Law of Property Test

Result

Law of Property Test - 1

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 / -0.25

Principle: Copyright law protects only work. 'Work 'means cinemato graphic film but does not include performance by an actor in a cine matographic film.
Facts: Alia Bhatt acted in a movie

A
The acting of Alia Bhatt can be protected under copyright law as professional work

B
The acting of Alia Bhatt cannot be protected under copyright law

C
The acting of Alia Bhatt can be protected under copyright law only as an artistic work

D
The acting of Alia Bhatt can be protected as film producer 's work

Solution

In the present case, the acting of Alia Bhatt cannot be protected under copyright law. The object of copyright law is to support creators, writers, specialists and fashioners to make unique works by compensating them with the select appropriate for a restricted period to misuse the work for the fiscal increase.
Federal copyright law protects original creative works such as paintings, writing, architecture, movies, software, photos, dance, and music. A work must meet certain minimum requirements to qualify for copyright protection. The length of protection also varies depending on when the work was created or first published.
Question 2
1 / -0.25

Principle: One who dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use or sells any movable property belonging to another, is guilty of the offence of misappropriation.
Facts: 'A 'takes property belonging to 'Z 'out of Z 's possession, in good faith, believing when he takes it, that the property belongs to himself. Subsequently, 'A ', on discovering his mistake, without disclosing the actual facts, dishonestly sells the property to a stranger.

A
'A 'may be guilty of theft but not for misappropriation

B
'A 'is guilty of an offence of misappropriation

C
'A 'is not guilty because when he took the property, he believed in good faith that it belonged to him

D
'A 'is not guilty as the property can be recovered from the stranger

Solution

Intentionally taking someone 's property thinking it 's our property is merely an offence . Misappropriation is the deliberate, illegal utilization of the property, thoughts, or assets of someone else for one 's own utilization or other unapproved reason, particularly by an open official, a trustee of a trust, an agent or chairman of a dead individual 's home or by any individual with a guardian obligation to think about and secure another 's advantages.
Question 3
1 / -0.25

Principle: Consent is a good defence in a civil action for tort but the act should be the same for which consent was given.
Facts: 'B 'was formally invited by 'A 'to his house. 'B 'after sitting for some time in drawing room, moved to the bed room of the house. 'A 'used 'B 'for trespass.

A
'B 'has interfered with privacy of 'A '

B
'B 'has committed no trespass as he entered the house with 'A 's consent

C
'B 'has offended 'A 'by moving to bed room

D
'B 'has committed trespass as there was no consent of 'A 'for entry in the Bed room

Solution

B has not committed tresoass in above case as A has invited B in his house . And , bedroom is just a part of his house . B can enter his house without any bad intention to cause injury or physical harm . Trespass can be determined as the illegal action done legitimately and deliberately to make the mischief another property can be named as trespass. It is of two sorts of common and criminal wrong. It is so on the grounds that it can have two various types of wounds for example it can prompt the infringement of human rights which prompts the harms .
Question 4
1 / -0.25

Principle: A person is said to have committed assault when an apprehension is caused in the mind of a person that he is about to use physical force against his body.
Facts: 'A 'abuses 'B 'while he was sitting in a moving train, by aggressively shaking his fists when 'B 'was standing on the railway platform at a distance.

A
'A 'has caused apprehension of assult in the mind of 'B '

B
'A 'has committed assault against 'B '

C
A has not committed assault against 'B '

D
'A 'has caused fear of assault in the mind of 'B '

Solution

A has not committed assault against B. As ,there was no physical contact between them . He don 't have any intention to hurt a and even no physical contraction is present .Assault is defined as an act to cause harm to another or causing physical injury to another .
Question 5
1 / -0.25

Principle: An agreement may be entered into orally or in writing, or by conduct.
Facts: 'A 'went to the shop of 'B 'and picked a toothbrush and gave a cheque of Rupees twenty to 'B 'and left the shop.

A
Payment of toothbrush cannot be made through a cheque

B
'A 'did not enter into an agreement with 'B '

C
'A 'should have carried a currency note of Rupees twenty to make the payment

D
There was an agreement between 'A 'and 'B '

Solution

In the above case , there 's an agreement as the price is paid for the item he purchased whether it 's cash or cheque . The main element for an agreement is consideration , which is present in this case for the parties as the toothbrush for one party and cheque for another party . The practical consequence of integration is that its scattered parts , in their former and inchoate shape .
Question 6
1 / -0.25

The question consist of two statements, one labelled as PRINCIPLE and other as FACT. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.
PRINCIPLE: Nuisance as a tort (civil wrong) means an unlawful interference with a person 's use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it.
FACT: During the scarcity of onions, long queues were made outside the defendant 's shop who having a license to sell fruits and vegetables used to sell only 1 Kg. of onion per ration card. The queues extended on to the highway and also caused some obstruction to the neighboring shops. The neighboring shopkeepers brought an action for nuisance against the defendant.

A
The defendant is liable for nuisance

B
The defendant was not liable for nuisance

C
The defendant was liable under the principle of strict liability

D
The plaintiff 's suit should be decreed in his favour

Solution

The defendant is liable for nuisance as it was his duty to manage the queues of customers that was effecting the neighbouring shops.
Nuisance, in law, is a human action or a physical condition that is destructive or hostile to other people and offers ascend to a reason for the activity. An open irritation made in an open spot or on open land, or influencing the ethics, security, or soundness of the network, is viewed as an offence against the state.
Hence, A is the correct option.
Question 7
1 / -0.25

The question consist of two statements, one labelled as PRINCIPLE and other as FACT. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.
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 the 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 be liable, because Sanjay was in the course of employment at the time of accident

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

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

D
None of the above.

Solution

Normally, the tortfeasor is liable for his tort. But in some cases, a person may be held liable for the tort committed by another. A master is vicariously liable for the tort of his servant, principal for the tort of his agent and partners for the tort of a partner. This is known as vicarious liability in tort.
In a Master-Servant relationship, the master employs the services of the servant and he works on the command of master, and thus, a special relationship exists between the two, and in case of a tort committed by the servant, his master is also held liable.
The following are the essential conditions to be followed for the vicarious liability of master to arise: –
1. The servant has committed an act which amounts to a tort;
2. Such a tortious act is committed by the servant during the course of his employment under the master.
In the above case, given that Sanjay was an employee of Brookebond and Co., the company shall be liable to compensate for damages to Ruhina. Hence, option (A) is correct.
Question 8
1 / -0.25

The question consist of two statements, one labelled as PRINCIPLE and other as FACT. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.
PRINCIPLE : Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person 's consent moves that property, such taking is said to commit theft.
FACT: RAMU cuts down a tree on RINKU 'S ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of RINKU 's possession without RINKU 's constant. A could not take the tree away.

A
RAMU can be prosecuted for theft

B
RAMU cannot be prosecuted for theft

C
RAMU can be prosecuted for attempt to theft

D
RAMU has neither committed theft nor attempt to commit theft.

Solution

In this case , RAMU did an offence of theft as he intentionally cut down the tree from RINKU 's ground without his consent . He is said to commit theft . 'Theft 'is defined in the section 378 of IPC . Theft is an offense where portable property of an individual is removed without his assent .
Question 9
1 / -0.25

Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforces only at the option of the party whose consent was not free.
Facts: A obtains the consent of 'B 'to enter into an agreement by putting a gun on the head of B 's girlfriend.

A
'B 'can enforce the agreement

B
'B 'cannot enforce the agreement

C
Neither 'A 'nor 'B 'can enforce the agreement

D
'A 'can enforce the agreement

Solution

'B 'can enforce the agreement.
The clear illustration is consent obtained by point of a pistol , or by threatening to cause hurt. It is clear that coercion as thus defined implies a committing or threatening to commit some act which is a contract to law. Hence this agreement is void on the exception of B as he can either uphold the contract or reject it. Like in the case of Chikham Amiraju V Chikham Seshamma.
Question 10
1 / -0.25

Principle: Consent is a good defence for civil action in tort. But consent must include both knowledge of risk and assumption of risk, i.e., readiness to bear harm.
Facts: A lady passenger was aware that the driver of the cab, in which she opted to travel was little intoxicated. The cab met with an accident and lady got injured.

A
Driver can take the plea that he was lightly intoxicated

B
Lady is not entitled to claim compensation as she had knowledge of the risk

C
Lady is entitled to claim compensation as she only knew about risk and there was no assumption of risk

D
Lady can refuse to pay the fare as she suffered injuries

Solution

She was aware of the risk , as the driver of the cab was intoxicated . But ,there are no chances of an accident it 's a natural phenomenon . As she got injured she is liable for the compensation from the driver . Applying the Consent Defense Consent is an agreed safeguard that might be accessible to you in the event that you are being sued for a deliberate tort.

User

Question Analysis

Correct -
Wrong -
Skipped -

My Perfomance

Score
-
out of -
Rank
-
out of -

Re-Attempt Weekly Quiz Competition

Law of Property Test - 1

Result

Law of Property Test - 1

Score

-

Rank

-

SHARING IS CARING

Question 1

The acting of Alia Bhatt can be protected under copyright law as professional work

The acting of Alia Bhatt cannot be protected under copyright law

The acting of Alia Bhatt can be protected under copyright law only as an artistic work

The acting of Alia Bhatt can be protected as film producer 's work

Solution

Question 2

'A 'may be guilty of theft but not for misappropriation

'A 'is guilty of an offence of misappropriation

'A 'is not guilty because when he took the property, he believed in good faith that it belonged to him

'A 'is not guilty as the property can be recovered from the stranger

Solution

Question 3

'B 'has interfered with privacy of 'A '

'B 'has committed no trespass as he entered the house with 'A 's consent

'B 'has offended 'A 'by moving to bed room

'B 'has committed trespass as there was no consent of 'A 'for entry in the Bed room

Solution

Question 4

'A 'has caused apprehension of assult in the mind of 'B '

'A 'has committed assault against 'B '

A has not committed assault against 'B '

'A 'has caused fear of assault in the mind of 'B '

Solution

Question 5

Payment of toothbrush cannot be made through a cheque

'A 'did not enter into an agreement with 'B '

'A 'should have carried a currency note of Rupees twenty to make the payment

There was an agreement between 'A 'and 'B '

Solution

Question 6

The defendant is liable for nuisance

The defendant was not liable for nuisance

The defendant was liable under the principle of strict liability

The plaintiff 's suit should be decreed in his favour

Solution

Question 7

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

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

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

None of the above.

Solution

Question 8

RAMU can be prosecuted for theft

RAMU cannot be prosecuted for theft

RAMU can be prosecuted for attempt to theft

RAMU has neither committed theft nor attempt to commit theft.

Solution

Question 9

'B 'can enforce the agreement

'B 'cannot enforce the agreement

Neither 'A 'nor 'B 'can enforce the agreement

'A 'can enforce the agreement

Solution

Question 10

Driver can take the plea that he was lightly intoxicated

Lady is not entitled to claim compensation as she had knowledge of the risk

Lady is entitled to claim compensation as she only knew about risk and there was no assumption of risk

Lady can refuse to pay the fare as she suffered injuries

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.