Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Legal Principle: An essential condition in a contract for the sale of goods is that the seller has title over the goods sold.
Fact Situation: Ranjan pays rupees two thousand and buys a watch from Mohit who runs a watch showroom and a repair shop. Jatin sees the watch with Ranjan and tells him that it is his watch and was only given to Mohit for repairs. If what Jatin says is true
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
विकल्प
Ranjan is now the owner of the watch since he paid rupees two thousand for it.
Ranjan is not the owner of the watch since Mohit did not have a title to it.
Mohit must pay Jatin rupees two thousand since he sold Jatin’s watch.
Mohit is the owner of the watch since he sold it to Ranjan.
उत्तर
Ranjan is not the owner of the watch since Mohit did not have a title to it.
Explanation:
Rules as to title: There is an implied condition on the part of the seller that, in the case of a sale, he has the right to sell the goods, and in the case of an agreement to sell, he will have the right to sell the goods when the property is to pass. Thus if the seller has no title to the goods, the buyer can reject the goods, or if he has taken possession of the goods and is deprived of it by the real owner, the buyer can recover the full price of the goods even if he has made use of them. A bought a motor-car from and used it for 4 months. B had no title to the car because he has obtained the possession by theft and consequently A had to surrender it to the real owner. A was entitled to recover from B the full price even though he used the car for 4 months. (Rowland Vs. Divall). Hence option (b) is the most appropriate. Mohit did not have title to the watch so he can not pass it to Ranjan so neither Mohit nor Ranjan is the owner of the watch.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: A person, who is usually mad, but occasionally not mad, may make a contract when he is not mad.
Facts: 'A‘ generally remains in the state of madness and rarely becomes capable of understanding anything.
Principle: Terms of any written contract can be proved by producing the written contract only and oral evidence is excluded.
Facts: A gives B receipt for money paid by B. Oral evidence is offered to prove payment.
Legal Principle: ‘Gift' means a transfer of certain existing property made voluntarily and without consideration, by a donor, to a donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee during the lifetime of the donor.
Facts: Amit executed a gift deed for property ‘X’ in favour of Sooraj, who happened to be Amit’s loyal servant’s son settled in the U.S. Two months thereafter, Amit died without leaving a will regarding his assets. Amit’s children initiated steps to partition his entire property, including property ‘X’ among themselves. At that time, Sooraj came to India, and learning about the gift, claimed the property ‘X’.
A lease agreement is a form of
The contract is said to have three essentials. Which one among the following is not essential in the formation of a contract?
Sheela, an adult married woman, agreed to live in adultery with Rahul and also agreed to serve him as his housekeeper. In return, Rahul, an adult agreed to pay Sheela ₹ 5000 per month for living in adultery and ₹ 5000 per month for housekeeping, the agreement is
No one can be convicted twice for the same offense. This doctrine is called
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by factual situations. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer.
A sent a letter to B stating that he was willing to sell to B, 10 bags of rice at ₹20/- each. B wrote a letter to A accepting the offer and posted it.
Principle: The consideration or object of an agreement is unlawful if the court regards it as opposed to public policy. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.
Facts: 'X' promises to obtain for 'Y' employment in the public service and 'Y' promises to pay ₹500000 to 'X'
Which of the following derivations is correct?
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: An agreement is void if its object is unlawful.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Sunil had a rich uncle who owned prime property in Chennai and had a lot of money in the bank. Being the only heir. Sunil was sure that he would inherit the property. One day, the uncle called him to his room and announced that he planned to marry again. This angered Sunil and he plans to murder his uncle so he hired Anuj, a murderer, and entered into a contract with him to kill his uncle. Sunil agreed to pay ₹10 lakhs to Anuj and even paid 5 lakhs as advance. The following night Anuj entered the uncle's house intending to kill him. On reaching there, he realised that Sunil's uncle was already dead so he left without doing anything. The next day, after the post mortem report, it transpired that Sunil's uncle had died due to heart attack. Now, Sunil wants to recover the advance from Anuj. Will he succeed?
DECISION:
