Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: A person, who is usually of unsound mind, but occasionally normal, may make a contract when he is not of unsound mind.
Facts: 'A' generally remains in the state of unsound mind and rarely becomes capable of understanding the things.
पर्याय
'A' can make a contract at any time whenever he pleases.
'A' can make a contract only for his own benefit.
'A' can make a contract when normal.
'A' can never make a contract.
उत्तर
'A' can make a contract when normal.
Explanation:
According to the Section 12 of the Indian Contract Act defines that if 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.
A person who is usually of unsound but occasionally of sound mind may make a contract when he is a sound mind. Reasonable conclusion drawn in the above-noted problem, A can make the contract when normal.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: Everyone has the right of private defense to defend his body and property by use of reasonable force unless that person had time to have recourse to the protection of public authorities.
Facts: X receives information at 5.00 pm that Y along with few friends are planning to burn his crop at midnight which is ready to be harvested. He does not inform the village Police Station which was just one kilometer away. He gathers his family members and directs them to collect some weapons in the form of swords and lathis to protect his field/crop. At around 11.00 pm Y and his aides attack the crop and a severe fight ensues wherein Y is seriously injured.
"No action lies against the Government for injury done to an individual in the course of exercise of its sovereign functions". All of the following actions are covered by the above provision, except
Mark the best option:
Facts: A fabric trader wanted to travel to Ludhiana to meet his distributors and show them the new stock of fabric. He hired a taxi and drove from Chandigarh to Ludhiana with samples of the new fabric. The trader stopped at a restaurant to grab some lunch. He asked the taxi driver to eat something as well and told him that he would return in ½ hour. The taxi driver took advantage of this opportunity and acting in collusion with some petty thieves, facilitated the stealing of some of the fabric samples by the latter. It was only on the next day that the fabric trader realized that some of his samples were missing. He suspected the taxi driver of carrying out this theft. Eventually, he sued the taxi company for the value of the stolen goods. Decide the case.
Principle: A master is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of his servant in the course of his employment and which fall within the scope of employment of the servant.
Legal Principle: A person who keeps hazardous substances in his premises, is responsible for the fault if that substance escapes in any manner and causes damage.
Facts: A, an industrialist stored 1000 litres of liquid ammonia in a tank in his premises for his industrial use. There was a leakage from the tank due to which there was ammonia vapour in the surroundings. Many workers in other industries, as well as his own industry and some members from the public, suffered serious health hazards. Examine the liability of A, if any.
Aaron is the punter on his high school football team. Biff, one of the players on the opposing team, runs into Aaron as he is punting the ball. Aaron is injured. Biff’s team is penalized 15 yards for roughing the kicker. Which of the following most accurately states the likely outcome if Aaron sues Biff in the tort of battery?
PRINCIPLE An unlawful action is sufficient to establish an actionable claim under the law of torts and the court need not go into the motivations behind such unlawful action.
FACTS Z, a reporter, had approached A, a famous politician, several times for an interview. Z knew that A was having an affair with his secretary. Frustrated and vengeful, z ran a cover story about the affair disclosing all the information and evidence of the affair. A in tum sued Z for defamation, stating the action was based on vendetta and malice on account of his refusal to give Z an interview. The suit against Z shall
A person is said to be vicariously liable when
Principle: A master shall be responsible for the wrongful acts of his servants in the course of his employment.
Facts: The Syndicate Bank was running a small savings scheme under which its authorized agents would go round and collect small savings from several people on daily basis. These agents would get commission, on the deposits so collected. Ananth was one such agent, collecting deposits from factory workers engaged on daily wages. Though he regularly carried on his business for sometime, slowly he started appropriating deposits for his personal use and one day he just disappeared. One Fatima, who had been handing over her savings to him found that nearly for a month before his disappearance, he was not depositing her savings at all. The Bank, when approached, took the stand that Ananth was not its regular and paid employee and therefore, it was not responsible for his misconduct. She files a suit against the Bank
Principle: A person is liable for all the injurious consequences of his careless act.
Facts: Ram, a snake charmer, was exhibiting his talents to a group of people. One of the snakes escaped and bit a child who had to be hospitalized for two days for treatment.
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
1. Vicarious liability is when employers are held liable for the torts of their employees that are committed during the course of employment.
2. A servant is a person subject to the command of his master as to the manner in which he shall do his work. The question of whether a person is an employee depends upon the degree of control which the ‘employer’ exercises over the worker.
Facts:
Raja is a travel agent and possessed certain houses, which had an internal communication throughout, and which were used for the purposes of his business. Ramesh looked after the houses and lived in them for this purpose, but he was also a clerk in the Raja’s pay at a set annual salary. He lived in the houses with his wife, a child, and a servant. The case concerned the payment of inhabited house duty. There was a statutory exemption for premises which were occupied by a "servant”or person occupying the premises “for the protection thereof. Raja was claiming the exemption from tax liability by claiming that Ramesh was the servant. Decide whether Ramesh was a servant or an independent contractor?
