English

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. - Mathematics

Advertisements
Advertisements

Question

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. 

Options

  • B can bring legal action against A. 

  • B cannot bring any legal action against A. 

  • A can bring legal action against B. 

  • A and B can initiate appropriate legal proceedings against each other. 

MCQ

Solution

B cannot bring any legal action against A. 

Explanation:

According to Section 24 of the Indian Contract Act defines that agreement is void if considerations and objects in part is unlawful. If any part of a single consideration for one or more objects, or anyone or any part of any one of several considerations for a  single object, is unlawful, the agreement is void.  The reasonable conclusion is drawn that B cannot bring any legal proceeding against A is the correct answer.   

shaalaa.com
Law of Torts (Entrance Exams)
  Is there an error in this question or solution?
2018-2019 (May) Set 1

RELATED QUESTIONS

Principle: Use of criminal force intentionally knowing that it would cause or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the person against whom force is used, is an offense.

Facts: X, a renowned social worker who had launched a movement for the liberation of women, pull up a Muslim women‘s veil in public in good faith without her consent causing annoyance to her. 


Principle: Law does not penalise for wrongs which are of trivial nature.

Facts: In the course of a discussion, 'A' threw a file of papers at the table which touched the hands of 'B'.


Which of the following is an example of trespass?


Which one of the following interests are not protected by the law of tort?


Which of the following is not a defense to trespass to the person?


PRINCIPLE The use of force with the intent to cause harm, or annoy or induce· fear is termed as the Torts of battery.

FACTS A group of construction workers was negligently handling bricks bycatch and throw. Simmons was passing by the site where one such brick fell on Simmons and he brought a case of battery against the contractor under whose employment the workmen were carrying out the construction.


When the master is held liable for the wrongful acts of his servant, the liability is


LEGAL PRINCIPLE 'Free consent' defined as - Consent is said to free when it is not caused by

I. coercion as defined in Section 15
II. under influence, as defined in Section 16
III. fraud, as defined in Section 17, or
Iv. misrepresentation, as defined in Section 18
v. mistake, subject to the provisions of Sections 20, 21 and 22 Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, under the influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. 'Fraud' is defined in which Section?


In Law of Torts,


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) Consumable goods that are not fit for consumption are not marketable.
(2) A consumer shall not suffer on account of unmarketable goods.
(3) A seller is liable for knowingly selling unmarketable goods.
(4) A manufacturer shall be liable for the quality of his products.

Facts:

Ram bought a Coca Cola bottle from Shama's shop. Back at home, the server opened the bottle and poured the drink into the glasses of Ram and his friend Tom. As Tom started drinking, he felt irritation in his throat. Immediately, Ram and Tom took the sample to test and found nitric acid in the content. Ram filed a suit against Shama, Coca Cola company and the bottler, Kishen and Co.

Suggested Decisions

(a) Ram cannot get compensation
(b) Tom can get compensation
(c) Both Ram and Tom can get compensation

Suggested Reasons

(i) Shama did not know the contents of sealed bottle.
(ii) Ram did not actually suffer though he bought the bottle.
(iii) Tom did not buy the bottle.
(iv) Coca Cola company is responsible since it supplied the concentrate.
(v) Kishen & Co is responsible since it added water, sugar, etc., and sealed the bottle.
(vi) Shama is responsible for selling the defective product. Your decision with the reason,


Share
Notifications

Englishहिंदीमराठी


      Forgot password?
Use app×