Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Legal Principle: Nuisance is the unlawful interference with a person’s enjoyment of his land or some rights over or in connection with it.
Fact Situation: Ashok, in his nineties, is hard of hearing and plays the radio very loudly throughout the day and on a daily basis. Raju, his neighbor, complained that he cannot listen to his favorite TV show in his home due to the radio of Ashok.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
विकल्प
Listening to the radio is Ashok’s freedom.
Ashok is creating a nuisance to his neighbour by playing the radio loud perpetually and disturbing Raju in being able to listen to the TV in his home.
Raju is creating a nuisance by complaining about Ashok’s enjoyment of hearing his radio.
Raju should appreciate that Ashok is aged and hard of hearing.
उत्तर
Ashok is creating a nuisance to his neighbour by playing the radio loud perpetually and disturbing Raju in being able to listen to the TV in his home.
Explanation:
Private Nuisance. Private nuisance may be defined as unlawful interference with a person's use, comfort, enjoyment, and any interest that a person may have over his land... An interference becomes unlawful and constitutes a nuisance when it unreasonably interferes with the plaintiff's enjoyment of his land. Ashok will be considered as creating a nuisance for his neighbor as he is listening to music at unreasonably high volumes which are interfering with the right of his neighbor Raju.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: Use of criminal force intentionally knowing that it would cause or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the person against whom force is used, is an offense.
Facts: X, a renowned social worker who had launched a movement for the liberation of women, pull up a Muslim women‘s veil in public in good faith without her consent causing annoyance to her.
Principle: There are certain acts which, though harmful, are not wrongful in law; therefore, do not give legal right to bring action in law, to the person who suffers from such acts.
Facts: 'Prakash' has a rice mill. His neighbor, Shanti, sets up another rice mill and offers a tough competition to Prakash. As a consequence, Prakash's profits fall down. He brings a suit against Shanti for damages.
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: An offer made by one party when accepted by another makes it a contract.
Transactions:
1. P offered to sell his house for Rs. 20 lakhs to R; R told P that he was interested to buy a house for 15 lakhs only.
2. C was looking for a house for not more than 25 lakhs; P informed C that his house was available for 20 lakhs.
3. K wanted to buy some old furniture; L told K that he would sell his furniture for Rs. 10, 000.
4. R advertised to sell his old car for a price of Rs. Three lakhs; S found the advertisement and offered to buy it for Rs. 2 lakhs 50 thousand; R agrees to sell it to S.
Which among the above is actually a contract?
Muslim religious foundations are known as
In most cases, a threat of violence made over the telephone cannot constitute an assault. Which of the following most accurately explains why not?
Which of the following is not an element of an intentional tort?
Negligence means
The question contains some basic principles and fact situations in which these basic principles have to be applied. A list of probable decisions and reasons are given.
Principles:
1. When a person unlawfully interferes in the chattel of another person by which the latter is deprived of its use, the former commits the tort of conversion.
2. Nobody shall enrich himself at other's expense,
Facts:
A patient suffering from stomach ailment approached. a teaching hospital. He was diagnosed as suffering from appendicitis and his appendix was removed. He became alright. The hospital however found some unique cells in the appendix and using the cell lines thereof, it developed drugs of enormous commercial value. When the erstwhile patient came to know about it, he claimed a share in the profit made by the hospital.
Possible Decisions
(a) The hospital need not share its profits with the patient.
(b) The hospital may share its profits on ex gratis basis. (c) The hospital shall share its profits with the patient.
Possible Reasons
(i) The patient, far from being deprived of the use of his appendix, actually benefitted by its removal.
(ii) The hospital instead of throwing away the appendix conducted further research on it on its own and the development of the drug was the result of its own effort.
(iii) The hospital could not have achieved its success without that appendix belonging to the patient.
(iv) Everybody must care for and share with others. Your decision with the reason.
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 the scope of employment, the master is liable only if he has expressly authorised the act.
A owned a bus and he had hired B to drive it and C to be the conductor. One day, when B had stepped out of the bus to have a cup of coffee. C decided to turn the bus around so that it was ready for its next trip. While doing so, C ran over D's leg, causing major injuries to him. D sued A for damages.
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal principle: Whoever stores a substance that could cause damage to escape shall be absolutely liable (i.e. liable even when he has exercised necessary care) for any damage caused by the escape of the substance.
Factual situation: Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) manufactured methyl isocyanate, an extremely toxic gas. Due to a storm, the gas that was being stored in sealed containers got released. Before much could happen, the local municipal authorities managed to contain the disaster. The authorities filed a suit against UCIL for the costs that were incurred in decontamination. However, later it was realized that the clean-up by the authorities could have been done without spending as many resources and the damage was not that significant. UCIL argued that it would pay only part of the amount demanded by the authorities, which could have dealt with the contamination. DECISION:
