Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option
Principle: A person is said to do a thing fraudulently, if he does that thing with intent to defraud, but not otherwise.
Facts: 'A' occasionally hands over his ATM card to 'B' to withdraw money for 'A'. On one occasion 'B' without the knowledge of 'A', uses 'A's ATM card to find out the balance in 'A's account, but does not withdraw any money.
Options
'B' has not committed the act fraudulently.
'B' has committed the act fraudulently
'B' has committed misappropriation
'B' has committed breach of faith
Solution
'B' has not committed the act fraudulently.
Explanation:
For fraud, it is necessary that a person intentionally makes a false statement to deceive another party and thereby induce him to enter into a contract. If the intention to deceive the party is absent, there is no fraud.
'B' does not have any intention of withdrawing money from the account of 'A' without the consent of 'A' and no withdrawal has been carried out by 'B' who only checks the balance in the account. (Derry v Peek (1889) LR 14 App Cas 337, UKHL 1)
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principle: Whoever takes away any moveable thing from the land of any person without that person‘s consent is said to commit theft.
Facts: During his visit to the home of C, A asks B, the son of C, to accompany A to a forest. Neither A nor B informs C in this regard. B accompanies A to the forest.
Principle: Consent is a good defence for civil action in tort. But consent must include both knowledge of risk and assumption of risk, i.e, readiness to bear harm.
Facts: A lady passenger was aware that the driver of the cab, in which she opted to travel was little intoxicated. The cab met with an accident and lady got injured.
Mark the best option:
Principles: In case, where the government is a party, the government shall be the first owner of the copyright in the work unless there is an agreement to the contrary.
Facts: The Government of the State of X entered into an agreement with a retired Professor of Botany. Resultantly he wrote the book.
Which of the following court cases involves a tort?
Negligence involves:
What is the Compensation Act 2006 s 1 has what purpose...
Which of the following is not an objective of the law of tort?
Principle: Injuria Sine Damnum i.e. Injury (violation of legal right) without damage
Facts: X, who was the returning officer at a polling booth in Amethi, wrongly refused to register a duly tendered vote of Y in the recent UP elections, even though Y was an eligible voter. The candidate in whose favour Y wanted to vote, was declared elected. Give the appropriate answer-
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: The master/principal is liable for all acts done by his duly appointed servant/agent for all acts done by him lawfully in the course of his employment.
Factual situation: A, B, C and D carried on a business in partnership. While making a deal with another company, B bribed the clerk there. Is the partnership firm vicariously liable? DECISION:
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
1. The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
3. Volenti non-fit injuria is defence to action in negligence.
Facts:
In a sad incident, 95 fans of a Football club died in a stampede in the Nehru Stadium. The court has decided that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the Police in permitting too many supporters to crowd in one part of the stadium. Now, a suit is filed by Harman and several other people against the Commissioner of State Police. Harman and the other claimants had relatives who were caught up in the Nehru Stadium disaster. The disaster was broadcast on live television, where several claimants alleged, they had witnessed friends and relatives die. Others were present in the stadium or had heard about the events in other ways. All claimed damages for the psychiatric harm they suffered as a result. Determine whether, for the purposes of establishing liability in negligence, those who suffer purely psychiatric harm from witnessing an event at which they are not physically present are sufficiently proximate for a duty to be owed, and thus can be said to be reasonably within the contemplation of the tortfeasor?
