Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Legal Principle: An agreement entered into by way of a wager/bet is unenforceable in law.
Fact Situation: Thomas is very good at predicting the outcomes of cricket matches. Raja and Hoja give him rupees thousand each to enable him to bet with others about the outcome of a cricket match. Thomas wins rupees three lakh after betting three thousand rupees.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
पर्याय
Thomas must share rupees three lakh with Raja and Hoja equally.
Thomas must return rupees thousand each to Raja and Hoja.
Thomas need not share the three lakh with Raja and Hoja since it is the outcome of an unenforceable agreement.
If Thomas does not pay them rupees two lakh each, Raja and Hoja can sue him to recover their share.
उत्तर
Thomas need not share the three lakh with Raja and Hoja since it is the outcome of an unenforceable agreement.
Explanation:
Effects of wagering agreement-According to the section 30 of contract act, "agreements by way of wager are void; and no suit shall be brought for recovering anything alleged to be won on any wager, or entrusted to any person to abide the result of any game or other uncertain event on which any wager is made". Thus in the case presented before us, there is no agreement and even If there was an agreement, it was by way of wager, so it is void under section 30 of the contract act. Hence option (c) is the most appropriate and Thomas is not required to share his winnings with Raja and Hoja as there was no enforceable agreement between them.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Consists of legal proposition(s)/ principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this Section. In other words, in answering these questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every 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, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the objective of this section to test your knowledge of the law.
Therefore, to answer a question, the principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option.
Principle: When a person who has made a promise to another person to do something does not fulfill his promise, the other person becomes entitled to receive, from the person who did not fulfill his promise, compensation in the form of money.
Facts: ‘X’ made a promise to ‘Y’ to repair his car engine. ‘Y’ made the payment for repair. After the repair, ‘Y’ went for a drive in the same car. While driving the car, ‘Y’ met with an accident due to the bursting of a tire.
Legal Principle: The insurer agrees to pay no more than the actual amount of the loss.
Fact Situation: Sunny insures his car worth rupees five lakh with X, an insurance company, for its value. He again insures the same car with Y, another insurance company, on the same terms. There is an accident and the car suffers a total loss. In his separate suits against X and Y, if Sunny recovers rupees five lakh from X, how much can he recover from Y?
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
The law of contract is nothing but
A contract creates
A owned a truck and he had hired B to drive it. On one of its trips. C flagged the truck down and asked to be dropped to a nearby city. B agreed to do so for a small amount of money. The truck met with an accident en route, in which C was badly injured. C sued A for damages.
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer.
Principle: A second suit will not be heard on the same facts between the same parties.
Nakshatra files a suit against Chandra for getting possession of a house on the ground that the property passed on to her through the will executed by Surya before his death. The suit gets dismissed as Nakshatra fails to produce the will. Nakshatra files another suit against Chandra to get the same house from the latter, on the ground that she was entitled to the house as being the nearest heir of Surya.
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer.
Principle: Law does not take notice of trifles.
Facts: A proposes to his neighbour B that they both should go together for a morning walk. B agrees to the proposal and it is decided that both of them would meet at a particular point at 6 AM from where they would set off for the morning walk. In spite of the agreement, B does not turn up. A waits for him at 6 AM every day for a continuous period of seven days. Thereafter he files a suit against B claiming damages for the agony and mental torture suffered by him. Decide.
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: When a person voluntarily agrees to suffer some harm, he is not allowed to complain about that.
Facts: ‘A’ was one of the spectators at a formula one car race, being held at Gurgaon, on a track owned by one’ company. During the race, there was a collision between two racing cars, one of which was thrown away amidst spectators, thereby causing an injury to ‘A’, ‘A’ claims damages for the injuries caused to him.
Principle: The transferor of goods cannot pass a better title than what he himself possesses.
Facts: 'X' sells a stolen bike to 'Y' 'Y' buys it in good faith. As regards the title to bike, which of the following derivations is correct?
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
1. A contract comes into being from the acceptance of an offer, When the person to whom the offer is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted and the parties are at consensus and idem regarding the terms of the agreement.
2. Consideration is something that moves from the promise to the promisor, at the implied or express request of the latter, in return for his promise. The item that moves can be a right. interest, profit, loss, responsibility given or suffered, forbearance, or a benefit which is of some value in the eyes of law.
3. Contractual rights and liabilities are exclusive to the parties to contract.
4. There are few exceptions to the doctrine of privity of contracts like agency, trust, assignment, and third party beneficiary.
5. A quasi-contract is a contract that is created by the court when no such official contract exists between the parties to prevent a party from being unjustly enriched, or from benefitting from the situation when he/she does not deserve to do so.
Facts: Goodtyre is a tyre manufacturer who agreed with their dealer to not sell the tyres below a recommended retail price (RRP). As part of the agreement, Goodtyre also required their dealers to gain the same agreement with their retailers, who in this instance was Bestmotors. The agreement held that if tyres were sold below the RRP, they would be required to pay ₹ 500 per tyre in damages to Good tyre. This was agreed between the dealer and Bestmotors, which effectively made Goodtyre a third party to that agreement. Sometime after this, Bestmotor sold the tyres below the agreed price and Goodtyre sued for damages and an injunction to prevent them from continuing this activity. Bestmotors is arguing that Goodtyre could not enforce the contract as it was not part of the contract between the dealer and Bestmotors. The court decided that Goodtyre had no right to access damages. Which of the following is the correct reasons?
I. The good tyre could not claim for damages as only a party to a contract can claim damages under it.
II. The good tyre had not given any consideration to Bestmotors and therefore there could be no binding contract between the parties.
III. The good tyre was not listed as an agent within the contract and could therefore not be included as a valid third-party who had rights to claim on the contract.
