Topics of Law Test 28

Result

Topics of Law Test 28

Score
-
out of -
Rank
-
out of -

TIME Taken - -

SHARING IS CARING

If our Website helped you a little, then kindly spread our voice using Social Networks. Spread our word to your readers, friends, teachers, students & all those close ones who deserve to know what you know now.

Weekly Quiz Competition

Question 1
1 / -0

Principle: A gift comprising both existing and future property is void as to the latter.
Facts: 'X' has a house which is owned by him. He contracted to purchase a plot of land adjacent to the said house, but the sale (of the plot of land) in his favour is yet to be completed. He makes a gift of both the properties (house and land) to 'Y'
Under the afore-mentioned circumstances, which of the following derivations is correct?

A
Gift a both the properties is valid

B
Gift a both the properties is void

C
Gift of house is void, but the gift of the plot of land is valid

D
Gift of house is valid, but the gift of the plot of land is void

Solution

Section $$122$$ of the Transfer of Property Act states that, 'Gift' is the transfer a certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the doner and accepted by or on behalf of the done.
The subject matter of the gift has to be an existing property and not a future property. In the given case, gift of house is valid as it is an existing property, but the gift of the plot of land is invalid because it is a future property.
Question 2
1 / -0

Principle : Law never enforces an impossible promise.
Facts : 'A' made a promise to 'B' to discover treasure by magic.

A
Law will not enforce the promise.

B
Law will enforce the promise only at the option of 'B'.

C
Law will enforce the promise.

D
Law will enforce the promise only at the option of 'A'.

Solution

Section $$56$$ of Indian Contract Act defines an agreement to do an impossible act in itself is void. The reasonable conclusion is drawn that Law will not enforce the agreement. Option (a) is correct.
Question 3
1 / -0

Principle : In cases where there is an infringement of legal right even without any actual loss or damage, the person whose right is infringed has a cause of action.
Facts : 'P' was wrongfully prevented by the Returning Officer from exercising his vote in an assembly election. However, the candidate for whom he wanted to caste his vote won the election. Still, he ('P') brought an action claiming damages. Which of the following derivations is correct?

A
'P' would succeed in his action, as it is mandatory to cast vote.

B
'P' would not succeed in his action, as the candidate for whom he wanted to give his vote won the election.

C
'P' would not succeed in his action, as he did not suffer any loss in that election.

D
'P' would succeed in his action, as he was wrongfully prevented from exercising his legal right of voting in that election.

Solution

The reasonable conclusion drawn that it is violation of a legal right without chasing any harm, loss or damage to the plaintiff. Thus it is actionable in a tort. Hence 'P' would succeed in his action, as he was wrongfully prevented from his legal right of voting. Option (d) is correct.
Question 4
1 / -0

"The people have a right, an inalienable, indisputable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledgeI mean, of the character and conduct of their rulers." Who said this ?

A
Abraham Lincoln

B
John Adams

C
Martin Luther

D
Mahatma Gandhi

Solution

John Adams was an American jurist and also served as the 2nd president of United States. He was one of the best political philosopher of his time. The above mentioned sentence is a quote given by him. It was said by him in 1765.
Question 5
1 / -0

Principles :
- An independent contractor is one who is employed to do some work of his employer. He is engaged under a contract for services. He undertakes to produce a given result, and in the actual execution of the work, he is not under the direct control or following directions of his employer. He may use his own discretion in execution of the work assigned.
- In general, an employer is not liable for the torts (wrongful acts) of his independent contractor. But, the employer may be held liable if he directs him to do come careless acts.
Facts : Ramesh hired a taxi cab to go to Delhi Airport. As he stated late from his home, he kept on urging the taxi-driver to drive at a high speed and driver followed the directions; and ultimately due to high speed an accident took place causing injuries to a person.

A
Ramesh would not be liable for damages because the driver was an independent contractor and not his servant.

B
Ramesh would not be liable as car was not owned by him.

C
Ramesh would be held liable for damages as he exercised the control by giving directions to the driver.

D
Ramesh would be held liable for damages because Ramesh did not know the consequences of rash driving.

Solution

Where a servant having a lawful authority to do same act on behalf if his master an enormous and excessive force which causes authority causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be liable for act. In this reasonable conclusion drawn Ramesh would be held liable as he exercised the control by giving directions to the driver. Hence option (c) is correct.
Question 6
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLES:
$$1.$$ Once a person accepts another's offer, and signifies such acceptance to the former, a contract comes into existence between them.
$$2.$$ Uncertain agreements are void agreements.
$$3.$$ Rejected offers can be accepted only if renewed.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Bakshi wanted to purchase a particular land. He sent a letter to his cousin. Dutt, offering him $$Rs. 4$$ lakhs for it. Dutt replied that he would not sell it below $$5$$ lakhs. Bakshi communicated his willingness to pay this amount. Dutt did not sell the land to Bakshi. Bakshi sued him for breach for contract.
DECISION

A
Dutt is liable because once he communicates an offer to Bakshi and Bakshi accepts it, a contract comes into existence

B
Dutt is liable as he has misled Bakshi by his actions

C
Dutt is not liable because he has rejected the offer by giving a counter offer which is also not specific

D
Dutt is not liable as there is no legally enforceable contract

Solution

Contract comes into existence only when an offer made is accepted. Here Dutt did not accept offer made by Bakshi, instead he made an unspecific offer, which cannot be assumed as people offer hence there is no contract.
Question 7
1 / -0

Principles :
- A servant is one who is employed to do some work for his employer (master). He is engaged under a contract of service. He works directly under the control and directions of his master.
- In general, the master is vicariously liable for those torts (wrongful acts) of his servant which are done by the servant in the course of his employment.

Facts : 'M' appointed 'D' exclusively for the purpose of driving his tourist vehicle. 'M' also appointed 'C' exclusively for the purpose of performing the work of a conduct for the tourist vehicle. During one trip, at the end of the journey, when 'D' was not on the driver's seat, 'C' had apparently for the purpose of turning the vehicle in the right direction for the next journey, drove it through the street at high speed, and negligently injured 'P'.

A
'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was not in the course of his employment.

B
'M' could made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was within the scope of employment.

C
'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as 'C' was employed under a contract of service.

D
'M' is not liable as he was not present at the time of accident.

Solution

The reasonable conclusion drawn is that M's liability arises only when the wrongdoer is his servant and the servant while doing the wrongful act is in the course of the employment. In the present reasonable conclusion is 'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C', as C's act of driving the vehicle was not in the course of the employment.
Question 8
1 / -0

Given below are a legal principle and a factual situation. Apply the given legal principle to the factual situation and select the most appropriate answer to the question given below:

Principle: Ignorance of law is no excuse.

Factual situation: A fails to file his income tax returns for 10 years. The Income tax department issues to him notice to show cause why proceedings should not be initiated against him for the recovery of the income tax due from him with interest and penalty. What remedy does he have?

A
He may take the plea that his advocate had advised him not to file the return as his income was not taxable.

B
He may request the department to waive the interest and penalty.

C
A must pay the tax due as ignorance of law cannot be a ground of defence.

D
None of the above.
Question 9
1 / -0

X went to Y's house and forget his bag which contained 1 kg sweets. Y's children consumed the sweets. Decide the liability of Y.

A
Y is bound to pay the price of sweets.

B
Y is not bound to pay anything.

C
Y is bound to pay half the price of sweets.

D
Y would not have to pay anything because X loves Y's children.

Solution

Y is not bound to pay anything.
As there's no principle for amounting the quantity and cost. The damages can't be claimed as there is no clue about the price of the sweets eaten by Y's daughter. X needs to prove the loss he suffered, but he is unable to do so in the present situation. Hence, Y won't be liable to pay.
Question 10
1 / -0

Principle : False imprisonment is a tort (wrong) which means the total restraint of a person's liberty without lawful justification.
Facts : A part of a public road had been closed for spectators of a boat race. 'P' wanted to enter but he was prevented by 'D' and other policemen because he had not paid the admission fee. 'P' was able to enter the enclosure by other means but was unable to go where he wanted to go but allowed him to remain where he was or to go back. 'P' remained within the enclosure and refused to leave. Subsequently, 'P' sued 'D" for false imprisonment.

A
It was a case of false imprisonment, but 'D' could not be made liable for it.

B
'D' could not be made liable for false imprisonment, as he did not totally restrict P's movements.

C
'D' could not be made liable for false imprisonment, as he did restrict P's movements.

D
'D' could not be made liable for false imprisonment, as he has not touched him.

Solution

The tort of false imprisonment is constituted when there is a total restraint. It is no imprisonment if a person prevented from going to a particular direction but he his free to go any other direction. If a man is prevented from going to a particular direction but is allowed to go back there is no false imprisonment. The reasonable conclusion in the above noted question is that there was no total restraint on the P's liberty. The reasonable conclusion drawn that D could not be held liable for false imprisonment and he did not restrict P's movement. Hence option (b) is correct.

User

Question Analysis

Correct -
Wrong -
Skipped -

My Perfomance

Score
-
out of -
Rank
-
out of -

Re-Attempt Weekly Quiz Competition

Topics of Law Test 28

Result

Topics of Law Test 28

Score

-

Rank

-

SHARING IS CARING

Question 1

Gift a both the properties is valid

Gift a both the properties is void

Gift of house is void, but the gift of the plot of land is valid

Gift of house is valid, but the gift of the plot of land is void

Solution

Question 2

Law will not enforce the promise.

Law will enforce the promise only at the option of 'B'.

Law will enforce the promise.

Law will enforce the promise only at the option of 'A'.

Solution

Question 3

'P' would succeed in his action, as it is mandatory to cast vote.

'P' would not succeed in his action, as the candidate for whom he wanted to give his vote won the election.

'P' would not succeed in his action, as he did not suffer any loss in that election.

'P' would succeed in his action, as he was wrongfully prevented from exercising his legal right of voting in that election.

Solution

Question 4

Abraham Lincoln

John Adams

Martin Luther

Mahatma Gandhi

Solution

Question 5

Ramesh would not be liable for damages because the driver was an independent contractor and not his servant.

Ramesh would not be liable as car was not owned by him.

Ramesh would be held liable for damages as he exercised the control by giving directions to the driver.

Ramesh would be held liable for damages because Ramesh did not know the consequences of rash driving.

Solution

Question 6

Dutt is liable because once he communicates an offer to Bakshi and Bakshi accepts it, a contract comes into existence

Dutt is liable as he has misled Bakshi by his actions

Dutt is not liable because he has rejected the offer by giving a counter offer which is also not specific

Dutt is not liable as there is no legally enforceable contract

Solution

Question 7

'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was not in the course of his employment.

'M' could made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was within the scope of employment.

'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as 'C' was employed under a contract of service.

'M' is not liable as he was not present at the time of accident.

Solution

Question 8

He may take the plea that his advocate had advised him not to file the return as his income was not taxable.

He may request the department to waive the interest and penalty.

A must pay the tax due as ignorance of law cannot be a ground of defence.

None of the above.

Question 9

Y is bound to pay the price of sweets.

Y is not bound to pay anything.

Y is bound to pay half the price of sweets.

Y would not have to pay anything because X loves Y's children.

Solution

Question 10

It was a case of false imprisonment, but 'D' could not be made liable for it.

'D' could not be made liable for false imprisonment, as he did not totally restrict P's movements.

'D' could not be made liable for false imprisonment, as he did restrict P's movements.

'D' could not be made liable for false imprisonment, as he has not touched him.

Solution

User

Question Analysis

My Perfomance

Score

-

Rank

-

Results Announcement on: coming Monday

Stay Tuned: We’ll update you on your result via email or SMS.