Topics of Law Test 65

Result

Topics of Law Test 65

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: 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.

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. This doctrine arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. Therefore, in the above case, firm being the principal and the partners being its agents, the firm will be held vicariously liable.
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.

Solution

Damages need to paid when legal right has been violated even without any actual damage.Such damages are called nominal damages.
In the above situation since A's legal right has been violated (even without any actual damage)compensation should be granted.
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.

Solution

In the above situation the chemist induced Jyoti to buy the hair conditioner even after knowing about the harmful ingredients (which were already listed on the bottle) and its side effects.Therefore he is liable.
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.

Solution

Trespass to the person is a tort which involves wrongs being done to an individual. It also refers to interference with another person's land or personal property. A common defense that can be used if one were sued for trespass is that one were given consent by the owner of the land or property. In the above case, consent was absent. Hence, trespass has been committed.

In the above case.A has committed trespass.
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.

Solution

The above case based on latin phrase, a common law doctrine 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." Hence, M company will not be liable since A consented.
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.

Solution

As per the principle of occupier's liability laid down in the case of Wheat v Lacon an occupier owes a reasonable duty of care to all visitors who include entrants as of right, contractually present on the premises, lawfully present or present unlawfully but preparing to leave on realizing of unlawful presence. However, as was established in another case of Burton Construction and Shipbuilding Co. v Broussard, a person may be invitee to one part of the premises but not to the other parts. So, an occupier is liable only to the extent of injury sustained by the user while using the area designated for his accommodation or use. No liability for damage is sustainable when it cannot be reasonably concluded that the visitor would attempt to go to that place. In this case, Radhika could not have assumed that her brother would attempt to go to the boundary walls.
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.

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.

In the above case M will not be liable as the wrongful act 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

Solution

Res ispa loquitur is a latin doctrine in common law of torts which infers negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved. In this doctrine, the elements of duty of care, breach, and causation are inferred from an injury that does not ordinarily occur without negligence. Hence, in the above situation, Seema need not prove surgeon's negligence. The presence of abdominal pack in her abdomen speaks for itself as sufficient proof for negligence.
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
Solution
- It was established in the case of Rylands v Fletcher that if a person keeps dangerous thing on his property and it escapes, the person incurs strict liability as the standard of care established in such circumstances is quite high. In the case of Crowhurst v Amersham Burial Board, where a yew tree in the defendant's land had its branches projected in the land of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's horse died because of chewing the leaves, the defendant was held liable on the basis of principle of strict liability.
- Similarly in the present case, the projections of poisonous leaves of A's tree were let into a part of B's land and was not kept within A's area as a result of which B's cattle ate it and died. Hence, A is liable to B because projection of branches with poisonous leaves amounts to escape.
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

Solution

Injuria sine damnum means injury of legal rights without damage. It basically states that infringement of an absolute private right without any actual loss or damage. Here, physical damages or actual loss means loss or damage in terms of health, money, etc. Therefore, plaintiff will compensated if his legal rights are violated even though there is no actual damage/loss is suffered.This maxim has been explained in the above mentioned case as Ms A's right was violated.

User

Question Analysis

Correct -
Wrong -
Skipped -

My Perfomance

Score
-
out of -
Rank
-
out of -

Re-Attempt Weekly Quiz Competition

Topics of Law Test 65

Result

Topics of Law Test 65

Score

-

Rank

-

SHARING IS CARING

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.

Solution

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.

Solution

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.

Solution

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.

Solution

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.

Solution

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.

Solution

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.

Solution

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

Solution

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

Solution

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

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.