Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
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.
Options
X is a renowned social worker and he has committed no offence because his motive was good
X acted in good faith to liberate her from clutches of tradition and has hence has committed no offence
X has done the act in public and not in secrecy, therefore, had not committed any offence
X has committed an offence by use of criminal force
Solution
X has committed an offense by use of criminal force
Explanation:
X has committed an offense by the use of criminal force. The act has caused annoyance to the victim. Moreover, X used criminal force (using his physical power to unveil the woman) and the use of criminal force is intentional. According to the principle intentional use of criminal force and the knowledge that it would cause annoyance makes it an offense.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principle: A condition to a contract can also be complied with after the happening of the event to which such a condition is attached.
Facts: 'A' promises to pay Rs. 5000 to 'B' on the condition that he shall marry with the consent of 'C', 'D' and 'E'. 'B' marries without the consent of 'C', 'D' and 'E', but obtains their consent after the marriage.
When goods are displayed in a shop with a price tag, it is
What main element differentiates the crime of battery from the tort of battery?
Public nuisance include
PRINCIPLE A person is not liable for every harm which comes from the act but is only liable for those harms which can be reasonably foreseen at the time of the injury.
FACTS Sumati, who was being threatened by armed robbery pulled the railway chain. The engine driver recorded the chain pulling but did not stop thinking it to be the work of mischievous passengers wishing to alight before the station. As a result, no help came to Sumati, who was robbed and injured. The suit brought by her was resisted by the railways. As a judge, you would
In Torts, the remedy is
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.
Principle: An employer is liable for the negligence of his employee. But an employer is not liable for the negligence of his employee, if the victim of such negligence is one of his other employees.
Facts: A and B were working in factory as unskilled labourers. A was carrying a basket of stones on his head. B was sitting on the ground. When A crossed B, all of a sudden a stone fell down from the basket and hit B on his head. B died immediately.
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:
1. An unlawful intrusion that interferes with one's person or property constitutes trespass.
2. An easement is the right to use another person's land for a stated purpose and has been in use for quite some time. It can involve a general or specific portion of the property.
Factual Situation: Vijay wanted to construct a shed on his window to stop the water from leaking to his house. The shed was constructed but it protruded in Namit's house. Vijay claims it is his elementary right. Will Vijay's claim succeed? 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 a defence to action in negligence.
Facts:
X purchased a disused cinema with the intention of turning it into a Multiplex. Six weeks after, X entered the building for the first time, it was set on fire by intruders and destroyed. As a result, the adjacent buildings were also affected and damaged. The cinema building was a target for vandals and children who often played there, but X had had no knowledge of previous attempts to start a fire at the cinema buildings. The owners of the adjacent buildings brought an action for negligence against X on grounds that X failed to take reasonable care for the safety of the buildings by not keeping the cinema locked, making regular inspections and employing a caretaker. Decide whether the occupier of a property owes a duty of care to the adjoining occupiers in respect of acts of trespass on his property resulting in damage to the adjoining properties?
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
The tort of negligent misstatement is defined as an inaccurate statement made honestly but carelessly usually in the form of advice given by a party with special skill/knowledge to a party that doesn’t possess this skill or knowledge.
Facts:
X and Y Co. were advertising agents placing contracts on behalf of a client on credit terms, X and Y Co. would be personally liable should the client default. To protect themselves, the X and Y asked their bankers to obtain a credit reference from K and L, the client’s bankers. The reference (given both orally and then in writing) was given gratis and was favorable, but also contained an exclusion clause to the effect that the information was given ‘without responsibility on the part of this Bank or its officials’. X and Y relied upon this reference and subsequently suffered financial loss when the client went into liquidation. X and Y sued K and L Co. for negligence, claiming that the information was given negligently and was misleading. K and L argued there was no duty of care owed regarding the statements. Decide.
