.    (N.L.U.D., 2020)
(a) The members of Club arc not liable as Tina was aware about the activities of the Cricket Club and had willingly purchased the property.
(b) The members of the Club are liable for nuisance and court should pass an order of compensation as the injury is small and could be compensated in terms of money. Also, public interest considerations outweighed the private rights of the plaintiff and therefore a remedy of damages was sufficient in the circumstances.
(c) The members of the Club are liable for nuisance and court should pass an order of injunction. The plaintiff's right to enjoyment of her property outweighs the right of the members of the Club to play cricket.
(d) The Club is not liable as they have already taken sufficient measures to mitigate the effects of their act and are ready and willing to do so in future too.

Correct Answer is Option (b)

Q.44. Legal Principles:
1. According to rule of strict liability, any 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 in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage, irrespective of fault, which is the natural consequence of its escape in respect of the non-natural use of land.
2. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would be likely to injure his neighbour.
Facts: PN was the owner of a gas pipe which passed under the surface of an old railway between Ramnagar and Kotpur. XY was the local council which was responsible for a water pipe which supplied water to a block of flats in the nearby Shining Apartment Complex. A leak developed which was undetected for some time. The water collected at an embankment which housed PN's high pressure gas main. The water caused the embankment to collapse and left the gas main exposed and unsupported. This was a serious and immediate risk and PN took action to avoid the potential danger. They then sought to recover the cost of the remedial works. PN argued that the XY Council was liable for negligence under strict liability.    (N.L.U.D., 2020)
(a) The Council is liable under strict liability rule as the damage is not remote as it was possible for the Council to reasonably foresee a leakage which would eventually lead to collapse of the gas main.
(b) The escape of water as a result of leak is sufficient to make the Council liable.
(c) The Council is not liable as PN should have been careful in detecting the leak earlier. They cannot shift the blame on the Council.
(d) The Council is not liable under rule of strict liability for the damage as the Council's use was neither a non- natural nor dangerous use of the land.

Correct Answer is Option (d)

Q.45. Legal Principles:
1. When the negligent act of two or more person results in the same damage, it is called composite negligence. The liability in such a case is joint and several of the tort-feasers.
2. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would be likely to injure someone.
3. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a prerequisite of liability.
4. The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred 'but for' the negligence of the defendant.
Facts: Zara filed a civil suit against five drug manufacturing companies. Zara's mother took synthetic estrogen while pregnant with her. As a result of receiving the drug in-utero, Zara developed cancer as an adult. The drug was manufactured by the Defendants, five major drug companies and by about 195 other companies not named in the suit. The Defendants together produced 90% of the drug. Zara is unable to identify which company produced the actual drug her mother took. Decide whether the Defendants only can be held liable for Zara's cancer.    (N.L.U.D., 2020)
(a) No, as the industry responsible for the production of this drug is large, so holding only the defendants responsible is not correct.
(b) Yes, as defendants join a substantial share of the manufactures into tire lawsuit, the chances of the actual tort-feasor escaping liability is greatly reduced.
(c) No, as defendants can be made liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would be likely to injure someone.
(d) No, Zara is not entitled to any damages as the drugs her mother was administered were needed at that time and her mother had taken the medicines voluntarily. Zara developed cancer after so many years and she must prove that harm would not have occurred 'but for' the negligence of the defendants.

Correct Answer is Option (b)