Multiple Choice QuestionsPrinciple: Defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower reputation of a person in the estimation of other members of the society generally.
Facts: 'A' writes a highly offensive and derogatory letter about 'B', and sends it directly to 'B' in a sealed cover.
'A' is liable to 'B' for defamation, as the letter is highly offensive and derogatory and is directly sent to 'B'.
A' is not liable to 'B' for defamation, since there is no publication to any other person in whose estimation the reputation of 'B' could be brought down.
'A' is liable to 'B' for defamation, as the letter is highly offensive and derogatory.
'A' is liable to 'B' for defamation, as the letter is highly offensive and derogatory.
Principle: The concept of natural justice is against bias and for the right to a fair hearing. While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, and it has largely been replaced and extended by the general ‘duty to act fairly’.
Fact: ‘X’, a male employee of a company was dismissed by the employer just on the basis of a complaint by ‘Y’, a female employee of the company that ‘X’ was trying to be too friendly with her and often requested her to accompany him to the canteen.
Is the dismissal of ‘X' valid ?
No, because in the modern times this type of behaviour is common
No, because the employer did not give a chance to ‘X’ to explain his side, thereby violated the principles of natural justice.
Yes, moral law is antique and therefore, not applicable in modern times, therefore the termination is valid and no violations of the principles of natural justice occurred
Yes, moral law is antique and therefore, not applicable in modern times, therefore the termination is valid and no violations of the principles of natural justice occurred
Principle: Ownership in property consists of right to possess, right to use, right to alienate and right to exclude others. Sale is complete when property gets transferred Aglasem Admission from the seller to the buyer on sale.
Facts: ‘A’ sold his car to ‘B’. After this, ‘B’ requested ‘A’ to keep the car in his care on behalf ‘B’ for one month. ‘A’ agreed.
Sale of car is not complete
Sale will be completed when ‘B’ will take the delivery of the car.
Sale of car is complete.
Sale of car is complete.
Principle: Every agreement, by which any party is restricted absolutely from enforcing his right in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary Tribunals, is void to that extent. The law also provides that nobody can confer jurisdiction to a civil court by an agreement between parties.
Facts: A and B entered into a valid contract for rendering certain service. A clause in the contract was that in case of any dispute arose out of the contract; it shall be referred to for Arbitration only. Is the contract valid?
Arbitration is also a valid dispute settlement machinery recognized by law and hence the entire contract is valid.
The parties were trying to confer jurisdiction to some authority to decide a dispute and hence the clause would be invalid.
Arbitrator cannot be termed as an ordinary Tribunal. Hence, the agreement is void and would be unenforceable.
Arbitrator cannot be termed as an ordinary Tribunal. Hence, the agreement is void and would be unenforceable.
Principle: An agreement without free consent can be enforces only at the option of the party whose consent was not free.
Facts: A obtains the consent of 'B' to enter into an agreement by put ting a gun on the head of B's girl friend.
'B' can enforce the agreement.
'B' cannot enforce the agreement.
Neither 'A' nor 'B' can enforce the aggrement.
Neither 'A' nor 'B' can enforce the aggrement.
Principle: Mere silence as to facts lakely to affect the decision of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud.
Facts: 'A' sells to 'B' (A's daughter who is minor) a horse which 'A' knows to be unsound. 'A' says nothing to 'B' about the unsoundness of the horse.
'B' can take plea of fraud because she is minor.
There can not be a contract between a father and daughter.
'A' has not committed fraud.
'A' has not committed fraud.
Principle: A person, who is usually of unsound mind, but occasionally normal, may make a contract when he is not of unsound mind.Facts: 'A' generally remains in the state of unsound mind and rarely becomes capable of understanding the things.
'A' can make a contract when normal.
'A' can make a contract only for his own benefit.
'A' can never make a contract.
'A' can never make a contract.
A.
'A' can make a contract when normal.
Principle: It is a case of fraud where a party to a contract knows or believes a fact to be true, but conceals it actively from the other party with a view to induce that person to enter into the contract.
Facts: While taking a life insurance policy, in reply to questions by the insurance company during the inquiry into his proposal, Zameer deliberately concealed the fact of his medical treatment for a serious ailment, which he had undergone only a few weeks ago.
The act of Zameer did not amount to fraud, as disclosing the fact would have Aglasem Admission resulted in exposure of his privacy.
The act of Zameer amounted to innocent misrepresentation
The act of Zameer did not amount to any misrepresentation.
The act of Zameer did not amount to any misrepresentation.
Principle: In case where there is an infringement of legal right even without any actual loss
or damage, the person whose right is Infringed has a cause of action.
Facts: 'P' was wrongfully prevented by the Returning officer from exercising his vote in an assembly election. Still he ('P') brought an action claiming damages. Which of the following derivations is correct?
'P' would succeed in his action, as it is mandatory to cast vote.
'P' would succeed in his action, as he was wrongfully prevented from exercising his legal right of voting in that election.
'P' would not succeed in his action, as he did not suffer any loss in that election.
'P' would not succeed in his action, as he did not suffer any loss in that election.
Principle: There are certain acts which, though harmful, are not wrongful in law; therefore, do not give legal right to bring action in law, to the person who suffers from such acts.
Facts: 'Prakash' has a rice mill. His neighbour, Shanti, sets up another rice mill and offers a tough competition to Prakash. As a consequence, Prakash's profits fall down. He brings a suit against Shanti for damages.
Prakash can succeed in his claim as it is a case of actual damages.
Prakash cannot succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of damage without infringement of any legal right.
Prakash may succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of loss to his business.
Prakash may succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of loss to his business.
Switch
