Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Principle:
1. Wagering agreements are void.
2. Collateral agreements to wagering contracts are valid.
Facts: XYZ Bank lends Rs. 40, 000 to Sabu in order to enable him to award as a prize to Randeep who is the winner of horse race. Later Sabu refuses to pay the prize stating that horse racing is wagering agreement. Can XYZ Bank recover money from Sabu?
Options
No, as it is a wagering contract.
Bank can recover money from Sabu so that payment of prize m oney can be made to Randeep.
Yes, as it is only a collateral agreement to horse racing and therefore the bank can recover the money from Sabu.
Horse racing is illegal and therefore XYZ Bank cannot recover a nything from Sabu.
Solution
Yes, as it is only a collateral agreement to horse racing and therefore the bank can recover the money from Sabu.
Explanation:
There is an exception under section 30 of the Indian Contract Act in which it is mentioned that in favour of certain prizes for Horse Racing shall not be deemed to render unlawful a subscription or contribution, or agreement to subscribe or contribute, made or entered into for or to word any plate, prize or sum of money, of the value or amount of five hundred rupees or upwards, to be rewarded to the winner or winners of any horse race. The reasonable conclusion is drawn that only collateral agreement to horse racing and therefore the bank can recover the money from Sabu.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principle: The sale of liquor is illegal. All agreements relating to prohibited items do not exist in the eyes of law.
Facts: 'A‘ entered into an agreement with 'B‘ for the sale of liquor. 'A‘ failed to supply the agreed quantity of liquor to B.
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: When a person interferes with peaceful possession of another person without the permission of the person in possession of those premises, commits trespass to land.
Facts: 'T' just walked over the land of 'P' to reach his house as it was a short cut. 'P' had displayed a notice that it is not a thoroughfare. 'P' did not cause any damage to the land.
Legal Principle: The Latin maxim nemo bis punitur pro eodem delictomeans that nobody can be punished twice for the same offence.
Fact Situation: Sajan, a petty thief, is caught and thrashed thoroughly by the people before being handed over to the police. Sajan pleads before the magistrate that since he was already thrashed by the people he should not be again punished by the State.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Andrew throws a baseball towards Barry, with whom he is playing pitch and catch. Andrew’s aim is bad and the ball hits Cassandra, who is walking nearby.
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?
In most cases, a threat of violence made over the telephone cannot constitute an assault. Which of the following most accurately explains why not?
Public nuisance include
When the master is held liable for the wrongful acts of his servant, the liability is
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. A master shall be liable for the fraudulent acts of his servants committed in the course of employment.
2. Whether an act is committed in the course of employment has to be judged in the context of the case.
3. Both master and third parties must exercise reasonable care in this regard.
Facts:
Rama Bhai was an uneducated widow and she opened a'S.B. account with Syndicate Bank with the help of her nephew by name Keshav who was at that time working as a clerk in the Bank. 'Keshav used to deposit the money of Rama Bhai from time to time' and get the entries done in the passbook. After a year or so, Keshav was dismissed from the service by the Bank. Being unaware of this fact, Rama Bhai continued to hand over her savings to him and Keshav misappropriated them. Rama Bhai realized this only when Keshav disappeared from, the scene one day and she sought compensation from the Bank.
Possible Decisions
(a) Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
(b) Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
(c) Rama Bhai cannot blame others for her negligence.
Possible Reasons
(i) Keshav was not an employee of the Bank when the fraud" was committed.
(ii) The Bank was not aware of the special arrangement between Rama Bhai and Keshay.
(iii) It is the Bank's duty to take care of vulnerable customers.
(iv) Rama Bhai should have checked about Keshav in her own interest. Your decision with the reason
