Topics of Law Test 82

Question 1
1 / -0

An agreement made with the intention of entering into legal relationship gives rise to contractual liabilities.

Factual Situation: X invited Y and this family to dinner on a certain night. Y accepted X's invitation. On the date fixed,Y drove with his family from Sector 14 to Industrial Area and found his house locked.They waited up to 9.30 p.m. but the hosts did not turn up.They left the place and had their meals in Piccadilly in Sector 17. The cost of meal came to Rs.100.
Issue: Can Y recover the amount?

A
No, Y cannot recover the amount from X because agreement was purely social in nature and there was no intention to create legal relationship.

B
Y can recover the amount because it is responsible for all botheration caused to Y, so X is liable.

C
Neither (a) nor (b).

D
Both (a) and (b).

Question 2
1 / -0

A ___ is a transaction under which goods are delivered by one person to another for some purpose, upon a contract that they be returned or disposed of as directed after the purpose accomplished.

A
Pledge

B
Bailment

C
Sale

D
All of the above

Question 3
1 / -0

The general rule is that only owner can create a valid pledge. However, even non-owner can create a valid pledge. Decide.

A
A mercantile agent who is in possession of goods or of document of title to goods, with the consent of owner

B
When the pawnor has obtained possession of goods under a voidable contract by way of fraud, coercion, etc

C
Co-owner is in possession of goods with the consent of other co-owner

D
All of the above

Question 4
1 / -0

If an agent commits a tort or other wrong (e.g., misrepresentation or fraud) during his agency, whilst acting within the scope of his actual or apparent authority, the principal is not liable.

A
True

B
False

C
Partly true

D
None of the above

Question 5
1 / -0

C stayed in a room in a hotel. The hotel-keeper knew that the room was in an insecure condition. While C was dining in the dining room, some articles were stolen from his room. State whether hotel-keeper was liable for the loss?

A
Yes. Hotel-keeper is liable for the loss as he should have taken reasonable steps to rectify the in secured condition of the rooms.

B
No. Hotel-keeper is not liable for the loss even if do not take reasonable steps to rectify the in secured condition of the rooms.

C
Partly yes

D
None of the above

Question 6
1 / -0

An authority is said to be ______ when it is to be inferred from the circumstances of the case, and things spoken or written, or the ordinary course of dealings.

A
Express

B
Implied

C
(A) or (B)

D
None of the above

Question 7
1 / -0

The bailee must take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a ______ would take under similar circumstances of his own goods of the same bulk, quality and value as the goods bailed.

A
Man of extra-ordinary prudence

B
Man of ordinary prudence

C
Man of ordinary economic condition

D
Man of political prudence

Question 8
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Contract is an agreement freely entered into between the parties. But when consent to an agreement is obtained by undue influence, the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Pragya had been working for a business man Anurag since the age of 18. In 2000, (aged 21) Pragya purchased a flat. In 2005, Mr. Anurag's business was facing financial difficulties, and he asked Pragya to offer up her flat as financial security against an overdraft facility for the business. In July of that year, the banks solicitors wrote to Pragya, advising that she should take independent legal advice before putting property up as a security for the debt. The bank also notified Pragya that the guarantee was unlimited in both time and financial amount. Having discussed the arrangement with Anurag, Pragya was unaware of the extent of the borrowing, but was assured that her mortgage would not be called upon, and that his properties which were also used as security would be looked at first. A charge was executed over the Pragya's property in August 2005. In 2009, Mr. Anurag's business went into liquidation and the bank formally demanded RS. 60,24,912 from Pragya. Pragya raised the defence of undue influence-stating that Mr. Anurag had induced her to enter into the agreement, and the bank had full knowledge/notice of this undue influence which should set aside the banks right to enforce the debt recovery against Pragya. Bank is contending that there is no undue influence.
Whether the consent to offer the flat as a financial security obtained through undue influence?

A
No, because Pragya was not forced by Anurag to offer her flat as a security.

B
No, because Pragya was an educated and adult employee of Anurag and she knew what she was doing.

C
Yes an employer/ employee relationship was capable of developing into such a relationship for undue influence. There was no benefit to Pragya in the agreement. The lack of benefit to one party was evidence enough.

D
No, an employer/employee relationship is not capable of developing into a relationship for undue influence.

Question 9
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: It is a case of fraud where a party to a contract knows or believes a fact to be true, but conceals it actively from the other party with a view to induce that person to enter into the contract.
FACTUAL SITUATION: While taking a life insurance policy, in reply to questions by the insurance company during the inquiry into his proposal, Zameer deliberately concealed the fact of his medical treatment for a serious ailment, which he had undergone only a few weeks ago.

A
The concealment of fact by Zameer amounted to fraud.

B
The act of Zameer amounted to innocent misrepresentation.

C
The act of Zameer did not amount to any misrepresentation.

D
The act of Zameer did not amount to fraud, as disclosing the fact would have resulted in exposure of his privacy.

Question 10
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: When a person who has made a promise to another person to do something does not fulfill his promise, the other person becomes entitled to receive from the person who did not fulfill his promises, compensation in the form of money.
FACTUAL SITUATION: 'X' made a promise to 'Y' to repair his car engine. Y made the payment for repair. After the repair, 'Y' went for a drive in the same car. While driving the car, Y met with an accident due to bursting of a tyre.

A
'X' will not be entitled to receive compensation.

B
'Y' will not be entitled to receive compensation from 'X'.

C
'X' will be entitled to receive compensation from 'Y' in the form of money.

D
'Y' will be entitled to receive compensation from 'X' in the form of money.

Submit Test

Topics of Law T...

Question 1

No, Y cannot recover the amount from X because agreement was purely social in nature and there was no intention to create legal relationship.

Y can recover the amount because it is responsible for all botheration caused to Y, so X is liable.

Neither (a) nor (b).

Both (a) and (b).

Question 2

Pledge

Bailment

Sale

All of the above

Question 3

A mercantile agent who is in possession of goods or of document of title to goods, with the consent of owner

When the pawnor has obtained possession of goods under a voidable contract by way of fraud, coercion, etc

Co-owner is in possession of goods with the consent of other co-owner

All of the above

Question 4

True

False

Partly true

None of the above

Question 5

Yes. Hotel-keeper is liable for the loss as he should have taken reasonable steps to rectify the in secured condition of the rooms.

No. Hotel-keeper is not liable for the loss even if do not take reasonable steps to rectify the in secured condition of the rooms.

Partly yes

None of the above

Question 6

Express

Implied

(A) or (B)

None of the above

Question 7

Man of extra-ordinary prudence

Man of ordinary prudence

Man of ordinary economic condition

Man of political prudence

Question 8

No, because Pragya was not forced by Anurag to offer her flat as a security.

No, because Pragya was an educated and adult employee of Anurag and she knew what she was doing.

Yes an employer/ employee relationship was capable of developing into such a relationship for undue influence. There was no benefit to Pragya in the agreement. The lack of benefit to one party was evidence enough.

No, an employer/employee relationship is not capable of developing into a relationship for undue influence.

Question 9

The concealment of fact by Zameer amounted to fraud.

The act of Zameer amounted to innocent misrepresentation.

The act of Zameer did not amount to any misrepresentation.

The act of Zameer did not amount to fraud, as disclosing the fact would have resulted in exposure of his privacy.

Question 10

'X' will not be entitled to receive compensation.

'Y' will not be entitled to receive compensation from 'X'.

'X' will be entitled to receive compensation from 'Y' in the form of money.

'Y' will be entitled to receive compensation from 'X' in the form of money.

User

Question Analysis

Results Announcement on: coming Monday

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