Principle: A person is said to do a thing fraudulently, if he does that thing with intent to defraud, but not otherwise.
Facts: 'A' occasionally hands over his ATM card to 'B' to withdraw money for 'A'. On one occasion 'B' without the knowledge of 'A', uses 'A's ATM card to find out the balance in 'A's account, but does not withdraw any money.
B' has not committed the act fraudulently
'B' has committed the act fraudulently
'B' has committed breach of faith
'B' has committed breach of faith
A.
B' has not committed the act fraudulently
Principle: Where one of the parties to a contract was in a position to dominate the decision of the other party, the contract is enforceable only at the option of the party who was in a position to dominate the decision of the other party.
Facts: A doctor asked his patient to make a payment of rupees Ten Lakh for treatment of his fever. The patient paid an amount of rupees Five Lakh and promised to pay the remaining amount after the treatment. After treatment the patient recovered from fever. The doctor demanded the remaining amount from the patient. The patient refused to pay.
The contract is not enforceable without the consent of the patient.
The contract is not enforceable as doctor was in dominating position.
The contract is enforceable against the doctor.
The contract is enforceable against the doctor.
Principle: Negligence is actionable in law. In simple terms, negligence is the failure to take proper care over something.
Facts: A, a doctor, conducted a hysterectomy sincerely on B and left a small cotton swab inside the abdomen. As a consequence of which B developed some medical problems and had to undergo another surgery. Is A liable?
A is not liable as he did not foresee any consequences at the time of surgery.
A is liable for the negligence as he failed to take proper care during the surgery.
Liability for negligence does not arise here as A performed the operation sincerely
Liability for negligence does not arise here as A performed the operation sincerely
Principle: When a person consented to an act to be done by another, he cannot claim any damages resulting from doing that act, provided the act done is the same for which consent is given.
Facts: 'P' submitted a written consent to a surgeon 'S' for undergoing a surgical operation for removal of appendicitis. The surgeon while doing surgery also removed the gall bladder of 'A':
'P' can claim damages from 'S'
'P' is required to pay expenses for surgery for Appendicitis but not for Gall
Bladder
'P' cannot claim damages from 'S'
'P' cannot claim damages from 'S'
Perincuriam
Mistaken identity
Mistaken decision
Supremacy of the Constitution
Supremacy of the Constitution
Principle: There are legal provisions to give authority to a person to use necessary force against an assailant or wrong-doer for the purpose of protecting one’s own body and property as also another’s body and property when immediate aid from the state machinery is not readily available; and in so doing he is not answerable in law for his deeds.
Facts: X, a rich man was taking his morning walk. Due to the threat of robbers in the locality, he was carrying his pistol also. From the opposite direction, another person was coming with a ferocious looking dog. All of a sudden, the dog which was on a chain held by the owner, started barking at X. The owner of the dog called the dog to be calm. They crossed each other without any problem. But suddenly, the dog started barking again from a distance. X immediately took out his pistol. By seeing the pistol the dog stopped barking and started walking with the owner. However, X shot at the dog which died instantly. The owner of the dog files a complaint against X, which in due course reached the Magistrate Court. X pleads the right of private defence. Decide.
Shooting a fierce dog is not to be brought under the criminal law. So the case should be dismissed.
There was no imminent danger to X as the dog stopped barking and was walking with the owner. Hence, shooting it amounted to excessive use of the right of private defence and hence liable for killing the dog.
The right of private defence is available to persons against assailants or wrongdoers only and a dog does not fall in this category.
The right of private defence is available to persons against assailants or wrongdoers only and a dog does not fall in this category.
