Law of Torts Test-1

Question 1
1 / -0.25

Principle: When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have made a proposal.
Fact: Ramchandra telegraphed to Shyam Sunder, writing: “Will you sell me your Rolls Royce car? Telegram the lowest cash price.”Shyam Sunder also replied by telegram: “Lowest price for car is Rs. 20 lakh.”Ramanuj immediately sent his consent through telegram stating: “I agree to buy the car for Rs. 20 lakh asked by you.”Shyam Sunder refused to sell the car.

A
He cannot refuse to sell the car because the contract has already been made.

B
He can refuse to sell the car because it was only invitation to offer and not the real offer.

C
It was not a valid offer because willingness to enter into a contract was absent.

D
None of these.

Question 2
1 / -0.25

PRINCIPLE: "Nobody shall unlawfully interfere with a person 's use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it. The use or enjoyment, envisaged herein, should be normal and reasonable taking into account surrounding situation."

FACTS: Jeevan and Pavan were neighbours in a residential locality. Pavan started a typing class in a part of his house and his typing sound disturbed Jeevan who could not put up with any kind of continuous noise. He filed a suit against Pavan.

A
Pavan is liable, because he should not have started typing class in his house

B
Pavan is liable, because as a neighbour, he should have realised Jeevan 's delicate nature

C
None of these

D
Pavan is not liable, because typing sound did not disturb anyone else other than Jeevan

Question 3
1 / -0.25

Jill ran five miles yesterday, and right before she was done she fell and cut her arm so badly it required stitches. Today, Carl bumped into Jill in the office because he was carelessly not watching where he was going as he was spinning around and around in a hallway. The impact caused Jill ’s stitches to bleed. Jill then sued Carl for negligence, trying to recover the cost of her doctor ’s bill. Jill ’s negligence will not hold in court because:

A
It lacks a proximate cause.

B
It lacks duty of care

C
It lacks a breach of duty.

D
It lacks actual harm.

Question 4
1 / -0.25

PRINCIPLE: Any direct physical interference with the goods in somebody ’s possession without lawful justification is called trespass to goods.
FACTS: A purchased a car from a person who had no little to it and had sent it to a garage for repair. X, believing, wrongly, that the car was his, removed it from the garage.

A
X can be held responsible for trespass to goods.

B
X cannot be held responsible for trespass to good as he was under a wrong belief.

C
X has not committed any wrong.

D
None of the above.

Question 5
1 / -0.25

The Railway authorities allowed a train to be over-crowded. In consequence, a legitimate passenger, Mr. X got his pocket picked. Choose appropriate answer-

A
Mr. X can sue the railway authorities for the loss suffered.

B
Mr. X cannot sue because he had given his consent to travel in over-crowded train.

C
Mr. X cannot sue railway authorities because there was no infringement of his legal right and mere fact that the loss was caused does not give rise to a cause of action

D
None of the above.

Question 6
1 / -0.25

PRINCIPLE: A master is liable for the acts committed by his servant in the course of employment.
FACT: Sanjay is a driver working in Brookebond and Co. One day, the Manager asked him to drop a customer at the airport and get back at the earliest. On his way back from the airport, he happened to see his fianc éRuhina waiting for a bus to go home. He offered to drop her at home, which happened to be close to his office. She got into the car and soon thereafter; the car somersaulted due to negligence of Sanjay. Ruhina was thrown out of the car and suffered multiple injuries. She seeks compensation from Brookebond and Co.

A
Brookebond and Co., shall not be liable, Sanjay was not in the course of employment when he took Ruhina inside the car.

B
Brookebond and Co., shall be liable, because Sanjay was in the course of employment at the time of accident

C
Ruhina got into the car at her own risk, and therefore, she cannot sue anybody.

D
None of the above.

Question 7
1 / -0.25

PRINCIPLE: The transferor of goods cannot pass a better title than what he himself possesses.
FACTS: X sells a stolen bike to Y. Y buys it in good faith.
Q. As regards the title to the bike which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

A
The real owner cannot get back the bike from Y.

B
Y will get no title as transferor ’s (X ‟s) title was defective.

C
Y will get good title as he is a bona fide buyer.

D
Y will get good title, as has not committed any wrong (stolen the bik

Question 8
1 / -0.25

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 organized by the Indian Premier League (IPL). During the match, a ball struck for six hits R on his body and injures him. He sues IPL for compensation for the medical expenses.
Q. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

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

Question 9
1 / -0.25

In an action for trespass, burden to prove justification is on the …………………….

A
defendant

B
plaintiff

C
either a or b

D
Both a and b

Question 10
1 / -0.25

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 is not unlawful or unauthorized, but a necessary consequence of the exercise of the defendant ’s own lawful rights, no action should lie.
FACTS: There was an established school (ES) in a particular locality. Subsequently, a new school (NS) was set up in the same locality which charged lower fees, on account of which people started patronizing 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 a financial loss and, thus, claimed compensation.
Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

A
Since no legal right of ES has 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.

Submit Test

Law of Torts Te...

Question 1

He cannot refuse to sell the car because the contract has already been made.

He can refuse to sell the car because it was only invitation to offer and not the real offer.

It was not a valid offer because willingness to enter into a contract was absent.

None of these.

Question 2

Pavan is liable, because he should not have started typing class in his house

Pavan is liable, because as a neighbour, he should have realised Jeevan 's delicate nature

None of these

Pavan is not liable, because typing sound did not disturb anyone else other than Jeevan

Question 3

It lacks a proximate cause.

It lacks duty of care

It lacks a breach of duty.

It lacks actual harm.

Question 4

X can be held responsible for trespass to goods.

X cannot be held responsible for trespass to good as he was under a wrong belief.

X has not committed any wrong.

None of the above.

Question 5

Mr. X can sue the railway authorities for the loss suffered.

Mr. X cannot sue because he had given his consent to travel in over-crowded train.

Mr. X cannot sue railway authorities because there was no infringement of his legal right and mere fact that the loss was caused does not give rise to a cause of action

None of the above.

Question 6

Brookebond and Co., shall not be liable, Sanjay was not in the course of employment when he took Ruhina inside the car.

Brookebond and Co., shall be liable, because Sanjay was in the course of employment at the time of accident

Ruhina got into the car at her own risk, and therefore, she cannot sue anybody.

None of the above.

Question 7

The real owner cannot get back the bike from Y.

Y will get no title as transferor ’s (X ‟s) title was defective.

Y will get good title as he is a bona fide buyer.

Y will get good title, as has not committed any wrong (stolen the bik

Question 8

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

Question 9

defendant

plaintiff

either a or b

Both a and b

Question 10

Since no legal right of ES has 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.

User

Question Analysis

Results Announcement on: coming Monday

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