Principles:
● A servant is one who is employed to do some work for his employer (master). He is engaged under a contract of service. He works directly under the control and directions of his master.
● In general, the master is vicariously liable for those torts (wrongful facts) of his servant which are done by the servant in the course of his employment.
Facts: 'M' appointed 'D' exclusively for the purpose of driving his tourist vehicle. 'M' also appointed 'C exclusively for the purpose of performing the work of a conductor for the tourist vehicle. During one trip, at the end of the journey, 'C, while 'D' was not on the driver's seat, and apparently for the purpose of turning the vehicle in the right direction for the next journey drove it through the street at high speed, and negligently injured 'P'.

•  'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C, as 'C was employed under a contract of service
•  'M' is not liable as he was not present at the time of accident
•  'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was not in the course of his employment 
•  'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was not in the course of his employment 

Principles:
1. Waging agreements are void.
2. Collateral agreements to wagering contracts are valid.
Facts: XYZ Bank lends Rs. 40,000 to Sabu in order to enable him to award as prize to Randeep who is the winner of horse race. Later Sabu refuses to pay the prize stating that horse racing is wagering agreement. Can XYZ Bank recover money from Sabu ?

• Bank can recover money from Sabu so that payment of prize money can be made to Randeep 
• No, as it is a wagering contract 
•  Yes, as it is only a collateral agreement to horse racing. Therefore, the bank can recover the money from Sabu 
•  Yes, as it is only a collateral agreement to horse racing. Therefore, the bank can recover the money from Sabu 

Principle: Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so or to provide gratuitously, and such other person takes the benefit of that, the latter is bound to compensate the former for something done or thing provided, or to restore, the thing so delivered.
Facts: Trader' A' delivers certain eatables at B's house by mistake. 'B' consumed the eatables without asking anything. Which of the following derivations is correct?

•  'B' 'can be made liable to pay for the eatables, only if 'A' establishes an express contract between' A' and 'B'
•  'B' is bound to pay' A' for the eatables 
•  It is the discretion of 'B' to make payment to ' A' 
•  It is the discretion of 'B' to make payment to ' A' 

164.

Principle: Killing is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by intense and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation.
Facts: 'A', a man found his girl friend sleeping, in her own bed room, with another man named 'B'. 'A' did not do anything but went to his home, picked a gun and cartridges, returned to the girl friend's bed room with loaded gun but found the place empty. After fifteen days he saw his girl friend dining in a restaurant. Without waiting for even a second, 'A' fired five bullets at his girl friend who died on the spot.

•  'A' did not kill his girl friend under intense and sudden provocation 
•  'A' could have killed both 'B' and his girl friend 
•  'A' could have killed 'B' instead of his girl friend 
•  'A' could have killed 'B' instead of his girl friend 

Principle: Whoever takes away any moveable thing from the land of any person without that person's consent, he is said to have committed theft.
Facts : During his visit to the house of 'C', 'A' asked 'B', the son of 'C', to accompany' A' to the forest. Neither' A' nor 'B' informed 'C' in this regard. 'B' accompanied' A' to the forest.

•  'A' has committed theft 
•  'A' has not committed theft 
• 'A' has not committed theft till 'B' did not accompany him. 
• 'A' has not committed theft till 'B' did not accompany him. 

Principle: False imprisonment is a tort (wrong) which means the total restraint of a person's liberty without lawful justification.
Facts : A part of a public road had been closed for spectators of a boat race. 'P' wanted to enter but he was prevented by 'D' and other policeman because he had not paid the admission fee. 'P' was able to enter the enclosure by other means but was unable to go where he wanted to go. The
policeman refused access to where he wanted to go but allowed him to remain where he was or to go back. 'P' remained within the enclosure and refused to leave. Subsequently, 'P' sued 'D' for false imprisonment.

•  It was a case of false imprisonment, but 'D' could not be made liable for it 
•  'D' could not be made liable for false imprisonment as he has not touched him 
•  'D' could not be made liable for false imprisonment, as he did restrict P's movements 
•  'D' could not be made liable for false imprisonment, as he did restrict P's movements 

Principle : A person is said to have committed assault when an apprehension is caused in the mind of a person that he isabout to use physical force against his body.
Facts : 'A' abuses 'B' while he was sitting in a moving train, by aggressively shaking his fists when 'B' was standing on the railway platform at a distance.

•  'A' has not committed assault against 'B' 
•  'A' has caused fear of assault in the mind of 'B' 
•  'A' has caused apprehension of assault in the mind of 'B' 
•  'A' has caused apprehension of assault in the mind of 'B' 

Principle: Letters or words not describing quality of things can be registered as a trade mark.
Facts: Ram made an application for registration of alphabet 'B' written in a fancy style as trade mark to be applied on packets and cartons of shoes manufactured by him.

• The alphabet 'B' can be registered as trade mark because it describes the quality of things 
• The alphabet 'B' cannot be registered as trade mark because it belongs to humanity 
•  The alphabet 'B' can be registered as trade mark 
•  The alphabet 'B' can be registered as trade mark 

Principle: Sale of liquor is illegal. All agreements relating to prohibited items do not exist in the eyes of law.
Facts: 'A' entered into an agreement with 'B' for the sale of liquor. 'A' failed to supply the agreed quantity of liquor to 'B'.

•  'A' can bring a legal action against 'B'.
•  'A' and 'B' can initiate appropriate legal proceeding against each other. 
•  'B' can bring a legal action against 'B'.
•  'B' can bring a legal action against 'B'.

Principle : Consent is a good defence for civil action in tort. But consent must include both knowledge of risk and assumption of risk, i. e. , readiness to bear harm.
Facts : A lady passenger was aware that the driver of the cab, in which she opted to travel, was little intoxicated. The cab met with an accident and lady got injured.

•  Lady is entitled to claim compensation as she only knew about risk and there was no assumption of risk
•  Driver can take the plea that he was lightly intoxicated. 
• Lady is not entitled to claim compensation as she had knowledge of the risk. 
• Lady is not entitled to claim compensation as she had knowledge of the risk.