Topics of Law Test 63

Question 1
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A master shall be liable for the fraudulent acts of his servants committed in the course of employment. However, the master and third parties must exercise reasonable care in this regard.

FACTUAL SITUATION: Rahul was a door to door salesman with United Manufacturing Company (the Company). The Company was manufacturing Water Purifiers. Rahul, along with the Company's products used to carry Water Purifiers manufactured by his cousin in a local Industrial Estate. He used to sell the local product at a lower rate giving the impression to the buyers that is is offering a discount on the Company's product. The Company Management detected the fraudulent activity of Rahul and dismissed him from service. Rahul still continued to carry on with his activity of selling the local product pretending that he was still a salesman of the Company. Several customers got cheated in this process. The fraud was noticed by the Company when the customers began to complain about the product. The customers demanded the Company to compensate their loss.

DECIDE.

A
The Company is liable to compensate all the customers as it did not inform the public about Rahul's fraudulent conduct and the subsequent dismissal.

B
The liability rests with the local manufacturer as it was a defective product.

C
The Company is not liable as Rahul was dismissed by the Company.

D
The Company is liable to the customers who purchased the local product from Rahul only till he remained a salesman of the Company.

Question 2
1 / -0

Given below are Legal Principles followed by a Factual Situation. Apply the principles followed by a factual Situation. Apply the principle to it and select the most appropriate answer for question among the four choices given.

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A right of action cannot arise out of an illegal activity.

FACTUAL SITUATION: A and B were thieves engaged in stealing cars and other vehicles. One day they stole a car and while driving through a city, they engaged a driver to drive them through the city, as they did not know the route inside the city. As the indicator lamp of the car was not working and the thieves were unaware of this, they did not tell about it to the driver due to which another car belonging to X was damaged and his driver suffered injuries. X and his driver filed a suit for damages against A and B.
DECIDE:

A
X and his driver would lose, because he was injured by a stolen car.

B
X and his driver would win, because they were not a party to the stealing.

C
X and his driver would win, because their car was illegally hit.

D
None of the above.

Question 3
1 / -0

PRINCIPLE: Whoever intending to take dishonestly (with in intention to cause wrongful loss to another or wrongful gain to himself) any movable property without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A had lent his watch to B for a period of a month. Two days after he had done so, he walked into B's office to find the watch on B's table. He decided to take the watch back. A was prosecuted for theft.

A
A is not guilty of the offence since he owned the watch

B
A is not guilty of the offence since he was not doing the act dishonestly

C
A is guilty of the offence since he caused wrongful loss to B

D
A is not guilty of the offence since he had lent the watch to B only for a short period of time

Question 4
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Consent is a good defence in a civil action for tort but the act should be the same for which consent was given.

FACTUAL SITUATION: 'B' was formally invited by 'A' to his house. B after sitting for some time in drawing room, moved to the bed room of the house. A sued B for trespass.

A
'B' has offended 'A' by moving to bed room.

B
'B' has interfered with privacy of 'A'.

C
'B' has committed trespass as there was no consent of 'A' for entry in the bedroom.

D
'B' has committed no trespass as he entered the house with A's consent.

Question 5
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: An independent contractor is one who is employed to do some work of his employer. He is engaged under 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 some careless acts.

FACTUAL SITUATION: Ramesh hired a taxi-cab to go to Delhi Airport. As he started 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 held 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 not be held liable for damages because Ramesh did not know the consequences of such rash driving.

Question 6
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Consent is a good defence for civil action in tort. But consent must include both knowledge of risk and assumption of risk, i.e. readiness to bear harm.

FACTUAL SITUATION: A lady passenger was aware that the driver of the cab, in which she opted to travel was little intoxicated. The met with an accident and lady got injured.

Decide

A
Lady can refuse to pay the fare as she had suffered injuries.

B
Lady is entitled to claim compensation as she only knew about the risk and there was no assumption of risk.

C
Lady is not entitled to claim compensation as she had knowledge of the risk.

D
Driver can take plea that he was lightly intoxicated.

Question 7
1 / -0

The maxim 'Res Ipsa Loquitor' means __________________.

A
In law there is a remedy for every wrong.

B
The aim of law is to seek justice.

C
Facts speak for themselves.

D
Justice is blind.

Question 8
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A master is liable for those acts of his servant which are committed in the course of employment.

FACTUAL SITUATION: A travelling agency asked its driver to drop a customer at the Delhi University. After dropping the customer, when he was returning back to the office of agency, he found his girlfriend on the way who was waiting for a bus to her residence which is one kilometer away from the office of agency. The driver offered her the lift. On the way, the car met with an accident and the girl got severely injured. She now claims compensation from the agency.

DECIDE.

A
The girl will succeed as the driver was driving in the course of employment.

B
The girl will not succeed as the driver was not driving in the course of employment.

C
The girl will succeed on the basis of strict liability of the agency.

D
The girl will succeed as she took free lift from her boyfriend. She would rather be liable to pay the fare to the agency and be prosecuted.

Question 9
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A servant is one who is employed to do some work for his employee (master). He is engaged under a contract of service. He works directly under the control and direction 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.

FACTUAL SITUATION: '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 conductor for the tourist vehicle. During one trip, at the end of the journey, 'C', while 'D' was not on the driver's seat, and apparently for the purpose of turning he vehicle in the right direction for the next journey, drove it through the street at high speed and negligently injured P.

DECIDE.

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 not be made liable for the act of C, as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was within his 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.

Question 10
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: In the employer-employee relationship, the employer is held liable for all the wrongs committed by his employees in the course of employment.
FACTUAL SITUATION: David was employed as a Driver in ABC and Co. over the past 15 years and has been appreciated by the General Manager for his hard work and sincerity. He has been rewarded by the company for his accident free record. David's younger brother wanted to join the same company as a driver. He obtained a Learner's License and joined a Driving School and was learning driving during the last three months. He was on the verge of completion of the training and appear for the Driving test. He wanted to have more practice before the test and requested his brother David for using the Company's car for two days. David also allowed him to use the office car for the practice. While he was practicing driving, a truck came from the wrong side, hit the company's car driven by David's brother, which in turn hit a pedestrian and injured him. The pedestrian sues the company for damages.
DECIDE.

A
The Company is not liable as it was driven by David's brother.

B
The Company is liable as David allowed his brother to drive the car.

C
David's brother is personally liable.

D
The Company can shift the responsibility on the truck driver's.

Submit Test

Topics of Law T...

Question 1

The Company is liable to compensate all the customers as it did not inform the public about Rahul's fraudulent conduct and the subsequent dismissal.

The liability rests with the local manufacturer as it was a defective product.

The Company is not liable as Rahul was dismissed by the Company.

The Company is liable to the customers who purchased the local product from Rahul only till he remained a salesman of the Company.

Question 2

X and his driver would lose, because he was injured by a stolen car.

X and his driver would win, because they were not a party to the stealing.

X and his driver would win, because their car was illegally hit.

None of the above.

Question 3

A is not guilty of the offence since he owned the watch

A is not guilty of the offence since he was not doing the act dishonestly

A is guilty of the offence since he caused wrongful loss to B

A is not guilty of the offence since he had lent the watch to B only for a short period of time

Question 4

'B' has offended 'A' by moving to bed room.

'B' has interfered with privacy of 'A'.

'B' has committed trespass as there was no consent of 'A' for entry in the bedroom.

'B' has committed no trespass as he entered the house with A's consent.

Question 5

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

Question 6

Lady can refuse to pay the fare as she had suffered injuries.

Lady is entitled to claim compensation as she only knew about the risk and there was no assumption of risk.

Lady is not entitled to claim compensation as she had knowledge of the risk.

Driver can take plea that he was lightly intoxicated.

Question 7

In law there is a remedy for every wrong.

The aim of law is to seek justice.

Facts speak for themselves.

Justice is blind.

Question 8

The girl will succeed as the driver was driving in the course of employment.

The girl will not succeed as the driver was not driving in the course of employment.

The girl will succeed on the basis of strict liability of the agency.

The girl will succeed as she took free lift from her boyfriend. She would rather be liable to pay the fare to the agency and be prosecuted.

Question 9

'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 not be made liable for the act of C, as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was within his 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.

Question 10

The Company is not liable as it was driven by David's brother.

The Company is liable as David allowed his brother to drive the car.

David's brother is personally liable.

The Company can shift the responsibility on the truck driver's.

User

Question Analysis

Results Announcement on: coming Monday

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