21.

Principle: In case where there is an infringement of legal right even without any actual loss
or damage, the person whose right is Infringed has a cause of action.
Facts: 'P' was wrongfully prevented by the Returning officer from exercising his vote in an assembly election. Still he ('P') brought an action claiming damages. Which of the following derivations is correct?

• 'P' would succeed in his action, as it is mandatory to cast vote.

• 'P' would succeed in his action, as he was wrongfully prevented from exercising his legal right of voting in that election.

• 'P' would not succeed in his action, as he did not suffer any loss in that election.

• 'P' would not succeed in his action, as he did not suffer any loss in that election.

Principle: There are certain acts which, though harmful, are not wrongful in law; therefore, do not give legal right to bring action in law, to the person who suffers from such acts.
Facts: 'Prakash' has a rice mill. His neighbour, Shanti, sets up another rice mill and offers a tough competition to Prakash. As a consequence, Prakash's profits fall down. He brings a suit against Shanti for damages.

• Prakash can succeed in his claim as it is a case of actual damages.

• Prakash cannot succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of damage without infringement of any legal right.

• Prakash may succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of loss to his business.

• Prakash may succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of loss to his business.

Principle: A condition to a contract can also be complied with after the happening of the event to which such a condition is attached.
Facts: 'A' promises to pay Rs. 5000 to 'B' on the condition that he shall marry with the consent of 'C', 'D' and 'E'. 'B' marries without the consent of 'C', 'D' and 'E', but obtains their consent after the marriage.

• 'B's marriage is not valid.

• 'B' has not fulfilled the condition.

• The condition is illegal

• The condition is illegal

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 girlfriend dining in a restaurant. Without waiting for even a second, 'A' fired five bullets at his girl friend who died on the spot.

• A' could have killed 'B' instead of his girl friend.

• 'A' could have killed both 'B' and his girl friend.

• 'A' did not kill his girl friend under intense and sudden provocation.

• 'A' did not kill his girl friend under intense and sudden provocation.

Principle: Whoever by words or writing conveys to others any imputation concerning any person's reputation is said to defame that person.
Facts: During a marriage ceremony, 'A' circulated a pamphlet saying that 'S', sister of the bride, is a thief, she has stolen the shoes of the bridegroom.

• 'A' has defamed the bridegroom.

• 'A' defamed the bride.

• 'A' has defamed 'S'.

• 'A' has defamed 'S'.

Principle: Causing of an effect partly by an act and partly by an omission is an offence.
Facts: 'A' confined her daughter 'D' in a room. 'A' also did not provide any food to her daughter 'D'. Consequently, 'D' died of starvation.

• 'A' committed the offence of confining 'D'.

• 'A' committed the offence of causing death of 'D'.

• 'A' committed no offence.

• 'A' committed no offence.

Principle: Whoever does not arrest the killer and report the matter to the concerned authorities commits an offence.
Facts: 'A', a woman, sees 'B' , another woman, killing a third woman 'C'. 'A' neither attempted to arrest 'B' nor informed the concerned authorities.

• 'A' has not committed an offence.

• 'A' has committed an offence.

• 'B' has not committed an offence.

• 'B' has not committed an offence.

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 policemen 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 policemen 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 be made liable for false imprisonment, as he did restrict P's movements.

• 'D' could be made liable for false imprisonment, as he did restrict P's movements.

Principle: An independent contractor is one who is employed to do some work of his employer. He is engaged under a contract for services. He undertakes to produce a given result, and in the actual execution of the work, he is not under the direct control or following directions of his employer. He may use his own discretion in execution of the work assigned. In general, an employer is not liable for the torts (wrongful acts) of his independent contractor. But,
the employer may be held liable if h e directs him to do some careless acts.
Facts: Ramesh hired a taxi-cab to go to Delhi Airport. As he started l ate from his home, he kept on urging the taxi-driver to drive at a high speed and driver followed the directions; and ultimately due to high speed an accident took place causing injuries to a person.

• Ramesh would be held liable for damages as he exercised the control by giving directions to the driver.

• Ramesh would not be held liable for damages because the drive r was an independent contractor and not his servant.

• Ramesh would not be held liable for damages because Ramesh did not know the consequences of such rash driving.

• Ramesh would not be held liable for damages because Ramesh did not know the consequences of such rash driving.

Principle: Nothing is an offence, which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper car e and caution.
Facts: 'A' takes up a gun, not knowing whether it is loaded or not, points it playfully at 'B' and pulls the trigger. Consequently, 'B' falls dead.

• 'B's death is not accidental, as there was want of proper care and caution on the part of 'A'.

• 'B's death is accidental, as 'A' had no intention to kill 'B'.

• 'B's death is accidental, as 'A' was just pointing the gun playfully at 'B'.

• 'B's death is accidental, as 'A' was just pointing the gun playfully at 'B'.