Topics of Law Test 64

Result

Topics of Law Test 64

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

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: There are certain acts which, though harmful, are not wrongful in law; therefore, do not give legal right to bring action in law, to the person who suffers from such acts.
FACTUAL SITUATION: 'Prakash' has a rice mill. His neighbour, Shanti, sets up another rice mill and offers a tough competition to Prakash. As a consequence, Prakash's profits fall down, he brings a suit against Shanti for damages.

A
Prakash can succeed in his claim as it is a case of actual damages.

B
Prakash cannot succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of damage without infringement of any legal right.

C
Prakash can succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of damage as a result of infringement of his legal right.

D
Prakash may succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of loss to his business.

Solution

The maxim 'Damnum sine injuria' means that "no action will lie if there is actual loss or damage but there has been no infringement of legal right". Where there has been no infringement of any legal right, the mere fact of harm or loss will not render such act or omission actionable although the loss may be substantial or even irreparable. This maxim has been propounded in the above mentioned case law as there was no infringement of Prakash's legal right.
Question 2
1 / -0

LEGAL 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.
FACTUAL SITUATION: 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

Injuria Sine Damno, is a legal doctrine in law of torts and is related to damages. The meaning of the above maxim is infringement of an absolute private right without any actual loss or damage. The actual damage means physical loss in terms of money, comfort, health, etc. It is sufficient to show the violation a legal right in which case the law will presume damage. Hence, P will be successful in bringing an action to claim damages.
Question 3
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: The occupier of a premise owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitors.

FACTUAL SITUATION: Lalit was running a dairy from his house. People used a part of his farm as shortcut to get to a nearby railway station. Lalit who did not approve of this, put up a notice that "Trespassers will be prosecuted". However, since a number of these people were also his customers he tolerated them. One day a person who was using this short cut was attacked by a bull belonging to the farm. The injured person filed a suit against him

DECIDE.

A
Lalit is not liable as he had given a clear notice.

B
Lalit is liable for having kept a bull on his farm

C
Lalit, is not liable to the people other than his customers

D
Lalit is liable because in fact he allowed the people to use his premises
Solution
- In the landmark case of Wheat v Lacons the House of Lords laid down a duty of care to be exercised by the occupier of a premise towards his invitees and visitors. The case was decided as per the definition of occupier in the Occupiers Liability Act of 1957.
- In this case, the visitors were referred to as persons who were either entrants as of right or by contractual obligation or lawfully present or ones present unlawfully but are making preparations to leave after being aware of being unlawfully present in the premises. A trespasser is not included in this definition. In another landmark case of Revill v Newberry it was held that a trespasser (not invited to the premise expressly) cannot sue the occupier for any damage or loss caused to him. In the present instance, the notice is sufficient to declare entrants into the farm as trespassers.
Question 4
1 / -0

The offence of "Defamation" is ____________.

A
A Crime

B
A Tort

C
Both (a) and (b)

D
Not a legal offence.
Question 5
1 / -0

PRINCIPLE: Damage without the violation of a legal right is not actionable in a court of law. If the interference with the rights of another person in not unlawful or unauthorized, but a necessary consequence of the exercise of defendant's own lawful rights, no action should lie.
FACTS: There was an estbalished school ('ES') in a particular locality. Subsequently, a new school ('NS') was set up in the same locality, which charged lower fee on account of which people started patronising the new school. Because of the competition 'ES' had to reduce its fees. 'ES' filed a case against 'NS' saying that 'NS' had caused it ('ES') financial loss and thus, claimed compensation.
Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

A
Since no legal right of 'ES' had been violated, therefore, as such, no compensation could be granted.

B
Since damage is caused to 'ES', therefore, it should be awarded compensation.

C
'ES' should be awarded compensation, as opening of school in competition is not good.

D
No compensation could be granted, as reduction in fees is good for the public.

Solution

The maxim 'Damnum sine injuria' means that "no action will lie if there is actual loss or damage but there has been no infringement of legal right". Where there has been no infringement of any legal right, the mere fact of harm or loss will not render such act or omission actionable although the loss may be substantial or even irreparable. This maxim has been propounded in the above mentioned case law as no legal right of 'ES' was violated. Hence, no compensation should be granted.
Question 6
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid act or omission which he can foresee would injure his neighbour, the neighbour for this purpose is any person whom he should have in his mind as likely to be affected by his act.

FACTUAL SITUATION: Krish, while driving a car at a high speed in a crowded road, knocked down a cyclist. The cyclist died on the spot with a lot of blood spilling around, Lekha, a pregnant woman passing by, suffered from a nervous shock, leading to absorption. Lekha filed a suit against Krish claiming damages.

DECIDE.

A
Krish will be liable to pay damages because he owed a duty of reasonable care to everybody on the road including Krish.

B
Krish will not be liable to pay damages because he could not have foreseen Lekha suffering from nervous shock as a result of his act.

C
Krish will be liable to pay damages to Lekha because he failed to drive carefully.

D
None of the above.

Solution

Deducing from the above principle damages can be claimed only in cases of breach of legal obligation to take care which results in a legal injury (which can be foreseen).
In the above situation the damage caused to Lekha could not be foreseen by a man of ordinary prudence (in this case krish) and therefore no damages can be claimed by Lekha.
Question 7
1 / -0

Law of Torts deals with _____________.

A
Defamation

B
Trespass

C
Negligence

D
All of the above.
Question 8
1 / -0

PRINCIPLE: Ignorance of law excuses no one.

FACTS: 'X' fails to file his income-tax returns for a considerable number of years. The Income Tax department serves upon him a 'show-cause notice' as to why proceedings should not be initiated against him for the recovery of the income tax due from him with interest and penalty.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

A
X may defend himself by taking the plea that his legal advisor had not advised him to file the return.

B
X would have to pay the due, as ignorance of law and failure to comply with law is not legal ground of defence.

C
X may defend himself successfully by taking the plea that he was unaware of any such a law being in force.

D
None of the above.

Solution

The above case is based on the doctrine called Ignorantia juris non excusat, a Latin doctrine, which means ignorance of the law is no excuse. It is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because one was unaware of its content.
Question 9
1 / -0

PRINCIPLE: Vicarious liability is the liability of the Master or Principal for the tort committed by his servant or agent, provided the tort is committed in the course of employment. The Master or Principal is not liable for private wrongs of the servant/agent.

FACTS: 'X' hands over some cash money at his house to Y, who is his (X's) neighbour and is also, cashier in a bank, to be deposited in A's account in the bank. Instead of depositing the money, 'Y' misappropriates it.

Which of the following statements depicts correct legal position in this given situation?

A
The bank would not be liable because 'Y' did not do commit wrong in the course of his employment.

B
The bank would be vicariously liable because 'Y' was the employee of the bank.

C
The bank would not be liable because 'Y' did not do any wrong.

D
The bank would be liable because 'Y' acted as bank's agent.

Solution

Vicarious liability can be defined as a legal doctrine that assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not cause the injury who has a particular relationship to the person who did act negligently.
An act is deemed to be done in the course of employment if it is either
(a) wrongful act authorised by master.
(b) wrongful & unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by master that is unauthorised in the way act is done by the servant.
Question 10
1 / -0

PRINCIPLE: A person has no legal remedy for an injury caused by an act to which he has consented.

FACTS: 'R', a cricket enthusiast, purchases a ticket to watch a T20 match organised by the Indian Premier League (IPL). During the match, a ball struck for six hit 'R' on his body and injures him. He sues IPL for compensation for the medical expenses.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

A
R should be compensated as he purchased the ticket to get entertainment and not to get injured.

B
R would fail in his action, as he voluntarily exposed himself to the risk.

C
IPL would be liable as it did not ensure that the spectators were protected from the risk of such injuries.

D
None of the above.

Solution

The above case is based on a doctrine called Volenti non fit injuria which is a Latin phrase which denotes that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they will not be able to bring a claim against the other party in tort. 'Volenti' is also known as "voluntary assumption of risk."

User

Question Analysis

Correct -
Wrong -
Skipped -

My Perfomance

Score
-
out of -
Rank
-
out of -

Re-Attempt Weekly Quiz Competition

Topics of Law Test 64

Result

Topics of Law Test 64

Score

-

Rank

-

SHARING IS CARING

Question 1

Prakash can succeed in his claim as it is a case of actual damages.

Prakash cannot succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of damage without infringement of any legal right.

Prakash can succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of damage as a result of infringement of his legal right.

Prakash may succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of loss to his business.

Solution

Question 2

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 3

Lalit is not liable as he had given a clear notice.

Lalit is liable for having kept a bull on his farm

Lalit, is not liable to the people other than his customers

Lalit is liable because in fact he allowed the people to use his premises

Solution

Question 4

A Crime

A Tort

Both (a) and (b)

Not a legal offence.

Question 5

Since no legal right of 'ES' had been violated, therefore, as such, no compensation could be granted.

Since damage is caused to 'ES', therefore, it should be awarded compensation.

'ES' should be awarded compensation, as opening of school in competition is not good.

No compensation could be granted, as reduction in fees is good for the public.

Solution

Question 6

Krish will be liable to pay damages because he owed a duty of reasonable care to everybody on the road including Krish.

Krish will not be liable to pay damages because he could not have foreseen Lekha suffering from nervous shock as a result of his act.

Krish will be liable to pay damages to Lekha because he failed to drive carefully.

None of the above.

Solution

Question 7

Defamation

Trespass

Negligence

All of the above.

Question 8

X may defend himself by taking the plea that his legal advisor had not advised him to file the return.

X would have to pay the due, as ignorance of law and failure to comply with law is not legal ground of defence.

X may defend himself successfully by taking the plea that he was unaware of any such a law being in force.

None of the above.

Solution

Question 9

The bank would not be liable because 'Y' did not do commit wrong in the course of his employment.

The bank would be vicariously liable because 'Y' was the employee of the bank.

The bank would not be liable because 'Y' did not do any wrong.

The bank would be liable because 'Y' acted as bank's agent.

Solution

Question 10

R should be compensated as he purchased the ticket to get entertainment and not to get injured.

R would fail in his action, as he voluntarily exposed himself to the risk.

IPL would be liable as it did not ensure that the spectators were protected from the risk of such injuries.

None of the above.

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.