Subject

Legal Aptitude

Class

CLAT Class 12

Test Series

Take Zigya Full and Sectional Test Series. Time it out for real assessment and get your results instantly.

Test Yourself

Practice and master your preparation for a specific topic or chapter. Check you scores at the end of the test.
Advertisement

 Multiple Choice QuestionsMultiple Choice Questions

Advertisement

11.

Principle: According to law, a person who find goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee. Bailee is a person or party to whom goods are delivered for a purpose, such as custody or repair, without transfer of ownership. The finder of the goods legally can sell the goods found by him under certain circumstances including the situation that the owner refuses to pay the lawful charges of the finder.

Facts: P, a college student, while coming out of a Cricket stadium found a necklace, studded with apparently precious diamonds. P kept it for two days thinking that the owner would notify it in a local newspaper. Since he did not notice any such notification, P published a small classified advertisement in a local newspaper. In two days’ time, P was contacted by a film actor claiming that it was her Necklace and requested P to return it to her. P told her that she should compensate him for the advertisement charges then only he would return it otherwise he will sell it and make good his expenses. The film star told P that she had advertised in a national newspaper about her lost Necklace which was lost somewhere in the Cricket Stadium. The advertisement was published for three consecutive days incurring a large expenditure for her. Mentioning all this she refuses to pay P and claims the Necklace back. Which among the following is the most appropriate answer to this?

  •  P was requesting the film star for the actual expenditure incurred by him before returning the Necklace. This request is legally sustainable.

  • . The film star was right in refusing P, as she did not offer any reward for anyone who would return the Necklace.

  •  As it was wrong on the part of P to bargain over a property belonging to a celebrity and he should have accepted some gift which might have been given by the film star and returned the Necklace instead of threatening her that he would sell it.

  •  As it was wrong on the part of P to bargain over a property belonging to a celebrity and he should have accepted some gift which might have been given by the film star and returned the Necklace instead of threatening her that he would sell it.


A.

 P was requesting the film star for the actual expenditure incurred by him before returning the Necklace. This request is legally sustainable.

109 Views

Advertisement
12.

 Principle: A violation of a legal right of someone, whether results in a legal injury or not, gives rise to an action in tort for compensation. At the same time, an action by someone, which results in some loss or damage to somebody else is not actionable, if there is no violation of a right of that somebody. Aglasem Admission

Facts: AB Coaching Centre was a popular CLAT coaching academy with several good trainers. A lot of aspirants used to attend its coaching classes from all over and was making good profit. This was going on for the past several years. During a session, T, one of the very good and popular trainers of ABCC, had some difference of opinion with the owner of ABCC and left the coaching centre. In August 2016, T started another Entrance Coaching Centre closer to ABCC which resulted in a substantial drop in its students and huge financial loss. The owner of ABCC wants to file a case against T for the loss sustained by ABCC. What do you think is the right legal position?

  •  T has not violated any of ABCC’s legal right though they sustained some financial loss, and not legally bound to compensate ABCC.

  •  T will be liable to compensate the loss to ABCC.

  •  T started the new coaching centre near ABCC intentionally, and shall be liable to compensate the loss of ABCC.

  •  T started the new coaching centre near ABCC intentionally, and shall be liable to compensate the loss of ABCC.

67 Views

13.

 Principle: An offer made by one party when accepted by another makes it a contract.

Transactions:

1. P offered to sell his house for Rs. 20 lakhs to R; R told P that he was interested to buy a house for 15 lakhs only.

2. C was looking for a house for not more than 25 lakhs; P informed C that his house was available for 20 lakhs.

3. K wanted to buy some old furniture; L told K that he would sell his furniture for Rs. 10, 000.

4. R advertised to sell his old car for a price of Rs. Three lakhs; S found the advertisement and offered to buy it for Rs. 2 lakhs 50 thousand; R agrees to sell it to S.

Which among the above is actually a contract?

  •  Situations 1 and 2 are contracts

  •  Situation 4 only is a contract

  •  Situation 3 only is a contract

  •  Situation 3 only is a contract

75 Views

14.

Principle: Every agreement, of which the object or consideration is opposed to public policy, is void. An agreement which has the tendency to injure public interest or public welfare is one against public policy. What constitutes an injury to public interest or public welfare would depend upon the times and the circumstances.

Facts: ‘A’ promises to obtain for ‘B’ an employment in the public service, and ‘B’ promises to pay rupees 5,00,000/- to ‘A’.

  • The agreement is void, as the object and consideration for it is opposed to public policy.

  • The agreement is void because rupees 5,00,000/- is excessive.

  • The agreement is valid, as it is with consideration for public service.

  • The agreement is valid, as it is with consideration for public service.

56 Views

Advertisement
15.

Principle: According to the law of trade unions in India, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be maintainable in any civil court against any registered trade union or any officer or member thereof in respect of any act done in contemplation or in furtherance of a trade dispute.

Facts: Soloman, the Secretary of a registered Trade Union took a loan from a Bank for the higher education of his daughter. Soon after completing the course she was married to an NRI Engineer. Solomon did not repay the loan. The Bank demanded the payments from Soloman and warned him that the Bank will take suitable legal action against him. Identify the legal position in this regard.

  •  The Bank can file a suit for recovery of the loan amount against Soloman as he took the loan for a personal purpose and in such case no immunity will work.

  • . The Bank can recover the loan amount from the Trade Union as Soloman is the Secretary of the Union.

  • The Bank cannot initiate any action against Soloman as he is the Secretary of a Registered Trade Union.

  • The Bank cannot initiate any action against Soloman as he is the Secretary of a Registered Trade Union.

61 Views

16.

Principle: When a person makes such a statement which lowers other person's reputation in the estimation of other persons, is liable for committing defamation. Aglasem Admission.

Facts: 'A' writes a letter to 'B' in which he uses abusive language against 'B' and also states that 'B' is a dishonest person. 'A' put the letter in a sealed envelope and delivered it to 'B'.

  •  'A' has committed defamation

  •  'A' has committed a moral wrong

  •  'A' has not committed moral wrong

  •  'A' has not committed moral wrong

53 Views

17.

Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

Facts: ‘A’, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill ‘B’. ‘B’ to save his life kills ‘A’.

  •  ‘B’ has not committed any offence.

  •  ‘B’ has committed an offence.

  •  ‘A’ has not committed an offence because he was mad.

  •  ‘A’ has not committed an offence because he was mad.

52 Views

18.

Principle: An agreement, the terms of which are not certain, or capable of being made certain, is void.

Facts: Sunder agreed to take Bhola’s penthouse on rent for three years at the rate of rupees 12, 00, 000/- per annum provided the house was put to thorough repairs and the living rooms were decorated according to contemporary style.

  •  There is a valid contract because there is an offer from Sunder and acceptance from Bhola

  •  There is a valid contract because all the terms of contract are certain and not vague as the rent is fixed by both of them and the term ‘present style’ only can be interpreted to mean the latest style.

  •  There is no valid contract because it has vague and uncertain terms, as the term ‘present style’ may mean one thing to Sunder and another to Bhola.

  •  There is no valid contract because it has vague and uncertain terms, as the term ‘present style’ may mean one thing to Sunder and another to Bhola.

59 Views

Advertisement
19.

Principle: A master shall be liable for the fraudulent acts of his servants committed in the course of employment. However, the master and third parties must exercise reasonable care in this regard.

Facts: Rahul was a door to door salesman with United Manufacturing Company (the Company). The Company was manufacturing Water Purifiers. Rahul, along with the Company’s products, used to carry Water Purifiers manufactured by his Cousin in a local Industrial Estate. He used to sell the local product at a lower rate giving the impression to the buyers that he is offering a discount on the Company’s product. The Company Management detected the fraudulent activity of Rahul and dismissed him from service. Rahul still continued to carry on with his activity of selling the local product pretending that he was still a salesman of the Company. Several customers got cheated in this process. The fraud was noticed by the Company when the customers began to complain about the product. The customers demanded the Company to compensate their loss.

  •  The Company is liable to the customers who purchased the local product from Rahul only till he remained as a salesman of the Company.

  •  The Company is not liable as Rahul was dismissed by the Company.

  •  The Company is liable to compensate all the customers as it did not inform the public about Rahul’s fraudulent conduct and the subsequent dismissal.

  •  The Company is liable to compensate all the customers as it did not inform the public about Rahul’s fraudulent conduct and the subsequent dismissal.

64 Views

20.

 Principle: According to law, a person is deemed to have attained the age of majority when he completes the age of 18 years, except in the case of a person where a guardian of a minor’s person or property has been appointed under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 or where the superintendence of a minor’s property is assumed by a Court of Wards. Indian law expressly forbids a minor from entering into a contract. Hence, any contract entered into by a minor is void-ab-initio regardless of whether the other party was aware of his minority or not. Further, though a minor is not competent to contract, nothing in the Contract Act prevents him from making the other party bound to the minor.

Facts: Lal executed a promissory note in favour of Gurudutt, aged 16 years stating that he would pay Gurudutt a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs when he attains the age of majority. On attaining the age of 18, Gurudutt demanded the amount from Lal, who refused to pay. Gurudutt wants to take legal action against Lal. Identify the most appropriate legal position from the following

  •  A promissory note duly executed in favour of a minor is not void and can be sued upon by him, because he though incompetent to contract, may yet accept a benefit.

  •  Gurudutt should not have entered into a contract with Lal when he was a minor.

  • Lal was not aware of the fact that Gurudutt was a minor.

  • Lal was not aware of the fact that Gurudutt was a minor.

88 Views

Advertisement