1.

PRINCIPLE: Every agreement by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his right under or in respect of any contract, by the legal proceeding in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time with in which he may thus enforce his rights is void to that extent. FACTS: Harsh is a supplier of jute based in Kolkata, and Wasim is the owner of a textile mill in Mumbai. Both of them enter into a contract for sale and purchase of jute. The contract specifies that any dispute with respect to the contract would fall under the jurisdiction of the High Court of Bombay. Ordinarily, a dispute with regards to the contract matter would come under the jurisdiction of the High Courts of Bombay as well as Calcutta. Soon, a contractual dispute arises between the two, and Wasim moves the Bombay High Court. Harsh, in his defence, pleads that the agreement was void. (a) Harsh will succeed since he is absolutely restricted from enforcing his right by legal proceeding in the Calcutta High Court. (b) Harsh will succeed, since he is from Kolkata, and the contract put disputes mandatorily under the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. (c) Harsh will not succeed, since he voluntarily entered into the contract. (d) Harsh will not succeed, since the contract did not absolutely restrict the enforcement of his right disputes could still be addressed by the Bombay High Court. PRINCIPLE: A person who puts himself in a risky situation by his own choice cannot claim compensation for an injury on account of exposure to risk. This is known as the principle of Volenti non fit injuria. FACTS: Saralbhai is a casual wage labourer who generally works at construction sites. One fall he is employed by Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) for repair and renovation of a community centre. One of the jobs given by HUDA to its labourers is to construct five more floors on the three-storied community centre building. HUDA does not provide any protective gear or mechanisms to the labourers, though. In the course of building the seventh storey of the building, an accident happens and Saralbhai falls down from 80 feet in the air to the ground, dying immediately. Saralbhais family claims compensation from HUDA. HUDA takes the defence of volenti non fit injuria. (a) Saralbhais family cannot claim compensation since such mortal risks are a part of the work of a construction worker. (b) Saralbhais family cannot claim compensation since he had put himself in the risky situation by his own choice. (c) Saralbhais family can claim compensation since HUDA was the employees of Saralbhai. (d) Saralbhais family can claim compensation since he was not provided protective gear by HUDA. PRINCIPLE 1: Where both parties to an agreement are under a mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void. PRINCIPLE 2: Misrepresentation includes, causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement, to make a mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement. FACTS: Nalla is a wine-enthusiast, and enters into a contract with one Panda for the purchase of a bottle of vintage port wine. After making the purchase, Nalla takes the wine to a sommelier, who informs him that the wine is not vintage port but merely Madeira wine. Enraged, Nalla goes to Panda and demands his money back. Panda tells him that he believed the wine to be vintage port at the time of sale. (a) The contract is valid as the mistake is only with regard to an attribute/quality, and not substance of the subject of the agreement. (b) The contract is valid; Nalla had the duty to exercise due care to check the wine before buying it. (c) The contract is invalid; Panda, as the seller, should have exercised due care and checked the wine before selling it as vintage port. (d) The contract is invalid as the mistake is with regards to the substance of the subject of the agreement. PRINCIPLE: In order to declare Presidents Rule in a particular State, the President shall seek a report from the Governor, and decide on the basis of such report. The Governor shall base this report on his analysis and judgement of the situation. The declaration of Presidents Rule is amenable to judicial review only if it is mala fide. FACTS: Due to a few isolated incidents of communal riots in the state of Moorkhistan, the Central government felt that it should impose Presidents rule in the state. However, the Opposition Party at the centre, which was also the ruling party in Moorkhistan, strongly opposed such a move. The President sought a report from the Governor of Moorkhistan. In his report, the Governor stated that the situation was serious but there was no immediate need for imposition of Presidents Rule. The Centre, however, declared Presidents Rule in Moorkhistan anyways. The ruling party in Moorkhistan approached the Supreme Court against this imposition. (a) The imposition of Presidents Rule is valid, since there were communal riots occurring in Moorkhistan. (b) The imposition of Presidents Rule must be quashed since it was opposed by the Opposition party at the centre. (c) The imposition of Presidents Rule must be quashed since it was made with dishonest intention. (d) The imposition of Presidents Rule must be quashed since it was declared in spite of the Governors report stating that there was no urgent need for such a declaration. PRINCIPLE: No one can accept a proposal without any knowledge thereof. FACTS: Ajitabhs son Amitabh went missing one day, and could not be found for the next few days. Ajitabh proposed to pay a cash reward of Rs. 1 lakh to anyone who could locate his son alive, and give him information of the same. This was declared via a printed announcement in the newspaper News of the World. Ajitabhs driver Ajay found Amitabh found Amitabh at a railway station, and immediately informed Ajitabh about it. Ajitabh rushed to the station and took custody of Amitabh. Ajay didnt read News of the World, so he did not ask for the cash reward; Ajitabh did not mention anything about it either. Two days later, Ajays son Vijay, who was a regular reader of News of the World, told Ajay about the cash reward promised by Ajitabh. Ajay went to Ajitabh, and demanded the sum of Rs. 1 lakh for locating his son. (a) Ajitabh has to pay the amount to Ajay, since he had promised to do so to anyone who could locate his son alive, and inform him of the same. (b) Ajitabh has to pay the amount to Ajay, since the proposal was accepted on Ajays behalf by Vijay, who had knowledge of the proposal. (c) Ajitabh doesnt have to pay the amount to Ajay, since Ajay had informed Ajitabh about the whereabouts of his son without knowledge of the proposal. (d) Ajitabh doesnt have to pay the amount to Ajay, since the award was meant only for readers of News of the World. PRINCIPLE: The doctrine of privity of contract means that only those persons who are parties to a contract can enforce the same. A stranger cannot enforce a contract even though the contract may have been entered into for his benefit. A stranger to consideration can sue. FACTS: Smiley mortgages his laptop to Brohit in consideration of Brohits promise that he would repay Smileys debt to Gayza. Brohit doesnt pay the debt amount to Gayza though. (a) Gayza can sue both Smiley and Brohit for repayment of debt. (b) Gayza can sue only Smiley for repayment of debt. (c) Gayza can sue only Brohit for repayment of debt. (d) Gayza can sue no one.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

PRINCIPLE: The tort of malicious prosecution is said to be committed when the defendant initiates prosecution against the plaintiff without reasonable and probable cause. FACTS: Yoomanga was elected as a member of the legislative assembly of Moorkhistan. Before his election, he was an employee of a construction company. Sometime later, the legislative assembly received complaints that Yoomanga was abusing his position for personal advantages, by giving the construction company preference in certain administrative matters. A committee was set up to inquire and decide the case. The committee decided that Yoomanga should be removed from his post. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him in the court, and he was convicted for three months. Yoomanga, on being released from jail, filed a suit against the assembly on the ground of malicious prosecution. Will he succeed? (a) He will not succeed because there was reasonable and probable cause against him. (b) He will not succeed because he committed a dishonest abuse of his public office. (c) He will not succeed because he had been convicted for the offence. (d) He will not succeed because one cannot sue a legislative body. PRINCIPLE 1: An agreement to compensate for past voluntary service is valid. PRINCIPLE 2: A minor cannot ratify a contract upon attaining majority. FACTS: Tajiri, a 16-year old boy, makes IIT-JEE mock-questions at the request of Pratap, for the latters popular IIT-JEE-coaching company called Pesonance. When Tajiri turns 18, he enters into an agreement with Pratap to compensate him for his services rendered towards Pesonance. Is the agreement valid? (a) No, the agreement is not valid, as ratification of a minors contract is not possible. (b) Yes, the agreement is valid, because Tajiri voluntarily rendered services to Pratap. (c) Yes, the agreement is valid, since Tajiri made it only after attaining majority. (d) No, the agreement is not valid, since Tajiri had provided the services when he was a minor. PRINCIPLE 1: Anybody can accept a general offer. PRINCIPLE 2: When a person performs his duty, his action does not constitute valuable consideration. FACTS: Jason offered a reward to anyone who would rescue his pet dog alive from his burning house. Marshall, his neighbour, a fireman who was on vacation that day, risked his life and saved the dog, bringing it out alive. Is he entitled to a reward? (a) No, Marshall cannot recover the reward, as he was only performing his duty as a fireman. (b) Yes, Marshall is entitled to the award as he had accepted Jasons offer. (c) Yes, Marshall is entitled to the reward as his action was voluntary and not that of a fireman discharging his duty. (d) Yes, Marshall is entitled to the award as he had saved the dog and brought it alive to Jason.

8.

9.

10. PRINCIPLE: A partner shall share with his/her other partners whatever profit (s)he makes in the course of his/her business. FACTS: Piyush, a partner in a company engaged in manufacturing juice, went to a market to buy some fruits. The vendors told him. That if he buys 50 oranges, he will get a discount of Rs. 5 on each orange. Piyush required only 40 oranges for his company; still he bought 50 oranges and kept 10 for himself. After sometime, he on his own sold those 10 oranges to his neighbours and made a good profit. His other partners, on coming to know about this, demand that he should share these profits with them. (a) Piyush has to share the profits, because he bought those oranges in the course of partnership business. (b) Piyush need not share it because he has already benefited the company by getting a substantial discount on the 40 oranges. (c) Piyush need not share it because his buying of the additional oranges was to get the discount on the oranges and help the company. (d) Piyush need not share it because he had bought the additional oranges for his own purposes. 11. PRINCIPAL- A careless person becomes liable for his negligence when he owed a duty of care to others. FACTS- Agrim reached the bus-stop just as the bus was about to leave. He rushed to bus and boarded it just as it had started moving, and in his hurry did not close the door of the bus. Kalam, who was standing near the bus-stop, got hit by the door of the moving bus and got injured. Can Kalam claim compensation from Agrim? (a) Agrim is not liable, as it was the duty of Kalam to take sufficient care while standing on the bus stop. (b) Agrim is not liable because it is duty of the conductor of the bus to close the door. (c) Agrim is liable for not taking care to close the door of the moving bus. (d) Agrim is not liable because it is duty of driver of the bus to take care not to hit anyone on the road while driving the bus. 12. PRINCIPLE 1: Preparation to commit an offence is not an offence. PRINCIPLE 2: After one has finished preparation to commit an offence, any act done towards committing the offence with intention to commit it, is an attempt to commit the offence which is by itself an offence. FACTS: Iman wanted to kill Jinju. He bought a gun and ammunition for committing the murder. He then set out in search of Jinju. When he saw Jinju, he loaded his gun, took aim at Jinju and pulled the trigger. The gun did not fire. (a) Iman is guilty of attempt to murder Jinju from the time he set out in search of him. (b) Iman is guilty of attempt to murder Jinju from the time he loaded his gun. (c) Iman is guilty of attempt to murder Jinju from the moment he took aim at him. (d) Iman is not guilty of attempt to murder as he did not actually fire the gun. 13. PRINCIPLE: Theft is committed when anyone moves the movable property out of the possession of any one. FACTS: Khiladi and his gang of criminals entered a Government Reserve Forest in order to chop out valuable sandalwood trees. He selected a sandalwood tree and started chopping it. Suddenly police appeared on the scene and arrested him and his gang. They seek to prosecute Khiladi and his gang for theft .State whether they will succeed. (a) Khiladi and his gang are not guilty of theft as they had not actually moved the sandalwood tree out of the forest. (b) Khiladi and his gang are not guilty of theft as trees are not moveable property. (c) Khiladi and his gang are guilty of theft as they had started chopping the tree. (d) Khiladi and his gang are guilty of theft as they intended to move the tree out of the forest once they had chopped it completely.

ANSWER QUESTION NO. 14 AND 15 ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE PRINCIPLE: A principal is liable for the direct consequences of his agents actions done in the course of employment. 14. FACTS: A technician who works for HP Computers goes to the house of a customer to repair his laptop. While repairing the laptop, due to the technicians negligence, some wire short-circuits and causes a spark. This spark comes in contact with a barrel of crude oil lying in the room, as a result of which the room catches fire. The customer sues HP Computers. (a) The technician only is liable. (b) The technician and HP Computers both are liable. (c) HP Computers is not liable because the fire was due to negligence of the technician. (d) HP Computers is not liable, as the fire was a very remote damage which the technician or HP Computers could not have foreseen. 15. FACTS: The driver of a bus in order to overtake another bus was driving in a very rash and negligent manner and hence ended up injuring the plaintiff. However, such a tendency was known to the employer and he had prohibited the driver from doing so. Will the employer be liable for the injury caused to the plaintiff? (a) The employer is liable because the driver had acted negligently in the course of employment. (b) The employer is not liable because he had prohibited the driver from driving rashly. (c) The employer is not liable because the accident was not caused by actions of the driver in the course of employment. (d) The employer is liable because the prohibition was not express enough. 16. PRINCIPLE: The making of a representation which a party knows to be untrue, and which is intended, or is calculated, to induce another to act on the faith of it, so that he may incur damage, is fraud in law. FACTS: A wanted to purchase a motorbike. In pursuance of this, A approached B. B showed A his motorbike. A, considering it be to be a good bike with excellent average, agreed to purchase it. B was aware of the fact that the average of the bike was not good. Later, A discovered that the average of the bike was very poor. Now A wants to recover damages from B. Decide whether A will succeed in his claim or not? (a) A will succeed since it was a responsibility on the part of B to disclose the fact that the average of bike is not good. (b) A will succeed since there was a fraud on the part of B. (c) A will not succeed since B did not act in manner which can be considered as fraud, and hence cannot be held liable. (d) A will not succeed since it was As responsibility to enquire B about the motorbike.

17. PRINCIPLE: Any person using force to obtain the consent of the other party, to a contract causes coercion. If coercion is caused in a contract, the party against whom the coercion is committed may terminate the contract. FACTS: A, a student of Harvard University, was asked by his professor, B, to enter into a contract with him so that A will complete his assignments on time. In case of failure in complying with the contract, B will not allow A to sit in the class. A agreed to the contract because of Bs fear. Later, A decided to rescind the contract. Decide whether A would be able to rescind the contract or not. (a) A can rescind the contract since the same was entered into under coercion, and A is not bound to comply with the same. (b) A cannot rescind the contract since there was no coercion on the part of the professor. (c) A is expected to complete his assignments and any contract made in this regard cannot be considered as invalid. (d) A can rescind the contract since a professor cannot bound him to complete his assignments forcibly. 18. PRINCIPLE: Trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India shall be free. Parliament may by law impose such restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse between one State and another or within any part of the territory of India as may be required in the public interest. FACTS: Meghalaya, a North-Eastern State of India, was known of its tea production than any other state. Once, the price of tea reached unpredicted high price. In order to deal with the situation, Union Parliament enacted a legislation whereby it imposed a very high tax on the inter-state trade of tea outside Meghalaya. Mr A, a tea producer, challenged the legislation on the ground that it infringes his right of free trade and commerce. Decide. (a) Mr. A will succeed since the legislation made by the Parliament discriminates the rights of other states. (b) Mr. A will not succeed since the legislation was enacted in order to protect the interest of the people of Meghalaya. (c) Mr. A will succeed since the legislation was not in public interest since it increases the trading cost. (d) Mr. A will not succeed since Parliament is competent to enact any such legislation. ANSWER QUESTION NO. 19 AND 20 ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE AND FACT PRINCIPLE: The master is vicariously liable for all actions of his servant done in the course of his employment. 19. FACTS: Mohan M. was a driver who worked for Buban G. Buban G ran an organization which provided a driver-for-hire service. He had many other drivers like Mohan under his wing. Buban G suffered from a rare and incurable disease by which he could not stand the sight of pink cars. Hence, he issued a standing order by which he expressly forbade his drivers in no uncertain terms that they would not drive pink cars under any circumstances. Mohan M took to the wheel of a pink sedan one evening since he had no other assignment because of the economic downturn. As luck would have it he crashed in the premises of 'Come Hither' nightclub. The owners of the nightclub sue Buban G. for being vicariously liable for the negligence of his driver. The court will--(a) Hold that Buban G. is not liable because he had expressly forbidden his drivers. (b) Hold that Buban G. is not liable because Mohan M. was acting beyond his course of employment. (c) Hold that Buban G. is liable because Mohan M was acting within his course of employment. (d) Both (a) and (b) are correct. 20. FACTS: Assume that the organization that was run by Buban G. only catered to those who used hatchbacks. Also assume that all the other facts remain identical. What will be the decision of the court? (a) Hold that Buban G. is not liable because he had expressely forbidden his drivers. (b) Hold that Buban G. is not liable because Mohan M. was acting beyond his course of employment. (c) Hold that Buban G. is liable because Mohan M was acting within his course of employment. (d) Both (a) and (b) are correct.

21. PRINCIPLE: The fundamental freedoms in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution are subject to reasonable restrictions. FACTS: Since the Indian government is facing a foreign exchange crisis, it places restrictions on all imports for six months. With regard to the import of newsprint (which essential for publishing newspapers), the government requires newspapers to apply for permits to be allowed to import the same. No criteria have been provided for the issuance of the licenses. Is this a violation of freedom of speech and expression? (a) Yes, because this is an unreasonable restriction. (b) Yes, because the government can misuse the power to license only those newspapers that publish what the government desires, effectively controlling the content. (c) No, this is a reasonable restriction. (d) No, because there is no reason to suspect that the government will not be objective in subjecting the licenses. 22. PRINCIPLE: When a future event on which a contract is dependent is the way in which a person will act at an unspecified time, then the event shall be considered to become impossible when such person does anything which renders it impossible that he should so act within any definite time, or otherwise than under further contingencies. If the event becomes impossible, such agreement is void. FACTS: Aman agrees to pay Bhatta a sum of Rs. 10000 if Bhatta marries Chameli anytime during Amans life. Chameli marries Dick and soon thereafter Aman dies. Can the agreement between Aman and Bhatta be enforced if Dick dies after one year of marriage and Bhatta then marries Chameli? (a) No, because the agreement has been rendered void. (b) Yes, because Bhatta did eventually marry Chameli. (c) Yes, because the essence of the contract is the marriage of Bhatta and Chameli. (d) Yes, because the performance of the agreement is impossible due to Amans death. 23. PRINCIPLE: A person who carries on a dangerous activity for profit is responsible for any harm that may flow from such activity. FACTS: Tipsy, a beverage manufacturer gets two interconnected steel water tanks with the capacity of 1000 litres each on the premises of its bottling plant. These tanks are cleaned and checked for leakages every day. However, one day, one of these tanks develops a hole and the entire volume of water gushes out and comes into contact with live electric wires negligently left on the road by the Moorkhistan Electricity Board (MEB). A pedestrian, Naresh gets electrocuted due to this and his family sues Tipsy. (a) Tipsy is liable since Naresh wouldnt have been electrocuted if water had not leaked from its tank. (b) MEB is liable, not Tipsy. (c) Tipsy is not liable since it is not carrying on a dangerous activity. (d) Tipsy is liable since it owes a duty of care to everyone using the road. ANSWER QUESTION NO. 24 AND 25 ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE PRINCIPLE: A master is liable for the acts committed by his servant in the course of employment. 24. FACTS: David is a driver working in a company called Johnny for GM. One day, the manager John asked him to drop a customer to his home and get back at the earliest. On his way back from the customers home after dropping him off, David happened to see his wife Jennifer waiting at a bus stop to go home. He offered to drop her at their home which happened to be close to his office. She got into the car and soon thereafter the car suffered an accident due to the negligence of David. Jennifer suffered many soft tissue injuries. She seeks compensation from Johnny for GM. (a) Johnny for GM is liable, since David was acting in the course of employment when the car suffered an accident. (b) Johnny for GM is not liable, since David did not act in the course of employment when he took Jennifer into the car. (c) Jennifer entered the car on her own free will at her own risk, so she cannot sue anyone. (d) Jennifer cannot sue anyone, since it was her own husband that caused the accident. 25. FACTS: Mithun and Kaza work in a bakery. Kaza feels that the owner of the bakery favours Mithun, and feels jealous of Mithun. Once a customer makes an order for a very big and expensive cake at the bakery. The bakery owner asks Mithun to bake the cake. Mithun mixes all the ingredients and leaves it for the night. After Mithun has left, Kaza puts excessive salt and sugar in the cake preparation, ruining it in the hope that the bakery owner would blame Mithun for the loss of order. Due to Kazas mischief, Mithun is not able to prepare the cake on time and deliver it to the ordering customer. The latter sues the bakery owner. (a) The bakery owner is not liable, since the failure of delivering the order was the result of Kazas acts outside the course of employment. (b) The bakery owner is liable, since the order of the cake was given to him, and he is responsible for its failure. (c) The bakery owner is liable, since he should have made sure that Kaza does not commit such mishiefs. (d) The bakery owner is not liable, since it was not his or Mithuns fault that the cake couldnt be prepared on time. ANSWER QUESTION NO. 26 AND 27 ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE PRINCIPLE 1: The relationship between partners is governed by the deed or the agreement entered into by them in order to establish the partnership firm. PRINCIPLE 2: Partners are jointly and severally liable for transactions of the partnership firm with outsiders. 26. FACTS: Arunima, Akshat and Rajshree are partners in Pimposys, a partnership firm engaged in the trade of computers, laptops and mobile phones. The partnership deed provides that Arunima alone shall be liable for transactions involving laptops. Vishnu sells 100 pieces of laptops to Arunima for Pimposys and Akshat asks Vishnu to recover the amount from Arunima citing the term in the partnership deed. (a) Vishnu can recover the amount only from Arunima. (b) Vishnu is not bound to recover the amount only from Arunima. (c) Rajshree is liable to pay Vishnu as per the terms of the partnership deed. (d) Akshat is liable to pay Vishnu since he bought the laptops on the behalf of Pimposys. 27. FACTS: Abbaas and Mustan enter into a partnership to produce a film, wherein the partnership deed stated that Abbaas will direct the movie, and Mustan will have to handle all monetary transactions and maintain their accounts. The movie flopped, and was a commercial failure. Consequently, they run into financial difficulties and the partnership ends. Abbaas goes to Piyush to borrow some money, which Piyush understands is for repaying the debts from the partnership. Abbaas takes the money and absconds. Piyush sues Mustan for the amount. Decide. (a) Mustan is liable to return the money as it was his partner, Abbaas, who directed the movie. (b) Piyush was negligent in not properly enquiring the purpose for which Abbaas borrowed the money. Mustan is not liable to pay him back according to the principle of contributory negligence. (c) Mustan is not liable as Abbaas absconded with the money instead of using it to pay off the debts in the partnership. (d) Mustan is not liable as by the time Abbaas borrowed money from Piyush, the partnership was no more in existence.

28. PRINCIPLE: Whoever by deceiving any person dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to that person commits cheating. FACTS: Manoj enters a luxury car showroom and expresses interest in purchasing a Bentley model on Equated Monthly Installment (EMI) basis. The manager of the showroom is unwilling to sell the same to Manoj on EMI basis. Manoj misrepresents himself claiming to be the son of Kapil Ladda, the local crime lord. On hearing this, the manager immediately agrees to sell the Bentley to Ajeet on EMI basis believing that this would protect him from the potential wrath of Ladda. After paying the first installment, Manoj leaves the city with the Bentley and without any intention to pay the remaining installments. (a) Manoj is guilty of cheating because he does not intend to pay th (b) But for Manojs misrepresentation the manager would not have agreed to sell the motorcycle on EMI basis. Hence Manoj is guilty of cheating. (c) Manoj is not guilty of cheating, since it was the managers duty to check on Manojs background before selling him the Bentley on EMI basis. (d) The manager agreed expecting favour from Manoj so Manoj is not guilty. ANSWER QUESTION NO. 29 AND 30 ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE PRINCIPLE: A master is liable to third persons for every such wrong of his servant as committed in the course of service. For acts committed beyond scope of employment, the master is liable only if he authorised the act. 29. FACTS: Aman owns a restaurant in which Balbir is the chef, that is, he cooks food, and Chiku is the waiter, that is, he takes orders from the customers and serves them their food. One day, during the normal course of business in the restaurant, Balbir decided to serve the food to one of the customers because Chiku was in the loo at that time. However, Balbir, while on his way with the ordered food, accidentally dropped it on Dindi sitting on another table. Since the food was very hot, Dindi suffered some burn injuries, and sued Aman for damages. (a) Dindi will succeed since Balbir was employed by Aman. (b) Dindi will not succeed since Aman had not authorised Balbir to deliver and serve food to customers. (c) Dindi will succeed since serving the food was in the course of employment. (d) Dindi will not succeed as dropping food is a very common mistake which waiters make in restaurants. 30. FACTS: Rahul gave a sum of Rs. 600000 to his friend Rajesh, who is a staff worker in the Accounts department of Ramji University, and asked him to deposit it as the semester fees for his son Brojonath, who studies in the university. However, Rajesh spends the money on exotic alcohol and jewellery for his wife instead. Rahul sues Ramji University. (a) Ramji University will be liable since Rajesh was its employee. (b) Ramji University will not be liable as Rahul gave money to Rajesh in the capacity of a friend and not as the employee of Ramji University. (c) Ramji University will not be liable since Rajesh wasn't authorised to collect the money from Rahul. (d) Ramji University will not be liable since this is a criminal act and requires the state to present the case. ANSWER QUESTION NO. 31 - 35 ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES AND FACTS PRINCIPLE 1: The principle of volenti non fit injuria states that if one voluntarily takes the risk of something then he may not claim a suit of action of such risk leads to injury. However this risk must have been taken under free consent and not under coercion and with the full knowledge of the risk. PRINCIPLE 2: Nothing is wrong if done with regard to protecting ones own self, another self, ones property or anothers property against a threat to such. However the force being used must be proportional to the risk presented. PRINCIPLE 3: Battery is the tort of intentionally and voluntarily bringing about an unconsented harmful or offensive contact with a person or to something closely associated with them. PRINCIPLE 4: The person who causes the chain of events that lead to someone getting injured will be liable for that injury. The person who has the last opportunity to avoid an injury would be liable if the injury is caused. PRINCIPLE 5: A principal is liable for the direct consequences of his agents actions done in the course of employment. FACTS: Amit and his wife Bala are pro-wrestling fans. One day they go to attend a live episode of Monday Nitro, a wrestling promotion owned by World Championship Wrestling (WCW). They have front row ringside seats. During a wrestling match between two pro-wrestlers AJ Styles and Umaga, the action spills into the crowd. Inside the crowd, Umaga aims a punch at AJ Styles, but Styles ducks and Umaga hits Bala instead. Amit gets infuriated at this and in rage, he stabs Umaga hard with a pen that he was holding, injuring Umaga in the process. This in turn angers AJ Styles, who is in fact very good friends with Umaga, and he shoves Amit hard. Amit falls on another spectators Lisa. Lisa is a pregnant lady and she suffers a miscarriage as a result of the impact. 31. Amit and Bala decide to sue Umaga. Will they succeed? (a) Yes, Umaga hurt Bala by injuring her without provocation. (b) Yes, Amit and Bala did not consent to the risk of getting hit by pro-wrestlers when they bought a ticket to the show. (c) No, when Amit and Bala bought a ticket to Monday Nitro, they voluntarily consented to such risks. (d) No, it was an unintentional mistake on the part of Umaga. 32. Umaga sues Amit. Will he succeed? (a) Yes, Umaga was stabbed, as a result of which he may not be able to compete in a wrestling role indefinitely, thereby losing his livelihood. (b) Yes, the proportion of force used by Amit was too much. (c) No, Amit was exercising his right to private defence, which extends to the protection of his wife. (d) Yes, because Umaga did not intend to actually physically injure Bala. 33. Amit sues AJ Styles. Will he succeed? (a) Yes, AJ Styles committed battery on Amit. (b) No, AJ Styles is protected by the principle of volenti non fit injuria. (c) No, AJ Styles was just exercising his right to private defence extending to the protection of his close friend Umaga. (d) No, AJ Styles was just trying to restrain Amit, who had grievously injured Umaga.

34. Who is liable for the loss and miscarriage caused to Lisa? (a) Umaga, because he punched Bala which started the chain of events. (b) AJ Styles, because he pushed Amit on Lisa. (c) Amit, because he stabbed Umaga which caused AJ Styles to push him. (d) None of the above three options. 35. Suppose WCW had prohibited all its pro-wrestling employees from laying hands on the fans, either intentionally or mistakenly. If in the suits by Amit, Bala and Lisa, the plaintiffs win, will WCW also be vicariously liable? (a) WCW will be liable because its employees had acted negligently in the course of employment. (b) WCW will not be liable because it had prohibited all its pro-wrestlers from laying hands on the fans. (c) WCW will be liable because the prohibition was not express enough. (d) WCW will not be liable because it employs pro-wrestlers to fight against each other and entertain the fans, not hit the fans. 36. PRINCIPLE: An agent is entitled to such commission as was agreed between him and his principal at the time of the entering into the contract of agency. FACTS: Jimmy is a local estate agent who takes one months rent commission in case he finds a lessee and 10% of the sales price in case of a purchase. Raam wants to lease out his house and he asked Jimmy to find a tenant for him. Jimmy found one Panda who was desperately looking for a house to stay in. Panda met Raam for negotiation, and on further talks, he realised that Raam was actually interested in selling the house. Finally, instead of taking the house on a rent of Rs. 4000 per month, Panda bought the house for Rs. 10 lakhs. Raam offered to pay Rs. 4000 to Jimmy, since that was the rent he had specified to Jimmy while asking him to find a tenant. But Jimmy demanded the commission on the sale price. (a) Jimmy should get Rs. 4000 because he was asked to find a tenant by Raam. (b) Jimmy should get Rs. 1 lakh because it was through him that Panda contacted Raam, and the house got sold. (c) Jimmy should get Rs. 1 lakh taking the ultimate result of the transaction into account. (d) Jimmy should get Rs. 4000 because that was the commission agreed between him and Raam. 37. PRINCIPLE: Two principles of natural justice that are widely regarded as the sine qua non for a fair trial in a court of law are nemo iudex in causasua (nobody shall be a judge in his own case) and audi alteram partem (hear the other side). FACTS: Mr. K.T. Ashwin is the Union Minister of Recreation and Fun. He is notorious among political circles for his corruption, and his money-laundering ways. He was also allegedly involved in a major way in the KBD scam that had rocked the entire country at that time. A special tribunal was instituted by the Union government to look into the alleged corruption by Ashwin, in his personal capacity as Minister, in the scam. The tribunal was headed by two retired Supreme Court Judges and the eminent advocate Mr. Islut. All three were from West Bengal, the same state as Ashwin. During the course of proceedings, the Ministry of Recreation and Fun was given the chance to clear its stand on the matter and the Secretary of the Ministry presented the views. The tribunal finally decided to hold Mr. Ashwin not guilty of all charges of corruption and any involvement in the scam. A hue and cry was raised after the proceedings over violation of principles of natural justice. (a) There was no violation of principles of natural justice. (b) Since all three members of the tribunal were from the same state as Ashwin, the rule of nemo iudex in causasua was violated. (c) Since Ashwin was not heard in court and his personal stance in response to the allegations was not presented before the tribunal, the rule of audi alteram partem was violated. (d) Since Ashwins corruption and involvement in the KBD scam was well-known, the tribunal gave the wrong decision, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 38. PRINCIPLE 1: A contract entered into under coercion is voidable at the option of the coerced party. PRINCIPLE 2: Coercion taken place when there is threat of committing an act which is prohibited by Indian Penal Code FACTS: Vince comes to know that his friend Shane is involved in smuggling of drugs. He threatens to blow the whistle on him if he refuses to sell his car to him. They sign an agreement for the sale but when it comes to part with the car, Shane claims that the contract was entered into under coercion and hence is voidable. Vince sues Shane for specific performance. (a) Vince clearly coerced Shane; hence the contract is voidable at the option of the Shane. (b) Threatening a criminal prosecution in a just case is not coercion. Hence, the contract is valid. (c) Vince should have informed the police of the smuggling activities and not having done so, he can't take advantage of the situation. (d) Since Shane had actually signed the agreement for sale, he cannot go back on it. The contract is valid. 39. PRINCIPLE: Murder is the commission of an act that ends a person's life accompanied by the intention of ending that person's life. FACTS: Rico has knowledge of the fact that he is suffering from HIV. Yet he has sexual intercourse with Charlie, thereby infecting her also. Charlie, on learning these facts, sues Rico for attempt to murder. One year later, while the case is still alive, Charlie dies of AIDS. (a) Rico is guilty of attempt to murder since the transfer of the HIV virus resulted in Charlies death. (b) The contracting of HIV virus cannot directly result in death and therefore Rico cannot be guilty of attempt to murder. (c) Rico is guilty of attempt to murder since he knew that by having relations with Charlie, he would be putting her in danger of contracting AIDS. (d) Rico is not guilty of murder because he did not sleep with Charlie only to give her HIV. 40. PRINCIPLE: A bailment is a delivery of goods by the bailor to the bailee on condition, express or implied, that they shall be restored to the bailor by the bailee as soon as the purpose for which the goods have been bailed is complete. FACTS: Glen, the owner of eight sheep had to leave the town for a period of two months. He handed over these sheep to his neighbour Randy, and told him that he would take them back on his return. After six weeks, one of the sheep gave birth to a lamb. Glen returns after two months and seeks return of the sheep from Rahim. (a) Randy must return the eight sheep as well as the lamb to Glen. (b) Randy must return the sheep to Glen, but he need not return the lamb. (c) Randy must return the sheep and the lamb on payment of money for taking care of them. (d) Randy is not obliged to return either the sheep or the lamb to Glen.

41. PRINCIPLE: If a person stores in his premises any object which has a tendency to escape and which, on escape, is likely to cause harm, shall be strictly liable for any such harm. FACTS: Amarinder owns a Rottweiler dog which is very ferocious by temperament. Thus, he always keeps the dog leashed. There is also a notice outside his house warning about the dog. One day some children were playing cricket outside Amarinders house. The ball came inside and hit the dog. The dog, which was held by its leash by Amarinder, became wild, pulled hard, escaped from Amarinders hands, ran out and attacked the children. The parents of the children filed a suit against Amarinder. (a) Amarinder is not liable because he had taken every possible measure to keep his dog under control. (b) Amarinder is liable because he let go of the dogs leash, thus freeing it to attack the children. (c) Amarinder is not liable because it was the childrens fault that the dog got angry. (d) Amarinder is liable because he owned a ferocious dog which escaped. 42. PRINCIPLE: Unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of anothers property is nuisance. FACTS: Rakish runs a small factory for processing chillies in the desolated region of Beliaghta. Even though Beliaghata is an industrial zone as per the zoning regulations, over time, all plots of land in the vicinity of Rakishs factory are sold and gradually people start living in illegal constructions near the factory. This factory was operated for fifteen hours in the day from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. Fed up with the noise and the bits of chilli that flew out from the factory into their homes, the inhabitants of Beliaghata sue Rakish for nuisance. (a) Rakish is not liable for nuisance since his neighbours started living in Beliaghata much after Rakish set up the factory. (b) Rakish is liable for nuisance since the factory unreasonably interfered with the enjoyment of their property by Beliaghata residents. (c) Rakish is not liable since his neighbours had not adhered to the zoning regulations and were living in an industrial zone. (d) Rakish is liable since he operated a very hazardous factory, that too at very odd hours. 43. PRINCIPLE: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which they can foresee would injure their neighbour; the neighbour for this purpose is any person whom they should have in their mind as likely to be affected by the act or omission. FACTS: Kaama is a truck driver. One day, while driving his truck at a very high speed on a crowded road, he knocked down a pedestrian. The pedestrians body was crushed and spilled a lot of blood; needless to say he died. Jay, a heart patient passing by, saw the mutilated body and suffered from a nervous shock, leading to a heart attack. Jay filed a suit against Kaama claiming damages. (a) Kaama will be liable, because he owed a duty of reasonable care to everybody on the road including Jay. (b) Kaama will be liable because he failed to drive carefully. (c) Kaama will not be liable, because he could not have foreseen Jay suffering from nervous shock as a result of his act/omission. (d) Kaama will not be liable, because it was Jays special condition that lead to him suffering from a heart attack. 44. PRINCIPLE 1: When an injury is caused to property with the intention of causing wrongful loss to any person or public, it will be called mischief. PRINCIPLE 2: The person to whom the loss is wrongfully caused by mischief need not be the owner of the property himself. FACTS: Bubba has leased his house to D-Von for four years. After two years, Bubba wants the house back and requests D-Von to vacate the house, but DVon refuses. Bubba, in order to get the house vacated, send goons inside to burn the house. The goons beat up D-Von, but before they can burn the house they are apprehended and captured by police. D-Von sues Bubba for mischief. (a) Bubba is guilty of mischief as he had sent goons to set his own house to fire. (b) Bubba is guilty of mischief since D-Von got beaten up at the hands of his goons. (c) Bubba is not guilty of mischief since there was no injury caused to the house. (d) Bubba is not guilty of mischief since he owned the house. 45. PRINCIPLE 1: Master is liable for the act of the employee/servant. PRINCIPLE 2: A husband or his wife is not responsible for any commission of wrong on each other. FACTS: Hatim is the Chief Operating Officer of a factory belonging to Nims. Due to Hatims negligence, a crate fell from the assembly line on Wali, a worker who is the wife of Hatim, thereby injuring her. Wali asks for compensation from Hatim and Nims. (a) Both Hatim and Nims are liable to compensate Wali. (b) Only Nims is liable to compensate Wali. (c) Only Hatim is liable to compensate Wali. (d) Wali cant demand compensation from either Nims or Hatim. 46. PRINCIPLE 1: A company incorporated under the Companies Act is a juristic person. PRINCIPLE 2: A juristic person is one who can sue or may be sued in a court of law. FACTS: Rudra is the owner and CEO of Keshav Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (KPL), which is a company registered under the Companies Act. Rudra once proposes to open a soap manufacturing factory at Kanpur. This proposal is accepted by the companys board of directors, and approved. However, Rudra gives the tender for the construction of the factory to Rastogi Builder and Co. (RBC) owned by his good friend Anil. During the construction of the factory, due to poor quality of material used, the building collapses, severely injuring all the construction workers. These workers sue KPL for compensation. (a) KPL is liable to compensate the workers. (b) RBC is liable to compensate the workers. (c) Rudra is liable to compensate the workers. (d) Anil is liable to compensate the workers.

47. PRINCIPLE: Whoever having been administered an intoxicating substance against his will, is unable, by reason of intoxication unable to appreciate the nature of his acts or that what he is doing is right or wrong, can take the defence of intoxication if implicated for an offence committed while he was intoxicated. FACTS: Rohit goes to his friend Anishs party, where everyone forces him to consume alcohol. Rohit resists a lot and does not give in to his friends advances, so Anish laces Rohits glass of Pepsi with rum. After Rohit consumes the rum-laced Pepsi, he gets inebriated and has four more glasses of rum. Once the party is over, Rohit comes to his senses with great difficulty and drives back home. However, on the way he hits another car and injures its driver due to his state of intoxication. The driver sues Rohit who claims the defence of intoxication. (a) Rohit can take the defence of intoxication; he did not willingly consume the alcohol. (b) Rohit can take the defence of intoxication; he was intoxicated when he was driving which is why the accident occurred. (c) Rohit cannot take the defence of intoxication; he should have been more careful about what he was drinking at the party. (d) Rohit cannot take the defence of intoxication; he should not have driven back home in a state of intoxication. 48. PRINCIPLE: The intention of the accused to produce a certain result shows his intention to do that act. A person can be made criminally liable for something he has done only when his act was accompanied by an intention to do that act. FACTS: Radheyshyam and Baku live in the RMLNLU Boys Hostel. One day Baku loses his gold ring. He goes to every room in the hostel in search of his ring. In Radheyshyams room, he finds a ring on Radheyshyams table which actually belongs to Radheyshyam but looks very similar to Bakus lost ring. Baku, mistaking Radheyshyams ring to be his own, takes it and leaves without telling Radheyshyam, who was sleeping when Baku entered his room. When Radheyshyam wakes up and finds his ring missing, he goes looking for it and finds it with Baku. Radheyshyam sues Baku for theft. (a) Baku is guilty of theft, since he was fully aware of the consequences of his actions. (b) Baku is guilty of theft, since he took the ring from Radheyshyams room without informing him or asking him about it. (c) Baku is not guilty of theft, since he did not intend to steal Radheyshyams ring. (d) Baku is not guilty of theft, since he made an honest mistake. 49. PRINCIPLE: A person who institutes a prosecution against someone without any reasonable cause for the same, with a malicious intention, is guilty of the tort of malicious prosecution. FACTS: Sunny and Bobby are neighbours, and sworn enemies. One day, while returning back from work, Sunny saw Bobby sneaking suspiciously out of their neighbour Chinoos house. Out of his hatred for Bobby, Sunny calls the police and tells them that Bobby is trying to commit a burglary in Chinoos house. The police arrest Bobby, and he is charged for theft. The prosecution against him succeeds, and he is sentenced accordingly. After his sentence is over, Bobby sues Sunny for malicious prosecution. (a) Bobby will succeed, since Sunny made a police complaint against Bobby only out of personal enmity. (b) Bobby will not succeed, since he had been prosecuted and found guilty of the offence. (c) Bobby will not succeed, since Sunny had informed the police out of reasonable apprehension that Bobby had committed an offence. (d) Bobby will not succeed, since he had no mala fide intentions. 50. PRINCIPLE 1: The person who has the last opportunity to avoid an injury would be liable if the injury is caused. PRINCIPLE 2: If a victim has contributed to the injury suffered by him, he is liable for contributory negligence. PRINCIPLE 3: The legal age for driving a car is 18 years; persons below the age of 18 years are prohibited from driving. FACTS: Ram and and his 17-year old son Shyam go in their car for a picnic to an isolated part of the city. Ram stops the car in the middle of the road and gets out for setting the carpet, the food basket and the folding chairs. He tells Shyam to park the car properly to the side. Shyam is feeling lazy and tired, so he doesnt do so and stays seated in the car. Suddenly, a huge truck came speeding down the road and crashed into the car, thereby severely injuring Shyam. It is later found out that the truck driver was under the influence of prescribed medication, which is why he did not notice the car in the middle of the road. Who is liable for the injury caused to Shyam and the car? (a) Both the truck driver and Ram are liable; Ram is liable for contributory negligence because he parked the car in the middle of the road, and ask Shyam, a minor, to park the car properly. (b) Both the truck driver and Shyam are liable; Shyam is liable for contributory negligence since he did not park the car properly, due to which he got injured and the car got damaged. (c) The truck driver, Ram and Shyam are liable; Ram and Shyam are both responsible for contributory negligence since they both contributed to Shyams injury and the cars damage. (d) The truck driver is solely liable, since he had the last opportunity to avoid the accident.