Topics of Law Test 65

Question 1
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: The master/principal is liable for all acts done by his duly appointed servant/agent for all acts done by him lawfully in the course of his employment.

FACTUAL SITUATION: A, B and C carried on a business in partnership. While making a deal with another company, B bribed the clerk there. Is the partnership firm vicariously liable?

DECIDE.

A
No, as bribing is not a course or employment of the partners.

B
Yes, as partners are agent of the firm.

C
Yes, as B can be said to have implied authority for the same.

D
No, as this act was not authorised by the others.

Question 2
1 / -0

PRINCIPLE: Whenever there is an invasion of a legal right, the person in whom the right is vested, is entitled to bring an action though he has suffered no actual loss or harm, and may recover damages (compensation).

FACTS: 'A' was qualified voter for the Lok Sabha election. However, a returning officer wrongfully refused to take A's vote. In spite of such wrongful refusal, the candidate, for whom, 'A' wanted to vote, won the election. But, 'A' brought an action for damages.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

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

B
Since legal right of 'A' had been violated, therefore, compensation should be granted.

C
No compensation could be granted, as 'A' had suffered no loss as his candidate won the election.

D
Since no fundamental right of 'A' had been violated, therefore, as such, no compensation.

Question 3
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A person is responsible for that which he could have reasonably foreseen or prevented.

FACTUAL SITUATION: A chemist sold a hair conditioner to Jyoti. The conditioner was locally manufactured and the contents, harmful chemicals, were listed on the bottle. The chemist, however, represented to Jyoti that the chemicals used were harmless and beneficial for the hair. On using it. Jyoti's hair got badly damaged and she had to get a hair treatment done for the same. Jyoti filed a complaint against the chemist.
Will the chemist be liable?

DECIDE.

A
Yes, as he should have informed Jyoti that the ingredients are not known.

B
Yes, as he was aware of the side effects of the ingredients.

C
Not liable because it was the buyer's duty to be aware about the product she is buying.

D
Not liable as it is a natural tendency of shopkeepers to exaggerate the virtues of the product they are selling.

Question 4
1 / -0

PRINCIPLE: Trespass to land means direct interference with the possession of land without lawful justification. Trespass could be committed either by a person himself entering the land of another person or doing the same through some tangible object(s).

FACTS: 'A' throws some stones upon his neighbour's (B's) premises.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

A
'A' has committed trespass.

B
'A' has not committed trespass, as he has not entered 'B's premises.

C
'A' has committed nuisance.

D
None of the above.

Question 5
1 / -0

PRINCIPLE: When a person voluntarily agrees to suffer some harm, he is not allowed to complain for that.

FACTS: 'A' was one of the spectators at a formula one car race, being held at Gurgaon, on a track owned by one 'M' company. During the race, there was a collision between two racing cars, one of which was thrown away amidst spectators, thereby causing an injury to 'A'. 'A' claims damages for the injuries caused to him.

DECIDE.

A
M company will be liable to pay damages because the injury was caused during the race organized by it.

B
M company will not be liable to pay damages because A had come to see the race on his own will.

C
M company will not be liable to pay damages because the collision between the cars was beyond its control.

D
M company will be liable to pay damages because it has earned huge revenue by way of sale of tickets for the event.

Question 6
1 / -0

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

FACTUAL SITUATION: Radhika's brother, Akash, had come to visit at her place. After seeing her wealth. Akash decided to commit theft that night. While he was trying to escape that night he got electrocuted by the wires, which were fixed on the boundary walls. Akash plans sue Radhika. Will his claim succeed?

A
Yes, because in Indian tradition, guests are like Gods.

B
No, because one has to be himself cautious about his safety.

C
Yes, because it is the occupiers' duty to take care of its visitors.

D
No, because he himself is guilty of theft. He is no longer an invitee or visitor.

Question 7
1 / -0

PRINCIPLE: Master is liable for the wrongful acts committed by his servant, provided the acts are committed during the course of employment. However, the master is not liable if the wrongful act committed by his servant has no connection, whatsoever, with the servant's contract of employment.

FACTS: 'D' is a driver employed by 'M', who is the owner of a company. During the lunch time 'D' goes to a close by tea shop to have a cup of tea. There he ('D') picks up fight with the tea shop owner 'T', which resulted in some damage to his shop. 'T' wants to sue 'M' for claiming compensation for the damage caused by the fight.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

A
'M' will be liable because 'D' is his servant.

B
Both 'M' and 'D' will be liable.

C
'M' will not be liable because the wrongful act (picking up fight) was not committed in the course of D's employment.

D
'M; will be liable albeit the wrongful act (picking up fight) was not committed in the course of D's employment.

Question 8
1 / -0

PRINCIPLE: Res ipsa loquitur i.e. the thing speaks for itself.

FACTS: Seema got herself operated for the removal of her uterus in the defendant's hospital, as she was diagnosed having a cyst in one of the ovaries. Due to negligence of the surgeon, who performed the operation, abdominal pack was left in her abdomen.The same was removed by a second surgery.

DECIDE.

A
Surgeon cannot be held responsible because it is merely human error

B
Surgeon can be held responsible but Seema will have to prove it the Court of Law that the surgeon was grossly negligent

C
Surgeon will be responsible and Seema need not to prove surgeon's negligence because presence of abdominal pack in her abdomen is sufficient proof thereof

D
None of the above

Question 9
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: If a person brings anything dangerous on his land which may prove harmful if escapes, then that person must keep it at his peril. If a man fails to do so then he must be made responsible to all natural consequences of its escape.
FACTS: A grows poisonous trees on his own land and lets the projection of the branches of his trees on the B's land. B's cattle die because of nibbling the poisonous leaves.
DECIDE.

A
A is not liable to B because B must have taken due care to control his cattle

B
A is not liable to B because trees are still on A's land and there is no escape of dangerous thing

C
A is liable to B because projection of branches with poisonous leaves amounts to escape

D
A is not liable to B because he is not acting negligently

Question 10
1 / -0

PRINCIPLE: Damages are the money recompense, as far as money can do, for the violation of a right.
FACTS: A, an Indian citizen, having a right to vote, was not allowed to cast his vote on the polling booth, by the returning officer. Name of A was mentioned in the voter's list. A has also reported at the polling booth in time. However, the candidate in whose favour A would have cast his vote won the election. A filed a suit claiming damages.

A
A will be entitled to damages

B
A will be entitled to only nominal damages

C
A will be entitled to exemplary damages

D
None of these

Submit Test

Topics of Law T...

Question 1

No, as bribing is not a course or employment of the partners.

Yes, as partners are agent of the firm.

Yes, as B can be said to have implied authority for the same.

No, as this act was not authorised by the others.

Question 2

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

Since legal right of 'A' had been violated, therefore, compensation should be granted.

No compensation could be granted, as 'A' had suffered no loss as his candidate won the election.

Since no fundamental right of 'A' had been violated, therefore, as such, no compensation.

Question 3

Yes, as he should have informed Jyoti that the ingredients are not known.

Yes, as he was aware of the side effects of the ingredients.

Not liable because it was the buyer's duty to be aware about the product she is buying.

Not liable as it is a natural tendency of shopkeepers to exaggerate the virtues of the product they are selling.

Question 4

'A' has committed trespass.

'A' has not committed trespass, as he has not entered 'B's premises.

'A' has committed nuisance.

None of the above.

Question 5

M company will be liable to pay damages because the injury was caused during the race organized by it.

M company will not be liable to pay damages because A had come to see the race on his own will.

M company will not be liable to pay damages because the collision between the cars was beyond its control.

M company will be liable to pay damages because it has earned huge revenue by way of sale of tickets for the event.

Question 6

Yes, because in Indian tradition, guests are like Gods.

No, because one has to be himself cautious about his safety.

Yes, because it is the occupiers' duty to take care of its visitors.

No, because he himself is guilty of theft. He is no longer an invitee or visitor.

Question 7

'M' will be liable because 'D' is his servant.

Both 'M' and 'D' will be liable.

'M' will not be liable because the wrongful act (picking up fight) was not committed in the course of D's employment.

'M; will be liable albeit the wrongful act (picking up fight) was not committed in the course of D's employment.

Question 8

Surgeon cannot be held responsible because it is merely human error

Surgeon can be held responsible but Seema will have to prove it the Court of Law that the surgeon was grossly negligent

Surgeon will be responsible and Seema need not to prove surgeon's negligence because presence of abdominal pack in her abdomen is sufficient proof thereof

None of the above

Question 9

A is not liable to B because B must have taken due care to control his cattle

A is not liable to B because trees are still on A's land and there is no escape of dangerous thing

A is liable to B because projection of branches with poisonous leaves amounts to escape

A is not liable to B because he is not acting negligently

Question 10

A will be entitled to damages

A will be entitled to only nominal damages

A will be entitled to exemplary damages

None of these

User

Question Analysis

Results Announcement on: coming Monday

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