Multiple Choice QuestionsMost states that have abolished the complete defense of contributory negligence in favor of the comparative fault system of apportionment of liability have also abolished the complete defense of secondary implied assumption of risk. Which of the following statements most accurately describes the reason for abolishing the assumption of risk defense in a jurisdiction that has moved to comparative fault?
Having two different defenses with different effects (comparative fault a partial defense, assumption of risk a complete defense) is too complicated for a jury to understand
The defense of contributory negligence was abolished in order to reduce the number of cases that would be put to the jury; that goal would be undermined if the complete defense of secondary implied assumption of risk were to be retained
Because secondary implied assumption of risk also amounted to contributory negligence, abolition of the latter defense necessarily indicated abolition of the former
Because secondary implied assumption of risk also amounted to contributory negligence, abolition of the latter defense necessarily indicated abolition of the former
Public policy or the policy of law is an:
Illusive concept
Untrustworthy guide
Unruly horse
Unruly horse
A wager is a game of
Chance and valid
Chance and unenforceable
Chance and immoral
Chance and immoral
The maxim ‘Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea’ means
Guilty mind gives birth to crime
There can be no crime without a guilty mind
Crime is a child of guilty mind
Crime is a child of guilty mind
With reference to criminal law response to the following
Plaintiff to sue the defendant
Plaintiff to prosecute the defendant
Prosecutor to prosecute the defendant
Prosecutor to prosecute the defendant
The loss or damage arising from a breach of contract has to be ascertained
At the time of the making of contract
At the time of the frustration of contract
At the date of the breach of contract
At the date of the breach of contract
Which of the following is the most common remedy for breach of contract.
Damages
Specific performance
Injunction
Injunction
Mahesh entered into a contract with Suresh to pay him a sum of Rs. 5,000/- if India wins the world cup; while, Suresh to pay Rs. 5,000/- to Mahesh if India did not win the cup. It is a
Wagering agreement
Goodwill contract
Voidable contract
Voidable contract
An anticipatory breach of contract occur
When after the promised date of performance, the promisor absolutely repudiates the contract
When prior to the promised date of performance, the promisor partially repudiates the contract
When prior to the promised date of performance, the promisor absolutely repudiates the contract
When prior to the promised date of performance, the promisor absolutely repudiates the contract
