Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: Consent is a good defence in a civil action for tort but the act should be the same for which consent was given.
Fact: 'B' was formally invited by 'A' to his house. 'B' after sitting for some time in drawing room, moved to the bedroom of the house. 'A' sued 'B' for trespass.
विकल्प
'B' has offended 'A' by moving to bedroom.
'B' has interfered with privacy of 'A'
'B' has committed trespass as there was no consent of 'A' for entry in the Bedroom.
'B' has committed no trespass as he entered the house with 'A's consent.
उत्तर
'B' has committed trespass as there was no consent of 'A' for entry in the Bedroom.
Explanation:
In trespass, the interference with the possession is direct and through some tangible object. The reasonable conclusion is drawn that B has committed trespass as there was no consent of A for entry in the Bedroom. Hence "'B' has committed trespass as there was no consent of 'A' for entry in the Bed room." correct.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: When, at the desire one person, any other person has done or abstained from doing something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.
Facts: X, the uncle of Y, made a promise to pay him an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as a reward if Y quits smoking and drinking within one year. Y quit smoking and drinking within six months.
The question consists of legal propositions/principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principles may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true. In other words, in answering the following question, you must not rely on any principles except the principle that is given hereinbelow for the question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest in the study of law, research aptitude, and problem-solving ability.
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 interest.
Facts: X, who is usually of sound mind but occasionally of unsound mind enters into a contract with Y when he (X) is of unsound mind. Y came to know about this fact afterward and now wants to file a suit against X.
Read the definition and elements of the attempt, apply them on the given fact situations and answer the question:
Definition of Attempt: Lord Blackburn has said that "there is no doubt that there is difference between a preparation antecedent to an attempt and the actual attempt, but if the actual transaction has commenced which would have ended in the crime if not interrupted, there is clearly an attempt to commit the crime."
1. Fault element· Intention or knowledge requisite for committing an offense: and
2. Conduct Element: does any act towards its commission and has crossed the stage of preparation. This act is so closely connected with and proximate to the commission that it falls in object because of facts not known to him or because of circumstances beyond his control.
'SINY' with an intention to pick-pocket puts his hand into MlNU's pocket. MINU had a Joaded pistol in his pocket The thief touches the pistol and trigger goes on, whereby MINU is shot dead.
Choose the most appropriate option:
'obiter dicta' means-
Mark the best option:
IPSO facto means?
Legal phrase is followed by four meanings. Choose the most appropriate option:
Bona vacantia
Legal phrase is followed by four meanings. Choose the most appropriate option:
Pari passu
Mark the best option:
Which one is not a qualification for appointment as a High Court Judge?
Which of the following is not a category of copyright work in the CDPA?
The following question consists of two statements, one labelled as. 'Assertion' and the other as 'Reason'. Read both the statements carefully and answer using the codes given below.
Assertion (A): International law is not law at all.
Reason (R): International law has no judicial system to enforce the law by applying sanctions.
