Site is under maintenance mode. Please wait few min!

Q1. Directions: The question consists 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 person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests.
Fact:
 X who is usually of sound mind, but occasionally of unsound mind enters into a contract with Y when he is of unsound mind. Y came to know about this fact afterwards and now wants to file a suit against X.
(a) X cannot enter into contract because he is of unsound mind when he entered into contract.
(b) X can enter into contract but the burden is on to other party to prove that he was of unsound mind at the time of contract.
(c) X can enter into a contract but the burden is on X to prove that he was of unsound mind at the time of contract.
(d) None of the above.

Q2. Directions: The question consists 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:
 When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he said to make a proposal.
Fact:
 ‘Ramanuj telegrammed to the Shyamsunder, writing: ‘will you sell me your Rolls Royce CAR? Telegram the lowest cash price.’ Shyamsunder replied, too by telegram: ‘Lowest price for CAR is Rs. 20 lacs,’ Ramanuj immediately sends his consent through telegram stating: ‘I agree to buy the CAR for Rs. 20 lacs asked by you’. Now Shyamsunder 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 the above.

Q3. Directions: The question consists 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 fiance Ruhina, 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 Sanjey. 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.

Q4. Directions: The question consists 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

Q5. Directions: The question consists 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:
 Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
Fact:
 A takes his son B who is three years old, for a bath to the well. He throws his son inside the well so that he could have a good bath. After 10 minutes he also jumped in the well to take a bath and take his son out of the well. Both were rescued by the villagers but his son was found dead.
(a) A has committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
(b) A has committed murder.
(c) A has done no offence as he can plead the defence of unsoundness of mind.
(d) A’s family should be responsible for this incident to let him to take child to the well

Q6. Directions: The question consists 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:
 ignorantia juris non excusat and ignorantia facit excusat.
Fact:
 George was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the airport at Bombay on 28th Nov. 1962, it was found on search that George carried 34 kgs of gold bars in person and that he had not declared it in the ‘Manifest for transit’. On 26th Nov. 1962 Government issued a notification and modifies its earlier exemption and now it is necessary that, the gold must be declared in the ‘Manifest’ of the aircraft.
(a) George cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued only two days ago.
(b) George cannot be prosecuted because it is mistake of fact which is excusable.
(c) George’s will be prosecuted because mistake of laws is not excusable.
(d) George liability would depend on the discretion of the court.

Q7. Directions: The question consists 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:
 Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid an act or omission which he can foresee would injure his neighbor. The neighbor for this purpose, is any person whom he should have in his mind as likely to be affected by his act.
Fact:
 Krishnan, while driving a car at high speed in crowded road, knocked down a cyclist. The cyclist died on the spot with a lot of blood spilling around, Lakshmi, a pregnant woman passing by, suffered from a nervous shock, leading to abortion. Lakshmi filed a suit against Krishnan claiming damages.
(a) Krishna will be liable, because he owed a duty of reasonable care to everybody on the road including Lakshmi
(b) Krishna will not be liable, because he could not have foreseen Lakshmi suffering from nervous shock as a result of his act.
(c) Krishna will be liable to Lakshmi because he failed to drive carefully
(d) None of the above

Q8. Directions: The question consists 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:
 Preparation is not an offence except the preparation of some special offences.
Fact:
 Ramesh keeps poisoned halua in his house, wishing to kill Binoy whom he invited to a party and to whom he wishes to give it. Unknown to Ramesh, his only son takes the halua and dies. In this case
(a) Ramesh is liable for the murder.
(b) He is not liable for murder since it is a preparation alone.
(c) He is liable for culpable homicide
(d) None of the above

Q9. Directions: The question consists 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:
 Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void.
Fact:
 A horse was bought for a certain price couple with a promise to give Rs. 500 more if the horse proved lucky.
(a) This is a valid agreement.
(b) This agreement is void for uncertainty because it is very difficult to determine what luck, bad or good, the horse had brought to the buyer.
(c) The agrement is partially valid and partially void.
(d) None of the above.

Q10. Directions: The question consists 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:
 Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstances of the case are such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence is, in itself, equivalent to speech.
Fact:
 A sells, by auction, to B, a horse which A knows to be unsound. A says nothing to B about the horse’s unsoundness.
(a) A can be held liable for fraud
(b) A can be held liable for misrepresentation
(c) A cannot be held liable, because he did not say anything positive about the soundness of horse.
(d) A cannot be held liable because it is the buyer who must be aware of the things.

Q11. Directions: The question consists 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:
 Any direct physical interference with the goods in somebody’s possession without lawful justification is called trespass to goods.
Fact:
 A purchased a car from a person who had no title 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.

Q12. Directions: The question consists 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:
 ‘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.
Fact:
 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) Pavan is not liable, because typing sound did not disturb anyone else other than Jeevan
(d) None of the above.

Q13. Directions: The question consists 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:
 Doctrine of Double Jeopardy: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence twice.
Fact:
 Maqbool brought some gold into India without making any declaration to Custom department on the airport. The custom authorities confiscated the gold under the Sea Custom Act. Maqbool was later charged for having committed an offence under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
(a) He cannot be prosecuted because it would amount to double jeopardy.
(b) He can be prosecuted because confiscation of good by custom authorities does not amount to prosecution by the Court.
(c) Maqbool ought to have known that he can be stopped by the custom authorities.
(d) None of the above.

Q14. Direction: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Assertion (A) ad other as Reason (R). You are to examine the two statements carefully and select the best option.
Assertion
: Custom per se is law, independent of prior recognition by the sovereign or the judge.
Reason:
Custom is source of law but by itself is not law.
(a) Both A and R are individually true and R is correct explanation to A
(b) Both A and R are individually true but R is not correct explanation to A
(c) A is true but R is false.
(d) A is false but R is true.

Q15. Direction: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Assertion (A) ad other as Reason (R). You are to examine the two statements carefully and select the best option.
Assertion
: Idol is a person who can hold property.
Reason:
Only human being can be called person not the lifeless things.
(a) Both A and R are individually true and R is correct explanation to A
(b) Both A and R are individually true but R is not correct explanation of A
(c) A is true but R is false.
(d) A is false but R is true.
 
1. (c) 2. (b) 3. (a) 4. (a) 5. (c) 6. (c) 7. (b) 8. (b) 9. (b) 10. (c) 11. (a) 12. (d) 13. (b) 14. (d) 15. (c)

Leave a Reply