DAILY INITIATIVE (LAW)
Sign in to Google
to save your progress.
1. LEGAL PRINCIPLE – Robbery includes theft and violence or the threat of violence. FACTS – Suvarna is walking with her child across the bridge on the river. A passer-by, Sunil takes the child from her and threatens to throw the child into the river unless she delivers her jewellery and purse. In fear, Suvarna hands over her jewellery and purse to Sunil. Decide.
(a) Sunil has committed the offence of theft.
(b) Sunil has committed the offence of robbery.
(c) Sunil is not liable for any offence
(d) Sunil is liable for kidnapping.
2. LEGAL PRINCIPLE – A person committing a breach of contract is liable to compensate the injured party to the extent arising naturally in the usual course of things from the breach.FACTS – A tailor delivered two sewing machines and two bundles of cloth to a transport company. He was sending it to a place where he was expecting to earn special profits on account of Diwali season. He clearly told the transporters that he was sending the machines to such a distant place only for the purpose of earning extra profits in the festival. Due to the fault of the company’s servants, the goods were delayed in the transportation and were delivered two days after the festival was over. He filed a suit against the transporters for compensation. Will he succeed?
(a) The tailor will get compensation.
(b) The compensation will include all his losses that had arisen due to not attending the festival including his proposed profits.
(c) The compensation can be given for delay only and not for the proposed profits in the festival.
(d) The tailor will not get anything as the damages were too remote.
3. LEGAL PRINCIPLE – If a person is prosecuted on the basis of a complaint filed by the defendant without just or reasonable cause, then the tort of malicious prosecution is said to be committed. FACTS – Sunita works in a BPO firm. She is a part of a large team of which her manager is Shiva. During the annual appraisal cycle, Sunita is not happy with the salary raise given to her and she felt that her manager had been biased towards her friends and against her. Her colleagues in the same grade got a promotion and she did not. So she decided to teach him a lesson. She filed a complaint in the police station alleging sexual harassment against Shiva. The police filed the charge sheet and the public prosecutor fought the case but lost it. This brought about a lot of ignominy and shame to Shiva. Can Shiva file a suit for malicious prosecution against Sunita?
(a) Yes, Shiva can file a case of malicious prosecution against Sunita.
(b) Yes, Shiva can file a case of malicious prosecution against Sunita because Sunita filed a complaint against him out of malice without just and reasonable cause.
(c) Yes, Shiva can file a case of malicious prosecution against Sonia because he has been acquitted and has suffered injury as a result of false prosecution.
(d) Both (b) and (c) are correct.
4. LEGAL PRINCIPLE – Theft is dishonest moving of property with the intention of taking it out of the person’s possession without his consent.FACTS – Salim gave his suit to the dry cleaner because he had an important meeting after 4 days. A day prior to the meeting, Salim went to the dry cleaner store to collect his suit. Upon reaching there, he realized that he had forgotten his wallet that contained money as well as his credit cards at home. Since he needed the suit at any cost, while the store keeper’s attention was diverted due to the arrival of some customers, he surreptitiously removed his suit and took it home with the intention of paying him during his next visit. Has Salim committed theft?
(a) Salim is guilty of theft.
(b) Salim is not guilty of theft.
(c) Salim is not guilty of theft because he took his own suit. However, he needs to compensate the store owner.
(d) Salim is guilty of theft because he took away the suit dishonestly out of store owner’s possession.
5. LEGAL PRINCIPLE – (I) Anticipatory bail can be granted to any person who apprehends arrest from the police on a non-bailable offence.(II) Section 341 of IPC is a bailable offence.FACTS – Kamal files a case against Vimal under Section 341 of IPC for wrongfully restraining him. Upon hearing about the case, Vimal files an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. Decide the application.
(a) Anticipatory bail cannot be granted since Sessions Court does not have the power.
(b) Anticipatory bail application is not maintainable since there is no apprehension of arrest in a bailable offence.
(c) Anticipatory bail can be granted since he apprehends arrest from the police.
(d) Vimal has to apply to the Supreme Court for bail.
6. LEGAL PRINCIPLE – A proposal made by one party and its acceptance by another with the intention of establishing legal relations is an agreement. FACTS - Ramya was passing by a store and notices a dress in her favourite colour on the display for Rs.250. She found it to be an excellent bargain and got into the shop. The owner of the shop refuses to sell it. Ramya sues the shop owner.
(a) Ramya will succeed because she accepted the offer of the shop owner which was made through the price marked in the display case.
(b) Ramya will succeed because unless the owner wished to sell the dress for Rs. 250, there was no reason for the owner to mark the price as such in the display case.
(c) Ramya will not succeed because the owner marked the price in the display case only to customers who would then make offers to the owner.(c) Ramya will not succeed because the owner marked the price in the display case only to customers who would then make offers to the owner.
(d) None of the above
7. The rule of ‘Absolute Liability’ of torts was laid down in which case?
(a) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
(b) Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India
(c) Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India
(d) All of the above
8. LEGAL PRINCIPLE - Contractual liability is completely irrelevant to the existence of liability in tort. FACTS - X purchased a bottle of ginger-beer from a retailer. The bottle was opaque and the contents were not visible from outside. As she consumed more than ¾ of the contents of the bottle, she found decomposed remains of a snail in the bottle. After seeing the remain of a snail, she fell sick on the thought of what she consumed. She sued the manufacturer of the beer for negligence.
(a) X cannot sue the manufacturer for negligence in the absence of direct contract.
(b) X can sue the retailer from whom she bought the drink.
(c) X can sue the manufacturer as he had a duty to take care to see that bottles did not contain any other substance than the beer and hence, he is liable for having broken that duty.
(d) X can sue both the retailer as well as the manufacturer.
9. In which case was it held that a contract by a minor is void ab initio?
(a) Mohiri Bibi v. Dharmo Das Ghose
(b) Hadley v. Baxendale
(c) Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
(d) Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt
10. LEGAL PRINCIPLE – When two persons are negligent, the person who had the last opportunity of avoiding an accident by taking ordinary care is liable for carelessness as per the ‘Last Opportunity’ Rule. FACTS – Dhanraj ignored the red light on the railway crossing and drove his car onto the railway tracks as a train was approaching. The motor stalled and Dhanraj did not have the sufficient time to get the car across the tracks. Pillai, the railway engine driver, saw Dhanraj and could have stopped the train had he not been engrossed in waving at a group of girls jogging along a road beside the track. They collided and Dhanraj was injured. What would be the outcome in an action by Dhanraj against Pillai?
(a) Dhanraj will lose because he could not get to safety in time.
(b) Dhanraj will win because Pillai was operating the train in a careless manner.
(c) Dhanraj will lose because Pillai was relying on the warning signal.
(d) Dhanraj will lose because he did not obey the red signal.
This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google.
Terms of Service