Multiple Choice Questions(For Questions 19 to 22)
Rules
A. The act of using threats to force another person to enter into a contract is called coercion.
B. The act of using influence on another and taking undue advantage of that person is called undue influence.
C. In order to prove coercion, the existence of the use of threat, in any form and manner, is necessary. If coercion is proved, the person who has been so threatened can refuse to abide by the contract.
D. In order to prove undue-influence, there has to be a pre-existing relationship between the parties to a contract. The relationship has to be of such a nature that one is in a position to influence the other. If it is proven that there has been undue influence, the party who has been so influenced need not enforce the contract or perform his obligations under the contract.
Facts
Aadil and Baalu are best friends. Aadil is the son of multi millionaire business person, Chulbul who owns Maakhan Pharmaceuticals. Baalu is the son of a bank employee, Dhanraj. One day, Aadil is abducted from his office by Baalu. Chulbul receives a phone call from Dhanraj telling him that if he does not make Baalu the CEO of Maakhan Pharmaceuticals, Aadil will be killed. Chulbul reluctantly agrees to make the Baalu the CEO.
Subsequently, Chulbul and Baalu sign an employment contract. However as soon as Aadil is released and safely returns home, Chulbul tells Baalu that he shall not enforce the employment contract. Baalu and Dhanraj are not sure as to what is to be done next.
As per the rules and the given facts, who coerces whom:
Aadil coerces Baalu
Baalu coerces Chulbul
Dhanraj coerces Chulbul
Dhanraj coerces Chulbul
In the above fact situation:
There is undue influence exercised by Dhanraj on Baalu.
There is undue influence exercised by Aadil on Chulbul
There is no undue influence
There is no undue influence
For questions 32 to 36
A. Whoever intending to take any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property out of his or her possession, is said to commit theft.
B. A person who, without lawful excuse, damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property shall be guilty of causing criminal damage.
C. Damage means any impairment of the value of a property.
Facts:
Veena, an old lady of 78 years, used to live with her granddaughter Indira. Veena was ill and therefore bed- ridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it ‘became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Indira hired a cleaner, Lucky, to clean the room and throw away any rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old newspapers which Veena had stacked in a corner of her room. Lucky asked Indira if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes, Lucky took the pile to a municipality rubbish dump. While Lucky was sorting and throwing away the newspapers, he was very surprised to find a beautiful painting in between two sheets of paper. He thought that Indira probably wouldn’t want this old painting back, especially because it was torn in several places and the colour was fading. He took the painting home, mounted it on a wooden frame and hung it on the wall of his bedroom. Unknown to him, the painting was an old ‘masterpiece, and worth twenty thousand rupees. Before mounting the painting, Lucky pasted it on a plain sheet of paper so that it does not tear any more. By doing so, he made its professional ‘restoration very difficult and thereby reduced its value by half. Lucky’s neighbour Kamala discovered that the painting belonged to Indira. With the motive of returning the painting to Indira, Kamala climbed through an open window into Lucky’s room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.
Has Lucky committed theft?
Yes, Lucky has committed theft of the newspapers and the painting.
No, Lucky has not committed theft because he had Veena’s consent.
Yes, Lucky has committed theft of the painting, but not of the newspapers
Yes, Lucky has committed theft of the painting, but not of the newspapers
Principle: Only Parliament or State Legislatures have the authority to enact laws on their own. No law made by the State can take away a person’s fundamental right.
Facts: Parliament enacted a law, which according to a group of lawyers is violating the fundamental rights of traders. A group of lawyers files a writ petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the statute seeking relief to quash the statute and further direct Parliament to enact a new law.
No writ would lie against Parliament, as the court has no authority to direct Parliament to enact or re-enact a law
The court can quash existing law if it violates fundamental rights and can direct Parliament to make a new law
The court can quash the existing law if it violates fundamental rights but cannot direct Parliament to make a new law.
The court can quash the existing law if it violates fundamental rights but cannot direct Parliament to make a new law.
Principle: When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have made a proposal. Fact: “Ramanuj telegraphed to Shyam Sunder, writing: “Will you sell me your Rolls Royce CAR? Telegram the lowest cash price.” Shyam Sunder also replied by telegram: “Lowest price for CAR is Rs. 20 lakh.” Ramanuj immediately sent his consent through telegram stating: “I agree to buy the CAR for Rs. 20 lakh asked by you.” Shyam Sunder refused to sell the car.
He cannot refuse to sell the CAR because the contract has already been made.
He can refuse to sell the CAR because it was only invitation to offer and not the real offer
It was not a valid offer because willingness to enter into a contract was absent
It was not a valid offer because willingness to enter into a contract was absent
Principle: Every person, who is of the age of majority, is competent to contract according to the law to which he is subject.
Facts: A minor mortgaged his house in favour of Thakur Das, a money lender, to secure a loan of Rs. 20000. A part of this, i.e. Rs. 10500 was actually advanced to him. While considering the proposed advance, the attorney who was acting for the money lender, received information that the plaintiff was still a minor. Subsequently the minor commenced an action stating that he was underage when he executed the mortgage and the same should, therefore, be cancelled. He prayed for setting aside the mortgage. The mortgagee money lender prayed for the refund of Rs. 10500 from the minor
As a minor’s contract is void, any money advanced to a minor can be recovered.
A minor’s contract is void ab initio, any money advanced to a minor cannot be recovered.
A minor’s contract is voidable; any money advanced to a minor can be recovered
A minor’s contract is voidable; any money advanced to a minor can be recovered
Principle: A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests.
Facts: Mr. X who is usually of sound state of mind, but occasionally of unsound state of mind, enters into a contract with Mr. Y when he was of unsound state of mind. Mr. Y having come to know about this fact afterwards, wants to file a suit against Mr. X
Mr. X cannot enter into contract because he is of unsound state of mind when he entered into contract.
Mr. X can enter into contract but the burden is on the other party to prove that he was of unsound state of mind at the time of contract.
Mr. X can enter into contract but the burden is on Mr. X to prove that he was of sound state of mind at the time of contract
Mr. X can enter into contract but the burden is on Mr. X to prove that he was of sound state of mind at the time of contract
For questions 37-40
Rules:
A. When land is sold, all ‘fixtures’ on the land are also deemed to have been sold.
B. If a moveable thing is attached to the land or any building on the land, then it becomes a ‘fixture’.
Facts:
Khaleeda wants to sell a plot of land she owns in Beghmara, Meghalaya and the sale value decided for the plot includes the fully-furnished palatial six-bedroom house that she has built on it five years ago. She sells it to Gurpreet for sixty lakh rupees. After completing the sale, she removes the expensive Iranian carpet which used to cover the entire wooden floor of one of the bedrooms. The room had very little light and Khaleeda used this light-coloured radiant carpet to negate some of the darkness in the room. Gurpreet, after moving in, realizes this and files a case to recover the carpet from Khaleeda.
As a judge you would decide in favour of
Gurpreet because when the price was agreed upon, Khaleeda did not inform her about removing the carpet.
Gurpreet because the carpet was integral to the floor of the bedroom and therefore attached to the buiding that was sold.
Khaleeda because a fully-furnished house does not entail the buyer to everything in the house.
Khaleeda because a fully-furnished house does not entail the buyer to everything in the house.
Amongst the following options, the most relevant consideration while deciding a case on the basis of the above two principles would be:
Whether the moveable thing was included in the sale agreement.
Whether the moveable thing was merely placed on the land or building.
Whether the moveable thing had become an inseparable part of the land or building.
Whether the moveable thing had become an inseparable part of the land or building.
For questions 41-45
Rule A: An owner of land has the right to use the land in any manner he or she desires. The owner of land also owns the space above and the depths below it.
Rule B: Rights above the land extend only to the point they are essential to any use or enjoyment of land.
Rule C: An owner cannot claim infringement of her property right if the space above his or her land is put to reasonable use by someone else at a height at which the owner would have no reasonable use of it and it does not affect the reasonable employment of his or her land.
Ramesh’s case: Ramesh owns an acre of land on the outskirts of Sullurpeta, Andhra Pradesh. The Government of India launches its satellites into space frequently from Sriharikota, near Sullurpeta. The Government of India does not deny that once the satellite launch has traveled the distance of almost 7000 kilometres it passes over Ramesh’s property. Ramesh files a case claiming that the Government of India has violated his property rights by routing its satellite over his property, albeit 7000 kilometers directly above it.
Applying only Rule A to Ramesh’s case, as a judge you would decide:
In favour of the Government of India because the transgression was at a height at which Ramesh could not possibly have any use for.
That ownership of land does not mean that the owner’s right extends infinitely into space above the land.
In favour of Ramesh because he has the right to infinite space above the land he owns.
In favour of Ramesh because he has the right to infinite space above the land he owns.
