31. ‘RANI’ ran to a well stating that she would jump into it, and she started running towards the well but she was caught before she could reach it.

• She is not guilty of attempt to commit suicide because shet might have changed her mind before jumping into the well.
•  She is guilty of attempt to commit suicide.
• Right to life includes rights right to die hence a person should not be held responsible for attempt to commit suicide.
• Right to life includes rights right to die hence a person should not be held responsible for attempt to commit suicide.

• JAM is guilty for attempt to murder his wife.
• JAM is guilty for attempt to murder his wife.
• JAM is not guilty for attempt to murder his wife as she always had option to escape.
• JAM is not guilty for attempt to murder his wife as she always had option to escape.

Choose the best option for the following statement:

The distinction between fraud and misrepresentation:

1. Fraud is more or less intentional wrong, whereas misrepresentation be quite innocent.

2. In addition to rendering the contract voidable, is a cause of action in tort for damages, Simple misrepresentation is not a tort but a person who rightfully rescinds a contract is entitled compensation for any damages which he has sustained through the non-fulfillment of the contract.

3. A person complaining of misrepresentation can be met with the defences that he had “the means of discovering the truth with ordinary diligence” But excepting fraud by silence in other cases of fraud it is no defence that “the plaintiff had the means of discovering the truth by ordinary diligence”.

•  1 is correct 
• 1 & 2 are correct
•  1, 2 & 3 are correct
•  1, 2 & 3 are correct

PRINCIPLE: A person in said to be 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 up on his interests.

FACT: Mr. X who is usually of sound mind, but occasionally of unsound mind enters into a contract with Mr. When he is of unsound mind, Y came to know about this fact afterwards and now wants to file a suit against Mr. X.

• Mr. X cannot enter into contract because he is of unsound 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 mind at the time of contract.
• Mr. X can enter into a contract but burden is on Mr. X to prove that he was of unsound mind at the time of contract.
• Mr. X can enter into a contract but burden is on Mr. X to prove that he was of unsound mind at the time of contract.

PRINCIPLE: Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void.

FACT: A horse was bought for a ceratin price coupled with promise to give Rs. 500 more if the horse proved lucky.

• This is a valid agreement
•  This agreements is void for uncertainty because it is very difficult to determine what luck, bad or good, the horse had brought to the buyer.
• The agreement is partially valid and partially void.
• The agreement is partially valid and partially void.

 PRINCIPLE: A master is liable for the acts committed by his servant in the course of employment.

FACT: Sanjay is a driver working in Brooke bond and co. one day, the Manager asked him to drop a customer at the airport and get back at the earliest. On his way back from the airport, he happened to see his fiancé Ruhina waiting for a bus to go home. He offered to drop her at home, which happened to be closed to his office. She got into the car and soon thereafter; the car somersaulted due to the negligence to Sanjay. Ruhina was thrown out of the car suffered multiple injuries. She seeks compensation from Brooke bond and Co.

• Brooke bond and Co. shall be liable, because Sanjay was in the course of employment at the time of accident.
•  Brooke bond and Co. Shall not be liable, Sanjay was not in the course of employment when he took Ruhina inside the car.
• Ruhina got into the car at her own risk, and therefore, she cannot sue anybody.
• Ruhina got into the car at her own risk, and therefore, she cannot sue anybody.

 PRINCIPLE: When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal.

FACT: “Ramanuj telegrammed to the Shyamsunder, writing.” will you sell me your Rolls Royce Car? Telegram the lowest cash price “Shyamsunder replied too by telegram: ‘Lowest price for CAR is Rs. 20 Lacs, asked by you’ Now Shyams under 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:Ignorantiajuris not excusat and ingnorntiafacitexcusat.

FACT: George was passenger from Zurich to Manila in Swiss plane. When the plane landed at the airport at Bombay on 28th Nov 1962 it was found on searct that George carried 34 Kgs of gold bars in Person and that he had not declared it in the ‘Manifest for transit’. on 26th Nov.1962 Government of India issued a notification and modified its earliest exemption and now it is necessary that, the gold must the declared in the “Manifest” of the aircraft.

• George cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued only two days ago.
• George cannot prosecuted because it is mistake of fact which is excusable.
• George’s will be prosecuted because mistake of law is not excusable.
• George’s will be prosecuted because mistake of law is not excusable.

PRINCIPLE: Preparation is not an offence except the preparation some special offences.

FACT: Ramesh keeps poisoned halua in his house, wishing to kill Binoy whom he invited to party and to whom he wishes to give it, Unknown to Ramesh, his only son takes the halua and dies, in this case.

• Ramesh is liable for the murder.
• He is not liable for murder since it is a preparation alone.
• He is liable for culpable homicide
• He is liable for culpable homicide

PRINCIPLE: Nuisance as a tort (Civil wrong) means an unlawful interference with a person’s use of enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it.

FACT: During the scarcity of onions, long queues were made outside the defendant’s shop who having a license to sell fruits and vegetables used to sell only 1 kg. of onion per ration cart. The queues extended on the highway and also caused some obstruction to the neighbouring shops. The neighbouring shopkeepers brought and action for nuisance against the defendant.

• The defendant is liable for nuisance
• The defendant was not liable for nuisance
• The defendant was liable under the principle of strict liability
• The defendant was liable under the principle of strict liability