PRINCIPLE: Express or implied consent should be given for extension of time period, by the party likely to suffer loss by the extension.

Applying the above principle to the facts of the previous question, will Mr. Basu be liable to pay compensation to Mr. Ghoshwal?

• Yes, since Mr. Basu defaulted in his delivery of woolens
• No, since Mr. Ghoshwal could not sell the stock since he was a bad salesman
• No, since Mr. Ghoshwal had accepted the stock
• No, since Mr. Ghoshwal had accepted the stock

PRINCIPLE: An employer is responsible for the acts of his employees in the course of employment.

FACTS: Raja owns a restaurant in Chandni Chowk, and Rani is employed in his restaurant as the head chef. She has worked in his restaurant “Raja ki Baraat” for more than a year, and is on friendly terms with the owner. On a day when there are fewer customers, Rani asks for a day’s leave to visit her mother, and asks Raja if she could borrow his car for the day. Raja sees no harm and happily agrees.
Now, it’s been more than a year since Rani drove a car, and her driving skills have become pretty rusty. On the way to her mother’s place in Vasant Vihar, she loses control of the car, and has an accident, thereby killing one and severely injuring two others. The injured persons lodge a complaint against Rani and claim that Raja should be held vicariously liable too. Decide.

•  Both Raja and Rani should be held liable
• Only Raja should be held liable, since he is the employer and hence, vicariously liable
•  Only Rani should be held liable, since it was entirely her fault
•  Only Rani should be held liable, since it was entirely her fault

123.

PRINCIPLE: Unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of public property causes public nuisance, the removal of which is the sole responsibility of the State.

FACTS: Shanaya and Varun were strolling in a public park, maintained by the Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika. After walking for a while, they sat down where the leaves of a banyan tree provided shade to them. In numerous places within the park, there were boards that prohibited plucking flowers, harming trees and disturbing the serenity of the park. Manu Dada, known for his notoriety, happened to go the park the same day and carried with him an electric saw, which made a loud ‘whirring’ sound. Using the same, he began to cut the banyan tree, under which Shanaya and Varun took shelter. Varun and Shanaya sue Manu Dada for public nuisance in the park. Decide.

• Shanaya and Varun can sue Manu Dada, since the park prohibited causing damage to trees
• Manu Dada should be held guilty since he destroyed public property and disturbed Varun and Shanaya’s date
• Varun and Shanaya cannot sue Manu Dada for public nuisance
• Varun and Shanaya cannot sue Manu Dada for public nuisance

PRINCIPLE: Contributory negligence occurs when a person, by his or her own negligence, contributes to the damage caused to him/her by the negligent of another.

FACTS: The workers of the Municipal Corporation in Jhumritaliah are working on the drainage and sewage system for which they have dug up the streets in Sectors 1, 2 and 3. They cover the drains after they finish their work in the evening so that the residents don’t suffer. Zoya’s mother made some sweetmeats at home and decided to send some to her friend living in Sector 2. She asks Zoya to go in the evening to deliver the sweets. Zoya, being an obedient girl, leaves her house in Sector 9, on her bicycle at 7pm, with the sweetmeats in her front basket. She carries a torch with her, which is affixed to the top of the basket in front part of the cycle, since it is evening and visibility is poor in winters. However, Zoya comes across an uncovered drain, and falls into it. She is saved by the people who live nearby. Zoya alleges that the Municipal Corporation was negligent in performing its duties. The Corporation alleges contributory negligence on Zoya’s part, for riding a cycle without a headlamp. Who was negligent?

• Zoya was negligent as she should have affixed a headlamp to her cycle
• The Municipal Corporation and Zoya were equally negligent
• It was Zoya’s mother’s fault
• It was Zoya’s mother’s fault

PRINCIPLE: A proposal made by one party and its acceptance by another, with the intention of establishing legal relations, is an agreement.

FACTS: Sahil goes to ‘The Great Indian Bargain’, an exhibition held in the Gymkhana grounds of Mumbai, where the producers sell their products at great discounts. Here, he comes across the window of a shop where a beautiful painting is placed along with a board which says ‘Paintings for Rs. 500’. Knowing the real value of the painting to be much more than Rs. 500, Sahil rushes inside and asks the seller to sell him the painting immediately. The seller refuses to sell him the painting. Sahil sues the seller, claiming that he had breached the contract. Which of the following is true?

• Sahil will succeed since the marked price of the painting was Rs. 500
• Sahil won’t succeed since the marked price was merely an invitation to offer
•  Sahil will succeed since the marked price was an offer, and by agreeing to buy it, he had given his acceptance
•  Sahil will succeed since the marked price was an offer, and by agreeing to buy it, he had given his acceptance

PRINCIPLE: When one of the parties to a contract is in such a relation with the other party as to be able to dominate his will, and uses this superior position to obtain the other party’s consent to a contract, he is said to be exercised undue influence. Such a contract is not valid.

FACTS: Vijay Jain has three sons- Amar, Bharat and Chaitanya. Only Amar and Bharat are married. Bharat has two sons and one daughter, and Amar has one son, Diwakar. On the occasion of Vijay Jain’s 75th birthday, he gifts some of his lands to his sons, and he gifts his largest piece of land, and all his farms and orchards to Diwakar. Bharat and Chaitanya sue Vijay Jain, claiming that his consent has been obtained by undue influence and hence, the transfer of property to Diwakar is void. Decide.

• The gift is valid since there was no undue influence
• The gift is void since Diwakar coerced his grandfather into giving him the lands and orchards
• The gift is void since all the three sons of Vijay Jain should have received an equal share
• The gift is void since all the three sons of Vijay Jain should have received an equal share

PRINCIPLE 1: An agent has the right to hold his master’s goods in lien until his previous debts are satisfied.

PRINCIPLE 2: A lien is a right to hold chattels of a debtor as security against the debtor.

PRINCIPLE 3: When a transaction is going on, the goods should be transferred before the payment can be made.

FACTS: Inamdar is a sales agent and he specializes in paintings and other works of art. He finds out who is selling paintings and other artifacts at the lowest prices and sources them to the buyer, thus enabling the buyer to make a good deal. In this deal, he makes a profit equivalent to 5% of the sales proceeds. Mr. Vallya is interested in an ancient painting of Raja Rammohun Roy and Inamdar is aware of the same. After a few months, he informs Vallya that the said painting is available, and can be procured for a price of 15,000 pounds. Mr. Vallya agrees to the conditions and hands over the money to Inamdar. For the deal, Inamdar’s fees would be 1,000 pounds. When he demands his payment from his client, Vallya, the latter refuses to pay until the painting is handed over to him. Can Inamdar hold the painting with him till the payment is made?

• Yes, he is entitled to her fees and can hold the goods in lien.
• No, he cannot hold the item whose value is so much more than his service charges
• No, he cannot hold these items because Vallya may legally demand his goods be handed over to him before paying Inamdar the service fees.
• No, he cannot hold these items because Vallya may legally demand his goods be handed over to him before paying Inamdar the service fees.

PRINCIPLE: Marriage with a minor is voidable at the option of the minor. Marriage with a female above 18 years of age is valid.

FACTS: Monakshi is a teenager aged 16 years, in October 2011. She has been dating Tyler since the last two years and plans to get married to him after post graduation. However, due to opposition from her parents, she is forced to elope with her lover. They get married in a temple in December, 2012. Her parents file a complaint against Tyler. What is the status of the marriage?

• Void
• Valid
• Voidable, at the option of Monakshi
• Voidable, at the option of Monakshi

PRINCIPLE: Grave and sudden provocation is a valid defence in case of a man who experiences a situation that is reasonably grave to provoke him to commit an act or omission which is dangerous to the life of another in the heat of the moment and cannot be undone.

FACTS: Ramesh Nanavati is a successful industrialist and often visits other countries on business trips. When he was returning home from one such trip, earlier than his schedule, in order to give his wife a surprise, he was in for a shock. He found his wife cheating on him with his cousin, Suresh. He flew into a rage, but tried to appear calm outwardly. In the heat of the moment, he called Chhota Chetan and gave him the task of killing Suresh. The gangster killed Suresh the next day. However, he was caught by the police and he confessed that he was given a contract to kill Suresh by Ramesh. Will Ramesh be held guilty?

• Ramesh is not guilty because he did not murder Suresh
• Ramesh is not guilty because Suresh spoilt his surprise
• Ramesh is not guilty because the act was committed in the heat of the moment
• Ramesh is not guilty because the act was committed in the heat of the moment

PRINCIPLE: Theft is said to be committed when a person removes a movable property from the possession of its owner dishonestly, with a view to take the property or to profit from it.

FACTS: Lily was a foreigner and was visiting India to attend a friend’s wedding in Jaipur. She reached Jaipur two days before the wedding and decided to explore the city, shop and enjoy the delicacies that the city had to offer. While she was roaming around on the crowded streets, she dropped her wallet on the pedestrian. She moved on without realizing it. However, Chintu, who was a helper at the Chaat shop, happened to notice the incident, and picked up the wallet and kept it with him. Is he liable for theft?

•  No, since the wallet was not in her possession
• Yes, because he was unjustly enriched by something that didn’t belong to him
• Yes, because it is morally wrong to steal
• Yes, because it is morally wrong to steal