Principle: In order to be illegible to appear in the semester examination, a student is required to attend, under all circumstances, at least 70% of the total classes held in that semester as per University rules.
Facts: Anand, an economically poor but a very brilliant student of LL.B. final semester, while going to his University by cycle received some leg injuries in road accident. Consequently Anand could not attend his classes for one week as he was advised rest by his doctor for that period. Due to this absence from the University, Anand failed to have 70% attendance essential to appear in the examination and, therefore, he was debarred from appearing in the examination by the University authorities. Anand challenges this decision in the court of law

• Anand will succeed in the court of law as the accident was beyond his control

• Anand will definitely get favour of the court on humanitarian ground as he comes from a economically poor family and may not afford to take readmission

• Anand will not succeed as he could very easily fulfill eligibility criteria for appearing in the examination by being reasonably regular in the class throughout the semester

• Anand will not succeed as he could very easily fulfill eligibility criteria for appearing in the examination by being reasonably regular in the class throughout the semester

Principle: A seller of goods cannot transfer better rights than he himself possesses in the goods sold to the buyer.
Facts: Komal leaves his watch by mistake on a seat in the park. Sonal finds that watch and immediately sells the same for good price to Monal who without inquiring whether Sonal is its owner or not. Komal later on claims that watch from Monal. Decide whether Komal can succeed?

• Komal cannot succeed as Monal has paid good price of the watch

• Komal cannot succeed as Monal is unaware of the fact that Sonal is not its owner.

• Komal can not succeed as it was his carelessness and nothing else which enabled Sonal to sell the watch to Monal

• Komal can not succeed as it was his carelessness and nothing else which enabled Sonal to sell the watch to Monal

343.

Principle: All citizens shall have the Fundamental Right to carry on any occupation, trade or business. But reasonable restrictions on the exercise of such rights can be imposed by law in the interest of the general public.
Facts: A large number of persons had been carrying on the business of dyeing and printing in Rajkot area for the last 25 years providing employment to about 30000 families. From these business places untreated dirty water was being discharged on the roads thereby causing damage to the public health. A notice, therefore, was given to close this business till necessary measures to protect public health as provided under the environmental statutes were taken by those business men

• Notice can not be justified as it will cause loss of employment to 30000 families

• Notice can not be justified as it amounts to violation of the fundamental right of the persons who have been carrying on the business for the last 25 years

• The notice can not be justified on the ground of damage to public health as the persons in that area have been voluntarily residing for long and have become used to that environment.

• The notice can not be justified on the ground of damage to public health as the persons in that area have been voluntarily residing for long and have become used to that environment.

Principle: A Contract can not be enforced by or against a person who is not a party to it. However, where some benefit is conferred on third party by the contract itself, there third party can be allowed to enforce that contract to get such benefit.
Facts: Dinesh is liable to pay Rs. 50000/- to Suresh. In order to discharge this liability Dinesh enters into a contract with Ramesh by which Dinesh sells his car to Ramesh for Rs. 1 lac. Ramesh takes the delivery of the car and promises/ assures to pay its price at the earliest. Dinesh separately informs Suresh about this contract for his satisfaction. Ramesh fails to pay the car’s price. Suresh wants to join Dinesh in filing suit against Ramesh for the recovery of price of the car. Whether Suresh is entitled to do so?

• Suresh is entitled to do so because the contract was made for his benefit

• Suresh is entitled to do so because Dinesh is liable to him and discharge of this liability depends upon the payment of the price of the car by Ramesh

• Suresh is not entitled to do so because liability of Dinesh does not depand upon any assurance of Ramesh

• Suresh is not entitled to do so because liability of Dinesh does not depand upon any assurance of Ramesh

Principle: If a contract is made by post between two persons living in two different cities, then the contract is said to be complete as soon as the letter of acceptance is properly posted, and the place of completion of the contract is that city where acceptance is posted. It is worth mentioning here that in every contract there is always an offer from one party and the acceptance of the offer from the other party.
Facts: Sani, a resident of Patna, gives an offer by post to sell his house for Rs. 25 lacs to Hani, a resident of Allahabad. This offer letter is posted on 1st January 2013 from Patna and reaches Allahabad on 7th January 2013. Hani accepts this offer and posts the letter of acceptance on 8th January 2013 from Allahabad which reaches Patna on 16th January 2013. But Sani presuming that Hani is not interested in accepting his offer, sells his house to Gani at same price on 15th of January, 2013. Hani files a suit against Sani for the breach of contract in the competent court of Allahabad. Whether Hani will succeed?

• Hani can not succeed as Sani can not be compelled by law to wait for the answer from Hani for an indefinite period of time

• Hani can not succeed as he could use some other effective and speedy mode for communicating his acceptance in minimum possible time

• Hani can succeed as he properly posted the letter of acceptance and the delay was beyond his control

• Hani can succeed as he properly posted the letter of acceptance and the delay was beyond his control

Principle: He, who goes to the court of law to seek justice, must come with clean hands.
Facts: P enters into a contract with S under which S has to construct a house for P and has to complete the same within one year from the date of the contract. This contract includes two very important terms. According to first term if there is price hike of the materials to be used in the construction, then the escalation charges at a particular rate shall be payable by P to S. According to second term if the construction of the house is not completed within the period prescribed for it, then S will have to pay penalty at a particular rate to P. Before the completion of the construction work the workers of S go on strike and strike continues up to three months even after  the expiry of one year. After that period workers return and the construction work again starts. During the last three months period of strike there was a considerable rise in the price of the building material. S claimed escalation cost from P. P did not agree to it. S filed a suit in the court of law either to order the payment of the price of the building material on the basis of escalated price or to allow him to stop the work without incurring any penal liability towards P.

• S will succeed as strike by his workers was unexpected and beyond his control

• S can succeed as there is an escalation clause in the contract

• S can not succeed as he has failed to complete the construction work in time and strike can not be treated as a valid excuse for delay in work

• S can not succeed as he has failed to complete the construction work in time and strike can not be treated as a valid excuse for delay in work

Principle: If the object of an agreement is or becomes unlawful or immoral or opposed to public policy in the eyes of law, then the courts will not enforce such agreements. Law generally prohibits Child labour.
Facts: P enters into an agreement with T by which P has to let his house to T for two years and T has to pay Rs. 20000.00 per month to P as rent. T starts a child care centre in that house. But after some time in order to earn some money for the maintenance of the centre, T starts sending the children of the centre on the rotation basis to work for four hour a day in some nearby chemical and hazardous factories. When P comes to know about this new development, he asks T either to stop the children from working in factories or to leave his house immediately. T neither agrees to leave the house nor to stop the children from working in the factories. P files a suit in the court of law for appropriate relief/ action

• P can not succeed as the agreement was for the two years and it can not be terminated before the expiry of that period

• P can not succeed as the object at the time of making of the agreement was not clear

• P will succeed as the object of the agreement has become unlawful.

• P will succeed as the object of the agreement has become unlawful.

Principle: whosoever by his act or omission causes environmental pollution shall be held liable for any loss caused by such pollution. It shall be no defence in such cases that all due diligence or reasonable care was taken while carrying out the act or omission in question.
Facts: Hari is carrying on a chemical and fertilizer industry near a bank of a river. In order to prevent and control any kind of harm to the environment, suitable waste treatment and disposal plants were installed in the factory. Due to some sudden mechanical/ technical problem, these plants ceased to work properly and, therefore, caused environmental pollution, which ultimately caused substantial harm to the environment and to the people living around the factory. Victims of such pollution file a suit for suitable remedy.

• Victims can not succeed as necessary precautions to prevent any harm were taken by Hari

• Victims can not succeed as the mechanical/ technical problem was sudden and, therefore, beyond the control of Hari

• Victims can succeed as it is the duty of Hari to see that no harm is caused to the environment/ people due to his activity under any circumstances

• Victims can succeed as it is the duty of Hari to see that no harm is caused to the environment/ people due to his activity under any circumstances

Principle: If a person transfers movable or immovable property with its full ownership and without any consideration to some other person, then it is called a gift.
Facts: S, who has no child of his own, makes a gift of his house worth Rs. 25 lacs to his nephew R. After completing all the legal formalities required for a valid gift, S says to R that in case of need R will provide that house to S for use without any questions. R does not react to it. After one year of this gift, S really needs that house and request R to make the house available to him, but R refuses to do so.

• R cannot refuse as he got the house without paying any consideration for that

• R cannot refuse as S is without children

• R can refuse as he has become full owner of the house

• R can refuse as he has become full owner of the house

Principle: An agreement to do an act impossible in itself cannot be enforced by a court of law.
Facts: Ramesh agrees with his girl friend Shilpa to pluck stars from the sky through his extraordinary will power, and bring them down on earth for her within a week. After the expiry of one week, Shilpa filed a suit for damages against Ramesh for the breach of contract as Ramesh failed to perform his promise

• Shilpa can succeed in getting damages as Ramesh has deceived her

• Ramesh cannot be held liable as he honestly believes that his love for Shilpa is true and, therefore, he will succeed in his endeavour

• The court cannot entertain such suits as the act promised under the agreement is impossible in itself

• The court cannot entertain such suits as the act promised under the agreement is impossible in itself