Principle: If a party to a contract agrees to it under undue influence of any other party then the party under the undue influence may refuse to perform in accordance with the agreement.

Facts: A, a rich youngster became a member of a religious group and soon he was appointed by P the head of the group as his personal secretary. As per the rules of the group, all officials and staff of the group were supposed to stay in the group’s official premises itself. Some days later, A was asked by P to execute a Gift deed in favour of P, in which it was mentioned that all immovable properties in his name are being gifted to P. A was unwilling to execute the deed, but he was forcefully restrained by P and his body guards in P’s office and made A sign the gift deed. Soon after this A left the group and refused to hand over the property as agreed to in the gift deed. Is A’s action valid?

•  A executed the deed, under compulsion and undue influence, and was right in withdrawing from the contract

•  A executed the deed, under compulsion and undue influence, and was right in withdrawing from the contract.

•  As the gift deed was executed by A, he cannot refuse.

•  As the gift deed was executed by A, he cannot refuse.

 Principle: Penal laws provide that whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man or woman, shall be punished for rape.

Facts: A Police Officer found a man engaged in carnal intercourse with an animal. The Police Officer arrested the man and produced him before the Court

•  Court will punish the police officer.

   

•  Court will not punish the man for rape.

•  Court will punish the man for rape.

•  Court will punish the man for rape.

Principle: According to law, a person who find goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee. Bailee is a person or party to whom goods are delivered for a purpose, such as custody or repair, without transfer of ownership. The finder of the goods legally can sell the goods found by him under certain circumstances including the situation that the owner refuses to pay the lawful charges of the finder.

Facts: P, a college student, while coming out of a Cricket stadium found a necklace, studded with apparently precious diamonds. P kept it for two days thinking that the owner would notify it in a local newspaper. Since he did not notice any such notification, P published a small classified advertisement in a local newspaper. In two days’ time, P was contacted by a film actor claiming that it was her Necklace and requested P to return it to her. P told her that she should compensate him for the advertisement charges then only he would return it otherwise he will sell it and make good his expenses. The film star told P that she had advertised in a national newspaper about her lost Necklace which was lost somewhere in the Cricket Stadium. The advertisement was published for three consecutive days incurring a large expenditure for her. Mentioning all this she refuses to pay P and claims the Necklace back. Which among the following is the most appropriate answer to this?

•  P was requesting the film star for the actual expenditure incurred by him before returning the Necklace. This request is legally sustainable.

• . The film star was right in refusing P, as she did not offer any reward for anyone who would return the Necklace.

•  As it was wrong on the part of P to bargain over a property belonging to a celebrity and he should have accepted some gift which might have been given by the film star and returned the Necklace instead of threatening her that he would sell it.

•  As it was wrong on the part of P to bargain over a property belonging to a celebrity and he should have accepted some gift which might have been given by the film star and returned the Necklace instead of threatening her that he would sell it.

 Principle: A violation of a legal right of someone, whether results in a legal injury or not, gives rise to an action in tort for compensation. At the same time, an action by someone, which results in some loss or damage to somebody else is not actionable, if there is no violation of a right of that somebody. Aglasem Admission

Facts: AB Coaching Centre was a popular CLAT coaching academy with several good trainers. A lot of aspirants used to attend its coaching classes from all over and was making good profit. This was going on for the past several years. During a session, T, one of the very good and popular trainers of ABCC, had some difference of opinion with the owner of ABCC and left the coaching centre. In August 2016, T started another Entrance Coaching Centre closer to ABCC which resulted in a substantial drop in its students and huge financial loss. The owner of ABCC wants to file a case against T for the loss sustained by ABCC. What do you think is the right legal position?

•  T has not violated any of ABCC’s legal right though they sustained some financial loss, and not legally bound to compensate ABCC.

•  T will be liable to compensate the loss to ABCC.

•  T started the new coaching centre near ABCC intentionally, and shall be liable to compensate the loss of ABCC.

•  T started the new coaching centre near ABCC intentionally, and shall be liable to compensate the loss of ABCC.

 Principle: An offer made by one party when accepted by another makes it a contract.

Transactions:

1. P offered to sell his house for Rs. 20 lakhs to R; R told P that he was interested to buy a house for 15 lakhs only.

2. C was looking for a house for not more than 25 lakhs; P informed C that his house was available for 20 lakhs.

3. K wanted to buy some old furniture; L told K that he would sell his furniture for Rs. 10, 000.

4. R advertised to sell his old car for a price of Rs. Three lakhs; S found the advertisement and offered to buy it for Rs. 2 lakhs 50 thousand; R agrees to sell it to S.

Which among the above is actually a contract?

•  Situations 1 and 2 are contracts

•  Situation 4 only is a contract

•  Situation 3 only is a contract

•  Situation 3 only is a contract

Principle: Every agreement, of which the object or consideration is opposed to public policy, is void. An agreement which has the tendency to injure public interest or public welfare is one against public policy. What constitutes an injury to public interest or public welfare would depend upon the times and the circumstances.

Facts: ‘A’ promises to obtain for ‘B’ an employment in the public service, and ‘B’ promises to pay rupees 5,00,000/- to ‘A’.

• The agreement is void, as the object and consideration for it is opposed to public policy.

• The agreement is void because rupees 5,00,000/- is excessive.

• The agreement is valid, as it is with consideration for public service.

• The agreement is valid, as it is with consideration for public service.

Principle: According to the law of trade unions in India, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be maintainable in any civil court against any registered trade union or any officer or member thereof in respect of any act done in contemplation or in furtherance of a trade dispute.

Facts: Soloman, the Secretary of a registered Trade Union took a loan from a Bank for the higher education of his daughter. Soon after completing the course she was married to an NRI Engineer. Solomon did not repay the loan. The Bank demanded the payments from Soloman and warned him that the Bank will take suitable legal action against him. Identify the legal position in this regard.

•  The Bank can file a suit for recovery of the loan amount against Soloman as he took the loan for a personal purpose and in such case no immunity will work.

• . The Bank can recover the loan amount from the Trade Union as Soloman is the Secretary of the Union.

• The Bank cannot initiate any action against Soloman as he is the Secretary of a Registered Trade Union.

• The Bank cannot initiate any action against Soloman as he is the Secretary of a Registered Trade Union.

488.

Principle: When a person makes such a statement which lowers other person's reputation in the estimation of other persons, is liable for committing defamation. Aglasem Admission.

Facts: 'A' writes a letter to 'B' in which he uses abusive language against 'B' and also states that 'B' is a dishonest person. 'A' put the letter in a sealed envelope and delivered it to 'B'.

•  'A' has committed defamation

•  'A' has committed a moral wrong

•  'A' has not committed moral wrong

•  'A' has not committed moral wrong

Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

Facts: ‘A’, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill ‘B’. ‘B’ to save his life kills ‘A’.

•  ‘B’ has not committed any offence.

•  ‘B’ has committed an offence.

•  ‘A’ has not committed an offence because he was mad.

•  ‘A’ has not committed an offence because he was mad.

Principle: An agreement, the terms of which are not certain, or capable of being made certain, is void.

Facts: Sunder agreed to take Bhola’s penthouse on rent for three years at the rate of rupees 12, 00, 000/- per annum provided the house was put to thorough repairs and the living rooms were decorated according to contemporary style.

•  There is a valid contract because there is an offer from Sunder and acceptance from Bhola

•  There is a valid contract because all the terms of contract are certain and not vague as the rent is fixed by both of them and the term ‘present style’ only can be interpreted to mean the latest style.

•  There is no valid contract because it has vague and uncertain terms, as the term ‘present style’ may mean one thing to Sunder and another to Bhola.

•  There is no valid contract because it has vague and uncertain terms, as the term ‘present style’ may mean one thing to Sunder and another to Bhola.