Legal Mock Test - 11 - CLAT MCQ

Principle: Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind reputation or property, is said to "cheat".

Explanation: A dishonest concealment of fact is a deception with the meaning of this section.

Q.

Facts: A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in consequence of such sale he has no right to the property, sells or mortgages the same to Z, without disclosing the fact of the previous sale and conveyance to B, and receives the purchase or mortgage money from Z.

Questions 5 to 7 on same principle

Principle: Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains therewith intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit "criminal trespass".

Principle: Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building, used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit "house trespass".

Explanation: The introduction of any part of the criminal trespasser's body is entering sufficient to constitute house-trespass.

Principle: A person is said to commit "house-breaking" who commits house-trespass if he effects his entrance into the house or any part of it in any of the six ways hereinafter described; or if, being in the house or any part of it for the purpose of committing an offence, or, having committed an offence therein, he quits the house or any part of it in any of such six ways, that is to say:--

Firstly--If he enters or quits through a passage made by himself, or by any abettor of the house-trespass, in order to the committing of the house-trespass.

Secondly--If he enters or quits through any passage not intended by any person, other than himself or an abettor of the offence, for human entrance; or through any passage to which he has obtained access by scaling or climbing over any wall or building.

Thirdly--If he enters or quits through any passage which he or any abettor of the house-trespass has opened, in order to the committing of the house-trespass by any means by which that passage was not intended by the occupier of the house to be opened.

Fourthly--If he enters or quits by opening any lock in order to the committing of the house-trespass, or in order to the quitting of the house after a house-trespass.

Fifthly--If he effects his entrance or departure by using criminal force or committing an assault, or by threatening any person with assault.

Sixthly-- If he enters or quits by any passage which he knows to have been fastened against such entrance or departure, and to have been unfastened by himself or by an abettor of the house-trespass.

Q.

Facts: A commits house-trespass by making hole through the wall of Z's house, and putting his hand through the aperture

Principle: Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains therewith intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit "criminal trespass".

Principle: Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building, used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit "house trespass".

Explanation: The introduction of any part of the criminal trespasser's body is entering sufficient to constitute house-trespass.

Principle: A person is said to commit "house-breaking" who commits house-trespass if he effects his entrance into the house or any part of it in any of the six ways hereinafter described; or if, being in the house or any part of it for the purpose of committing an offence, or, having committed an offence therein, he quits the house or any part of it in any of such six ways, that is to say:--

Firstly--If he enters or quits through a passage made by himself, or by any abettor of the house-trespass, in order to the committing of the house-trespass.

Secondly--If he enters or quits through any passage not intended by any person, other than himself or an abettor of the offence, for human entrance; or through any passage to which he has obtained access by scaling or climbing over any wall or building.

Thirdly--If he enters or quits through any passage which he or any abettor of the house-trespass has opened, in order to the committing of the house-trespass by any means by which that passage was not intended by the occupier of the house to be opened.

Fourthly--If he enters or quits by opening any lock in order to the committing of the house-trespass, or in order to the quitting of the house after a house-trespass.

Fifthly--If he effects his entrance or departure by using criminal force or committing an assault, or by threatening any person with assault.

Sixthly-- If he enters or quits by any passage which he knows to have been fastened against such entrance or departure, and to have been unfastened by himself or by an abettor of the house-trespass.

Q. 

Facts: Ishan commits house-trespass by entering Anuj house through a window.

Principle: Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains therewith intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit "criminal trespass".

Principle: Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building, used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit "house trespass".

Explanation: The introduction of any part of the criminal trespasser's body is entering sufficient to constitute house-trespass.

Principle: A person is said to commit "house-breaking" who commits house-trespass if he effects his entrance into the house or any part of it in any of the six ways hereinafter described; or if, being in the house or any part of it for the purpose of committing an offence, or, having committed an offence therein, he quits the house or any part of it in any of such six ways, that is to say:--

Firstly--If he enters or quits through a passage made by himself, or by any abettor of the house-trespass, in order to the committing of the house-trespass.

Secondly--If he enters or quits through any passage not intended by any person, other than himself or an abettor of the offence, for human entrance; or through any passage to which he has obtained access by scaling or climbing over any wall or building.

Thirdly--If he enters or quits through any passage which he or any abettor of the house-trespass has opened, in order to the committing of the house-trespass by any means by which that passage was not intended by the occupier of the house to be opened.

Fourthly--If he enters or quits by opening any lock in order to the committing of the house-trespass, or in order to the quitting of the house after a house-trespass.

Fifthly--If he effects his entrance or departure by using criminal force or committing an assault, or by threatening any person with assault.

Sixthly-- If he enters or quits by any passage which he knows to have been fastened against such entrance or departure, and to have been unfastened by himself or by an abettor of the house-trespass.

Q. 

Facts: Sam commits house-trespass by entering Binny house through the door, having lifted a latch by putting a wire though a hole in the door.

Questions 8 to 10 on same principle

Principle: Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.

Q. 

Facts: A has a letter of credit upon B for rupees 10,000, written by Z. A, in order to defraud B, adds a cipher to the 10,000 and makes the sum 1,00,000/- intending that it may be delivered by B that Z so wrote the letter.

Principle: Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.

Q. 

Facts: A, without Z's authority, affixes Z's seal to a document purporting to be a conveyance of an estate from Z to A, with the intention of selling the estate to B, and thereby of obtaining from B the purchase money

Principle: Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.

Q. 

Facts: Z's will contains these words "I direct that all my remaining property be equally divided between A, B and C" A dishonestly scratches out B's name, intending that it may be believed that the whole was left to himself and C.

Questions 11 to 13 on same principle

Principle: Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person's consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit:

PROVIDED

First-- That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death, or to the attempting to cause death;

Secondly--That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;

Thirdly--That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of hurt, or to the attempting to cause hurt, for any purpose other than preventing of death or hurt;

Fourthly--That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.

Q. 

Facts: Z is carried off by a tiger. A fired at the tiger knowing it to be likely that the shot may kill Z, but not intending to kill Z, and in good faith intending Z's benefit. A's ball give Z a mortal wound

Principle: Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person's consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit:

PROVIDED

First-- That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death, or to the attempting to cause death;

Secondly--That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;

Thirdly--That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of hurt, or to the attempting to cause hurt, for any purpose other than preventing of death or hurt;

Fourthly--That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.

Q. 

Facts: A, a surgeon, sees a child suffer an accident which is likely to prove fatal unless an operation be immediately performed. There is no time to apply to the child's guardian. A performs the operation in spite of the entreaties of the child, intending of good faith, the child's benefit.

Principle: Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person's consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit:

PROVIDED

First-- That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death, or to the attempting to cause death;

Secondly--That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;

Thirdly--That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of hurt, or to the attempting to cause hurt, for any purpose other than preventing of death or hurt;

Fourthly--That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend.

Q. 

Facts: A is in a house which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket. A drops the child from the house top, knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child, but not intending to kill the child, and intending in good faith, the child's benefit. Here, even if the child is killed by the fall.

Assertion: Attempt to commit an offence though does not result in any harm should also be punished

Reason: A person who tries to cause a prohibited harm and fails is in terms of moral culpability not materially different from the person who tries and succeeds

Principle: A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests.

Facts: Mr. X who is usually of sound state of mind, but occasionally of unsound state of mind, enters into a contract with Mr. Y when he was of unsound state of mind. Mr. Y having come to know about this fact afterwards wants to file a suit against Mr. X.

Principle: Every person, who is of the age of majority, is competent to contract according to the law to which he is subject.

Facts: A minor mortgaged his house in favour of Thakur Das, a money lender, to secure a loan of Rs. 20000. A part of this, i.e. Rs. 10500 was actually advanced to him. While considering the proposed advance, the attorney who was acting for the money lender, received information that the plaintiff was still a minor. Subsequently the minor commenced an action stating that he was underage when he executed the mortgage and the same should, therefore, be cancelled. He prayed for setting aside the mortgage. The mortgagee money lender prayed for the refund of Rs. 10500 from the minor.

Principle: Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or not capable of being made certain, are void.

Facts: A horse was bought for a certain price coupled with a promise to give Rs.500 more if the horse is proved lucky.

All contracts are agreements

All agreements are accepted offers

Q. 

Which of the following derivation is correct?

Legal Principle 1: Acceptance of an offer is complete when the acceptance is put into the course of transmission so as to be out of the power of the acceptor

Legal Principle 2: Acceptance once completed, makes the agreement binding on both the parties

Facts: A accepts to buy B’s offer of his motor car for Rs. 4 Lakhs. The acceptance was put into e-mail. Unfortunately, when the e-mail was put, there is distortion as a result of which B is not in a position to really read what A has written

Legal Principle: A contract is an agreement which the law will enforce. All agreements are contracts if they are made with free consent by parties competent to contract for a lawful consideration and with a lawful contract

Facts: A, a 40 yrs. old businessman of sound mind agrees of his own free will to sell his bungalow worth Rs. 10 Lakhs for Rs. 1 Lakh. The agreement

I. Is invalid because of inadequate consideration

II. Is valid because there is lawful consideration

III. Is valid because it was entered into with the free consent

IV. Is valid because X has capacity to contract

Legal principle: A contract requires a proposal and an acceptance of the proposal. It is necessary to make a binding contract, not only that the proposal be accepted, but also that the acceptance is notified to the proposer.

Facts:  D sent his servant P to trace his child. D in the meantime announced a reward for providing information about the missing boy. P, in ignorance of the announcement traced the boy and informed D. P later on came to know and he claimed it.

Issue: is the servant entitled to reward

X, a married woman, agreed to live in adultery with B and also agreed to serve him as his housekeeper. In return, B agreed to pay X Rs. 500 per month for living in adultery and Rs. 500 per month for housekeeping. The agreement is

Principle: Agreement by way of wager is void and no suit lies for recovering anything won by such wager

Facts: Mr. X and Mrs. Y enter into a contract with R who is an expert in betting on horse racing. Both pay a sum of Rs. 2000 to R to bet on a particular horse. R followed the instructions and he won a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs

PRINCIPLES: 1. If A is asked to do something by B, B is responsible for the act, not A.
2. If A, while acting for B commits a wrong, A is responsible for the wrong, not B.
3. If A is authorised to do something for B, but in the name of A without disclosing B’s presence, both A and B may be held liable.

FACTS: Somu contracted with Amar whereunder Amar would buy a pumpset to be used in Somu’s farm. Such a pumpset was in short supply in the market. Gulab, a dealer, had such a pumpset and he refused to sell it to Amar. Amar threatened Gulab of serious consequences if he fails to part with the pumpset. Gulab filed a complaint against Amar.

PROPOSED DECISION:

a) Amar alone is liable for the wrong though he acted for Somu.
b) Amar is not liable for the wrong, though he is bound by the contract with Somu.
c) Somu is bound by the contract and liable for the wrong.
d) Both Somu and Amar are liable for the wrong.

SUGGESTED REASONS:

i) Amar committed the wrong while acting for the benefit of Somu.
ii) Amar cannot do while acting for Somu something which he cannot do while acting for himself.
iii) Both Amar and Somu are liable since they are bound by the contract.
iv) Somu has to be responsible for the act of Amar committed for Somu’s benefit.

Your decision with the reason:

PRINCIPLES: 1. An employer shall be liable for the wrongs committed by his employees in the course of employment.
2. Third parties must exercise reasonable care to find out whether a person is actually acting in the course of employment.

FACTS: Nandan was appointed by Syndicate Bank to collect small savings from its customers spread over in different places on daily basis. Nagamma, a housemaid, was one of such ‘customers making use of Nandan’s service.
Syndicate Bank after a couple of years terminated Nandan’s service. Nagamma, unaware of this fact, was handing over her savings to Nandan who misappropriated them. Nagamma realised this nearly after three months, when she went to the Bank to withdraw money. She filed a complaint against the Bank.

POSSIBLE DECISION:

(a) Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Nagamma.
(b) Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to compensate Nagamma.
(c) Nagamma has to blame herself for her negligence.

POSSIBLE REASONS:

i) Nandan was not acting in the course of employment after the termination of his service.
ii) A person cannot blame others for his own negligence.
iii) Nagamma was entitled to be informed by the Bank about Nandan.
iv) The Bank is entitled to expect its customers to know actual position.

Your decision with the reason:

PRINCIPLES: 1. A master shall be liable for the fraudulent acts of his servants committed in the course of employment.
2. Whether an act is committed in the course of employment has to be judged in the context of the case.
3. Both master and third parties must exercise reasonable care in this regard.

FACTS: Rama Bhai was an uneducated widow and she opened an S.B. account with Syndicate Bank with the help of her nephew by name Keshav who was at that time working as a clerk in the Bank. Keshav used to deposit the money of Rama Bhai from time to time and get the entries done in the passbook. After a year or so, Keshav was dismissed from the service by the Bank. Being unaware of this fact, Rama Bhai continued to hand over her savings to him and Keshav misappropriated them. Rama Bhai realised this only when Keshav disappeared from the scene one day, and she sought compensation from the Bank.

POSSIBLE DECISIONS:

a) Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
b) Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
C) Rama Bhai cannot blame others for her negligence.

POSSIBLE REASONS:

i) Keshav was not an employee of the Bank when the fraud was committed.
ii) The Bank was not aware of the special arrangement between Rama Bhai and Keshav
iii) It is the Bank’s duty to take care of vulnerable customers.
iv) Rama Bhai should have checked about Keshav in her own interest.

Your decision with the reason

PRINCIPLES: 1. A person is liable for negligence, if he fails to take care of his neighbor’s interest.
2. A neighbour is anyone whose interests should have been foreseeable by a reasonable man while carrying on his activities.

FACTS: A cricket match was going on in a closed door stadium. A cricket fan who could not get into the stadium was watching the game by climbing up a nearby tree and sitting there. The cricket ball in the course of the game went out of the stadium and hit this person and injured him. He filed a suit against the organizers.

POSSIBLE DECISIONS:

(a) The organizers are liable to compensate the injured person.
(b) The organizers are not liable to compensate the injured person.
(c) The injured person should have avoided the place where he might be hit by the cricket ball.

POSSIBLE REASONS:

i) The organizers are responsible for the people inside the stadium.
ii) The organizers could not have foreseen somebody watching the game by climbing up a tree.
iii) A person crazy about something must pay the price for that.
iv) The organizers shall be liable to everybody likely to watch the game.
Your decision with the reason:

PRINCIPLES: 1. When a person unlawfully interferes in the chattel of another person by which the latter is deprived of its use, the former commits the tort of conversion.

2. Nobody shall enrich himself at other’s expense.

FACTS: A patient suffering from stomach ailment approached a teaching hospital. He was diagnosed as suffering from appendicitis and his appendix was removed. He became alright. The hospital however found some unique cells in the appendix, and using the cell lines thereof, it developed drugs of enormous commercial value. When the erstwhile patient came to know about it, he claimed a share in the profit made by the hospital.

POSSIBLE DECISIONS:

a) The hospital need not share its profits with the patient.
b) The hospital may share its profits on ex gratis basis.
C) The hospital shall share its profits with the patient.

POSSIBLE REASONS:

i) The patient, far from being deprived of the use of his appendix, actually benefitted by its removal.
ii) The hospital instead of throwing away the appendix conducted further research on it on its own and the development of drug was the result of its own effort.
iii) The hospital could not have achieved its success without that appendix belonging to the patient.
iv) Everybody must care for and share with others.

Your decision with the reason:

B throws water on C with the intention of getting him wet. The action is

The term ‘Scienter’ is related to which one of the following sign boards