Legal Mock Test - 18 - CLAT MCQ

Principle: Only Parliament or State Legislatures have the authority to enact laws on their own. No law made by the State can take away a person’s fundamental right.
Facts: Parliament enacted a law, which according to a group of lawyers is violating the fundamental rights of traders. A group of lawyers files a writ petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the statute seeking relief to quash the statute and further direct Parliament to enact a new law.

Who is the Legal Advisor to the Government of a State in India?

Passage​: The Nirbhaya case constitutes a crime which fits into the category of the ‘rarest of the rare’ cases because it violated collective conscience. The death penalty, as an exceptional punishment, follows from the judgment that the case fit the criteria of the ‘rarest of the rare’. Ideally an exception should be unknown until it occurs: it is exceptional because it is not documented under the rule.
Conversely, once an exception has been codified through law, it loses its exceptional character. Hence ideally, there can be no pre-existing category of the ‘rarest of the rare’.
Judges already know what these ‘exceptions’ are going to be because they understand exceptions for a category like ‘murder’.
The ‘rarest of the rare’ proves to be an empty, floating category which seems to stand at once inside and outside the law, due to its ability to accommodate exceptionality. In the Nirbhaya judgment, the Supreme Court said that the ‘rarest of the rare’ case is one in which “the crime is committed… may result in intense and extreme indignation of the community and shock the collective conscience of the society”.
The category of the ‘rarest of the rare’ is always evolving. It is the evaluation of certain cases that makes them fit into the category of the ‘rarest of the rare’, and not the nature of the crimes as such. In such cases, the legal judgment says that the judicial power is obligated to the collective to repair the moral fabric of society which the crime has torn.

Q. Why does the Nirbhaya case fit into the category of “Rarest of the rare”?

Passage​: The Nirbhaya case constitutes a crime which fits into the category of the ‘rarest of the rare’ cases because it violated collective conscience. The death penalty, as an exceptional punishment, follows from the judgment that the case fit the criteria of the ‘rarest of the rare’. Ideally an exception should be unknown until it occurs: it is exceptional because it is not documented under the rule.
Conversely, once an exception has been codified through law, it loses its exceptional character. Hence ideally, there can be no pre-existing category of the ‘rarest of the rare’.
Judges already know what these ‘exceptions’ are going to be because they understand exceptions for a category like ‘murder’.
The ‘rarest of the rare’ proves to be an empty, floating category which seems to stand at once inside and outside the law, due to its ability to accommodate exceptionality. In the Nirbhaya judgment, the Supreme Court said that the ‘rarest of the rare’ case is one in which “the crime is committed… may result in intense and extreme indignation of the community and shock the collective conscience of the society”.
The category of the ‘rarest of the rare’ is always evolving. It is the evaluation of certain cases that makes them fit into the category of the ‘rarest of the rare’, and not the nature of the crimes as such. In such cases, the legal judgment says that the judicial power is obligated to the collective to repair the moral fabric of society which the crime has torn.

Q. In the last line of the extract, what does the term “collective” mean?

Passage​: The Nirbhaya case constitutes a crime which fits into the category of the ‘rarest of the rare’ cases because it violated collective conscience. The death penalty, as an exceptional punishment, follows from the judgment that the case fit the criteria of the ‘rarest of the rare’. Ideally an exception should be unknown until it occurs: it is exceptional because it is not documented under the rule.
Conversely, once an exception has been codified through law, it loses its exceptional character. Hence ideally, there can be no pre-existing category of the ‘rarest of the rare’.
Judges already know what these ‘exceptions’ are going to be because they understand exceptions for a category like ‘murder’.
The ‘rarest of the rare’ proves to be an empty, floating category which seems to stand at once inside and outside the law, due to its ability to accommodate exceptionality. In the Nirbhaya judgment, the Supreme Court said that the ‘rarest of the rare’ case is one in which “the crime is committed… may result in intense and extreme indignation of the community and shock the collective conscience of the society”.
The category of the ‘rarest of the rare’ is always evolving. It is the evaluation of certain cases that makes them fit into the category of the ‘rarest of the rare’, and not the nature of the crimes as such. In such cases, the legal judgment says that the judicial power is obligated to the collective to repair the moral fabric of society which the crime has torn.

Q. What makes the “Rarest of the Rare” a floating category?

With which of the following issues did D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal deal with?

Sajjan Singh, advanced money to his stepson, Ghantilal while Ghantilal was a minor. Ghantilal, however, looks upon Sajjan Singh as his own father. When Ghantilal came of age, Sajjan Singh obtained, by misuse of parental influence, from Ghantilal, a bond for a greater amount than the sum due in respect of the advance. The contract clearly appears to be unconscionable. Upon whom will the burden of proof rest to prove the element of undue influence?
Principle: A contract is said to be induced by undue influence where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.

Legal Principle I: Any person may use reasonable force in order to protect his property or person.
Legal Principle II: The force employed must be proportionate to the apprehended danger.
Facts: Karan was walking on a isolated path. Maninder came with a knife and told Karan, ‘Your life or your purse.’ Karan pulled out his revolver. On seeing it, Maninder ran. Karan shot Manider in his legs.
Decide as a judge.

Legal Principle: A contract with a minor would be void if the other party knew about the minority.
Facts of the Problem: Hitesh is a leading seller of the computer hardware items in the city. His sixteen years old son has Rohan as his best friend. Rohan is also of the same age. Hitesh knowing the age of Rohan entered into a contract with him for a set of laptops for a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs to him. When Hitesh sent the consignment of the laptops, Rohan refused to take them and dishonoured the contract. Hitesh sues Rohan for the damages suffered by him. Decide the legal outcome of the situation?

What does the legal term Caveat Emptor refer to?

Principle: When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have made a proposal.
Fact: Ramchandra telegraphed to Shyam Sunder, writing: “Will you sell me your Rolls Royce car? Telegram the lowest cash price.” Shyam Sunder also replied by telegram: “Lowest price for car is Rs. 20 lakh.” Ramanuj immediately sent his consent through telegram stating: “I agree to buy the car for Rs. 20 lakh asked by you.” Shyam Sunder refused to sell the car.

Avantik gives his gold chain to Nikhil, a jeweller, for repairs. Nikhil carries it to his shop. After the gold chain have been repaired, Avantik defaults on the payment. Nikhil refuses to deliver back the gold chain, retains them lawfully as a security for the debt. Avantik, who was aware that Nikhil was retaining the gold chain as a security for his debt, enters the shop openly, and takes the gold chain by force out of Nikhil’s possession, and takes it away. Has Avantik committed theft?

The marriage of a 15 year old girl with a 45 year old man is -

Right to education is a fundamental right emanating from right to:

Principle: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly 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. The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.
Anjali, embarking on a one-month trip to Venice, entrusts her Pomeranian to Tina, the owner of a kennel, till Anjali returns from her vacations. Anjali pays Tina to take care of her Pomeranian. Tina carries the Pomeranian to a pet-shop owner, and sells it. Has Tina committed theft?

Prateek, who is Prakha’s younger brother, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill Sachan, who is Prakha’s boyfriend. Prakha, not knowing how to react, and seeing Sachan helpless and on the verge of being murdered, hits on Prateek’s head with an antique metal vase. Prateek dies on the spot. Can Prakha claim the right of private defence of body?
Principle 1: Every person has a right to defend his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
Principle 2: The right of private defence of the body extends to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence reasonably causes the apprehension that death, or grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault. Also, if the assault is with the intention of committing rape, gratifying unnatural lust, kidnapping or abducting, or wrongfully confining a person under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release, he will have the right of private defence of the body extending to causing of death.
Principle 3: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act.

Time taken by the constituent Assembly to prepare Constitution is:

Passage​: In the wake of the current coronavirus outbreak, most businesses are looking out to re-align themselves with the economic disparity that is likely to arise. In fact, even the Union of India through Ministry of Finance has recently issued a clarification that coronavirus will be considered as a case of natural calamity and as such covered under the force majeure clause available to be invoked wherever necessary and applicable.
What is force majeure or vis major? It means superior force or chance occurrence. As the term and its meaning suggest, it is an event that the contracting parties could not have contemplated at the time of acceptance of contracts.
In India, primarily Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act deals with this situation. This article deals with the distinction between the English and Indian law a little later, however, we straightaway come to Section 56, which reads “Contract to do act afterwards becoming impossible or unlawful. – A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful. ” The doctrine of frustration with its limited applicability was developed in Taylor Vs. Caldwell [1863] for the first time, wherein Justice Blackburn reasoned that the rule of absolute liability only applied to positive, definite contracts, not to those in which there was an express or implied condition underlying the contract.
As far as Indian law is concerned, Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is absolutely clear that an act, after the contract is made, becomes impossible to perform or by reason of some event which a promisor/a party could not prevent becomes void and is not capable of performance.
In this regard, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 56 to mean that an act must result in an impossibility of performance, or the performance of an act may not be literally impossible but it may be impracticable and useless from the point of view of the object and purpose which the parties had in view; and if an untoward event or change of circumstances totally upsets the very foundation upon which the parties rested their bargain, it can very well be said that the party finds it impossible to do the act which he promised to do.
From the above, it is clear that a force majeure event must lead to an impossibility and any hardship, inconvenience or material loss (except if the termination can be shown to be just and fair) cannot be considered as a force majeure event. Hence, a change in policy by no means can be considered as a force majeure or an impossible event.

Q. Alia entered into a contract with Katrina for supplying sweets to Alia on her wedding day.
On the day of the wedding, when eating one of Katrina’s sweet made with almonds, Alia fell ill since she was allergic to almonds. As per the defense of vis major in the passage, can Alia sue Katrina?

Passage​: In the wake of the current coronavirus outbreak, most businesses are looking out to re-align themselves with the economic disparity that is likely to arise. In fact, even the Union of India through Ministry of Finance has recently issued a clarification that coronavirus will be considered as a case of natural calamity and as such covered under the force majeure clause available to be invoked wherever necessary and applicable.
What is force majeure or vis major? It means superior force or chance occurrence. As the term and its meaning suggest, it is an event that the contracting parties could not have contemplated at the time of acceptance of contracts.
In India, primarily Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act deals with this situation. This article deals with the distinction between the English and Indian law a little later, however, we straightaway come to Section 56, which reads “Contract to do act afterwards becoming impossible or unlawful. – A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful. ” The doctrine of frustration with its limited applicability was developed in Taylor Vs. Caldwell [1863] for the first time, wherein Justice Blackburn reasoned that the rule of absolute liability only applied to positive, definite contracts, not to those in which there was an express or implied condition underlying the contract.
As far as Indian law is concerned, Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is absolutely clear that an act, after the contract is made, becomes impossible to perform or by reason of some event which a promisor/a party could not prevent becomes void and is not capable of performance.
In this regard, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 56 to mean that an act must result in an impossibility of performance, or the performance of an act may not be literally impossible but it may be impracticable and useless from the point of view of the object and purpose which the parties had in view; and if an untoward event or change of circumstances totally upsets the very foundation upon which the parties rested their bargain, it can very well be said that the party finds it impossible to do the act which he promised to do.
From the above, it is clear that a force majeure event must lead to an impossibility and any hardship, inconvenience or material loss (except if the termination can be shown to be just and fair) cannot be considered as a force majeure event. Hence, a change in policy by no means can be considered as a force majeure or an impossible event.

Q. Bappi enters into a contract with Mr. Lahiri on 12 th January under which he would supply gold and silver bars to Bappi. Later, Mr. Lahiri came to know that on 10 th January the Government had banned sale of gold bars. Mr. Lahiri wants to terminate the contract. Can he legally do so?

Passage​: In the wake of the current coronavirus outbreak, most businesses are looking out to re-align themselves with the economic disparity that is likely to arise. In fact, even the Union of India through Ministry of Finance has recently issued a clarification that coronavirus will be considered as a case of natural calamity and as such covered under the force majeure clause available to be invoked wherever necessary and applicable.
What is force majeure or vis major? It means superior force or chance occurrence. As the term and its meaning suggest, it is an event that the contracting parties could not have contemplated at the time of acceptance of contracts.
In India, primarily Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act deals with this situation. This article deals with the distinction between the English and Indian law a little later, however, we straightaway come to Section 56, which reads “Contract to do act afterwards becoming impossible or unlawful. – A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful. ” The doctrine of frustration with its limited applicability was developed in Taylor Vs. Caldwell [1863] for the first time, wherein Justice Blackburn reasoned that the rule of absolute liability only applied to positive, definite contracts, not to those in which there was an express or implied condition underlying the contract.
As far as Indian law is concerned, Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is absolutely clear that an act, after the contract is made, becomes impossible to perform or by reason of some event which a promisor/a party could not prevent becomes void and is not capable of performance.
In this regard, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 56 to mean that an act must result in an impossibility of performance, or the performance of an act may not be literally impossible but it may be impracticable and useless from the point of view of the object and purpose which the parties had in view; and if an untoward event or change of circumstances totally upsets the very foundation upon which the parties rested their bargain, it can very well be said that the party finds it impossible to do the act which he promised to do.
From the above, it is clear that a force majeure event must lead to an impossibility and any hardship, inconvenience or material loss (except if the termination can be shown to be just and fair) cannot be considered as a force majeure event. Hence, a change in policy by no means can be considered as a force majeure or an impossible event.

Q. A’s ship had a hole in its hull. To repair it, A contracted with B to supply him 10 tons of iron within 7 days. But, 3 days after the contract, there was a storm and unable to withstand it, the ship sank. B refrained from supplying the iron as the ship itself had sunk. A, however, wants to sue B for non-performance of contract. Which of the following would most weaken A’s stance?

Passage​: In the wake of the current coronavirus outbreak, most businesses are looking out to re-align themselves with the economic disparity that is likely to arise. In fact, even the Union of India through Ministry of Finance has recently issued a clarification that coronavirus will be considered as a case of natural calamity and as such covered under the force majeure clause available to be invoked wherever necessary and applicable.
What is force majeure or vis major? It means superior force or chance occurrence. As the term and its meaning suggest, it is an event that the contracting parties could not have contemplated at the time of acceptance of contracts.
In India, primarily Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act deals with this situation. This article deals with the distinction between the English and Indian law a little later, however, we straightaway come to Section 56, which reads “Contract to do act afterwards becoming impossible or unlawful. – A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful. ” The doctrine of frustration with its limited applicability was developed in Taylor Vs. Caldwell [1863] for the first time, wherein Justice Blackburn reasoned that the rule of absolute liability only applied to positive, definite contracts, not to those in which there was an express or implied condition underlying the contract.
As far as Indian law is concerned, Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is absolutely clear that an act, after the contract is made, becomes impossible to perform or by reason of some event which a promisor/a party could not prevent becomes void and is not capable of performance.
In this regard, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 56 to mean that an act must result in an impossibility of performance, or the performance of an act may not be literally impossible but it may be impracticable and useless from the point of view of the object and purpose which the parties had in view; and if an untoward event or change of circumstances totally upsets the very foundation upon which the parties rested their bargain, it can very well be said that the party finds it impossible to do the act which he promised to do.
From the above, it is clear that a force majeure event must lead to an impossibility and any hardship, inconvenience or material loss (except if the termination can be shown to be just and fair) cannot be considered as a force majeure event. Hence, a change in policy by no means can be considered as a force majeure or an impossible event.

Q. Nattu was a newspaper vendor. He had a contract with Mr. Batuklal for delivering newspapers. Every morning Nattu would deliver newspapers to him on his cycle. One day, during the rainy season, it was raining cats and dogs. The papers got soggy and even, Nattu’s cycle got punctured. He was unable to deliver the newspaper that day. Can Mr. Batuklal sue Nattu for violating contract?

Passage​: In the wake of the current coronavirus outbreak, most businesses are looking out to re-align themselves with the economic disparity that is likely to arise. In fact, even the Union of India through Ministry of Finance has recently issued a clarification that coronavirus will be considered as a case of natural calamity and as such covered under the force majeure clause available to be invoked wherever necessary and applicable.
What is force majeure or vis major? It means superior force or chance occurrence. As the term and its meaning suggest, it is an event that the contracting parties could not have contemplated at the time of acceptance of contracts.
In India, primarily Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act deals with this situation. This article deals with the distinction between the English and Indian law a little later, however, we straightaway come to Section 56, which reads “Contract to do act afterwards becoming impossible or unlawful. – A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful. ” The doctrine of frustration with its limited applicability was developed in Taylor Vs. Caldwell [1863] for the first time, wherein Justice Blackburn reasoned that the rule of absolute liability only applied to positive, definite contracts, not to those in which there was an express or implied condition underlying the contract.
As far as Indian law is concerned, Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is absolutely clear that an act, after the contract is made, becomes impossible to perform or by reason of some event which a promisor/a party could not prevent becomes void and is not capable of performance.
In this regard, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 56 to mean that an act must result in an impossibility of performance, or the performance of an act may not be literally impossible but it may be impracticable and useless from the point of view of the object and purpose which the parties had in view; and if an untoward event or change of circumstances totally upsets the very foundation upon which the parties rested their bargain, it can very well be said that the party finds it impossible to do the act which he promised to do.
From the above, it is clear that a force majeure event must lead to an impossibility and any hardship, inconvenience or material loss (except if the termination can be shown to be just and fair) cannot be considered as a force majeure event. Hence, a change in policy by no means can be considered as a force majeure or an impossible event.

Q. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the Government’s decision to include coronavirus as a force majeure?

What is the meaning of the maxim, “ex turpi causa non oritur actio”?

The Government imposed a cap on the number of text messages sent per day, from every sim card, to 20, with immediate effect. These restrictions are to remain in force for 15 days. This action was taken against the backdrop of the exodus of north-eastern people from major cities of the country following a tide of rumours spread by text and multimedia messages that people hailing from the north-eastern states would be attacked to avenge a recent ethnic violence in one of the north-eastern states. Companies that were completely dependent upon this mode of communication for customer outreach protested against this cap on messages saying that it was infringing upon their freedom of speech and expression. Decide if it is an infringement on the freedom of speech and expression of the citizens.
Principle: All citizens shall have the right
(i) to freedom of speech and expression;
(ii) to assemble peacefully and without arms;
(iii) to form associations or unions;
(iv) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(v) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
(vi) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

However, the exercise of these rights is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the State.

Ranveer, a con-man by profession, was sitting in his lawn with some stolen books by William Shakespeare. Suddenly, his neighbour, Anushka, entered and tried to snatch away those books from him saying that they belong to her. As it turns out, she was right. Still, Ranveer sues Anushka for trespass to goods. Will he succeed?
Principle: Interference with someone’s possession or enjoyment of movable property constitutes the tort of trespass of goods.

In addition to the Speaker, the Lok Sabha has a Deputy Speaker who is:

In which landmark case the Supreme Court held that the Second marriage of Hindu man is invalid even if he converts to Islam before marriage?