Legal Aptitude - Civil Law
Exam Duration: 45 Mins Total Questions : 30
Assertion (A): All contracts are agreements.
Reason (R): An agreement enforceable by law is a contract.
- (a)
Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
- (b)
Both A and R are true and R is not the correct explanation of A
- (c)
A is true but R is false
- (d)
A is false but R is true
Legal Principle: When at the desire of the promisor, the promisee promises to do some act, then such promise is called a consideration for the promise.
Factual Situation: X arranges his birthday party at his home, and his friend Y promises to cook a special dish for the guests. On the day of the party, X finds that Y neither came to his party nor did he get the special dish. X sues Y for breach of contract.
Question:
Will X succeed in his action?
- (a)
X will succeed because his friend has failed to keep his promise
- (b)
X will succeed because his reputation was affected due to his irresponsible behaviour
- (c)
X will not succeed because there is no consideration for his friend's promise to bring the special dish
- (d)
Both (a) and (b)
Legal Principle: A minor is not competent to enter into a contract and the law will assume that the contract never happened and everything will be returned to where it was.
Factual Situation: X, a minor, misrepresents his age to enter into a contract with Y a seller of bicycles, to purchase the bicycle. After the bicycle was delivered to the minor, he refuses to pay the sale price for the same, contending the non-existence of a legally binding contract.
Question:
Is the contract entered by X a valid one?
- (a)
The contract is valid because in this case, the minor has knowingly misrepresented his age in order to enter into the contract
- (b)
The contract is not valid because the buyer is a minor and the seller will get nothing
- (c)
The contract is not valid because the buyer is not competent to contract, but the minorl/buyer may be directed by the court to return the bicycle
- (d)
The contract is not valid but the seller can file a suit against X's parents
Principle: A contract procured by coercion is bad under Indian Contract Act. Coercion is defined as committing or threatening to commit any act forbidden by Indian Penal Code. Attempt to commit suicide is an offence under Indian Penal Code.
Facts: A wanted his wife B to part with some landed property given to her by her father. B resisted fearing that her husband would squander it away. A threatened her that if she does not sign the deed transferring the property to him (i.e., A), he would commit suicide. B signed the deed. Subsequently, she challenged the deed un the ground that the deed was bad under law.
- (a)
The deed is valid under the law
- (b)
The transfer of property is complete once the deed is entered between the owner of the property and the buyer
- (c)
The deed is not valid as it was signed under the threat of suicide by her husband which amounts to coercion and vitiates the contract.
- (d)
Husband has a right over the property of the wife that was voluntarily transferred to the buyer.
Legal Principle: A contract without consideration is void. When at the desire of one party, the other party does something, the consideration is said to flow from the latter to the former.
Factual Situation: A's house was on fire and a child was trapped inside the house. Everyone was shouting for help. A brave onlooker, hearing the shrieks of child, went The father of the child promised to pay the rescuer inside the house and brought him out The father of the child promised to pay the rescuer Rs 10,000. Subsequently, he backtracked his promise The rescuer sued the father for the breach of promise
- (a)
The father of the child must pay for the service rendered by the rescuer
- (b)
The rescuer is not entitled to the payment, since he acted on his own
- (c)
Commercial considerations cannot be applied to humanitarian instincts
- (d)
None of the above
Legal Principle: A contingent contract is a contract to do or not to do something, if some event, collateral to such contract, does or does not happen
Factual Situation: A agrees to pay B a sum of n lakh if B marries C within a period of six months. B marries C during the seventh month as hall has was available only during that month. B claims Rs 1 lakh from A.
- (a)
B can successfully claim Rs1 lakh from A
- (b)
B cannot claim Rs.1 lakh from A as B married C after the duration set in the contract
- (c)
B can claim n lakh as well as special damages from A for having married C
- (d)
None of the above
Legal Principle: Limitation bars the remedy, not the right.
Factual Situation: After the expiry of the period of void. When at the desire of one party, the other party limitation of three years, debtor Rohan makes a part payment of debt to creditor Sohan. Sohan then files a suit against Rohan for recovery of the debt after two years from the date of part payment.
Decide:
- (a)
The part payment extends the period of limitation
- (b)
The suit is time barred as part payment is made after the expiry of period of limitation
- (c)
Fresh period of limitation begins from the date of part payment
- (d)
None of the above
Legal Principle: A right of action cannot arise out of an illegal activity.
Factual Situation: A and B were thieves engaged in stealing cars and other vehicles. Once they stole a car; and while driving off, they had to cross a city. They engaged a driver to drive them through the city, since they did not know the route inside. The indicator lamp of the car was not working and the thieves had not realized this and therefore, had not told about it to the driver. While driving, through the city, the car was hit by another vehicle because of the faulty indicator. In the accident, the driver was injured and he filed a suit against A and B.
- (a)
The driver would lose, because he was driving a stolen car
- (b)
The driver would win because he was not a party to the stealing
- (c)
The driver would win because he did not know anything about the stealing
- (d)
None of the above
Legal Principle: When the parties to an agreement agree on the same thing in the same sense, there arises legally binding obligations between them.
Factual Situation: Zaverilal's antique shop was a well-known shop of the locality. Taradevi, a socialite
of the locality, went to the shop and she was attracted by an earthern jar on display. Zaverilal explained to her that the jar belonged to the Hoysala period; and despite its earthern composition, it was very strong and almost unbreakable. Taradevi replied to him that she was so captivated by the jar that it was immaterial to her as to which period it belonged. She bought the jar and came home. She placed the jar in a prominent place in her drawing room. One of her friends, an art critique, who happened to visit her, told her that the jar was not at all an antique, but Taradevi did not bother about it. One day, it accidentally fell down and broke into pieces. Taradevi took up the matter with Zaverilal that his both statements were wrong and, therefore, he should pay damages to her
- (a)
Zaverilal must compensate her, since his both the statements concerning jar were wrong
- (b)
Zaverilal need not compensate, since, Taradevi was not concerned with its antique value at all
- (c)
Zaverilal must compensate, because he carelessly made the statements
- (d)
None of the above
Legal Principles
Rules:
A. When land is sold, all 'fixtures' on the land are also deemed to have been sold.
B. If a movable thing is attached to the land or any building on the land, then it becomes a 'fixture'.
Facts: Khaleeda wants to sell a plot of land she owns in Baghmara, Meghalaya, and the sale value decided for the plot includes the fully-furnished palatial six-bedroom house that she has built on it five years ago. She sells it to Gurpreet for Rs 60 lakh. After completing the sale, she removes the expensive Iranian carpet which used to cover the entire wooden floor of one of the bedrooms. The room had very little light and Khaleeda used this light-coloured radiant carpet to negate some of the darkness in the room. Gurpreet, after moving in, realizes this and files a case to recover the carpet from Khaleeda.
Rule: If a movable thing is placed on land with the intention that it should become an integral part of the land or any structure on the land, it becomes a fixture. Applying, Rules A and C, to the fact situations in questions 32 and 33, as a judge you would decide in favour of
- (a)
Khaleeda in both situations
- (b)
Gurpreet only in 19
- (c)
Khaleeda only in 18
- (d)
Gurpeet in both situations
Legal Principles
Rules:
A. When land is sold, all 'fixtures' on the land are also deemed to have been sold.
B. If a movable thing is attached to the land or any building on the land, then it becomes a 'fixture'.
Facts: Khaleeda wants to sell a plot of land she owns in Baghmara, Meghalaya, and the sale value decided for the plot includes the fully-furnished palatial six-bedroom house that she has built on it five years ago. She sells it to Gurpreet for Rs 60 lakh. After completing the sale, she removes the expensive Iranian carpet which used to cover the entire wooden floor of one of the bedrooms. The room had very little light and Khaleeda used this light-coloured radiant carpet to negate some of the darkness in the room. Gurpreet, after moving in, realizes this and files a case to recover the carpet from Khaleeda.
Amongst the following options, the most relevant consideration while deciding a case on the basis of the above two principles would be
- (a)
Whether the movable thing was included in the sale agreement
- (b)
Whether the movable thing was merely placed on the land or building
- (c)
Whether the movable thing had become an inseparable part of the land or building
- (d)
Whether the movable thing could be removed
Assume that in the above scenario, Khaleeda no longer wants the carpet. She removes the elaborately carved door to the house after the sale has been concluded and claims that Gurpreet has no claim to the door. The door in question was part of Khaleeda's ancestral home in Nagercoil, Tamil Nadu, for more than 150 years before she had it fitted as the entrance to her Baghmara house.
Legal Principles
Rules:
A. When land is sold, all 'fixtures' on the land are also deemed to have been sold.
B. If a movable thing is attached to the land or any building on the land, then it becomes a 'fixture'.
Facts: Khaleeda wants to sell a plot of land she owns in Baghmara, Meghalaya, and the sale value decided for the plot includes the fully-furnished palatial six-bedroom house that she has built on it five years ago. She sells it to Gurpreet for Rs 60 lakh. After completing the sale, she removes the expensive Iranian carpet which used to cover the entire wooden floor of one of the bedrooms. The room had very little light and Khaleeda used this light-coloured radiant carpet to negate some of the darkness in the room. Gurpreet, after moving in, realizes this and files a case to recover the carpet from Khaleeda.
As a judge you would decide in favour of
- (a)
Gurpreet because when the price was agreed upon, Khaleeda did not inform her about removing the carpet
- (b)
Gurpreet because the carpet was integral to the floor of the bedroom and therefore attached to the building that was sold
- (c)
Khaleeda because a fully-furnished house does not entail the buyer to everything in the house
- (d)
Khaleeda because by virtue of being a carpet it was never permanently fixed to the floor of the building
Legal Principles
Rules:
A. The act of using threat to force another person to enter into a contract is called coercion.
B. The act of using influence on another and taking undue advantage of that person is called undue influence.
C. In order to prove coercion, the existence of the use of threat, in any form and manner, is necessary. If coercion is proved, the person who has been so threatened can refuse to abide by the contract.
D. In order to prove undue influence, there has to be a pre-existing relationship between the parties to a contract. The relationship has to be of such a nature that one is in a position to influence the other. If it is proven that there has been undue influence, the party who has been so influenced need not enforce the contract or perform his obligations under the contract.
Facts: Aadil and Baalu are best friends. Aadil is the son of a multi-millionaire businessman, Chulbul, who owns Maakhan Pharmaceuticals. Baalu is the son of a bank employee, Dhanraj. One day, Aadil is abducted from his office by Baalu. Chulbul receives a phone call from Dhanraj telling him that if he does not make Baalu the CEO of Maakhan Pharmaceuticals, Aadil will be killed. Chulbul reluctantly agrees to make Baalu the CEO. Subsequently, Chulbul andBaalu sign an employment contract. However, as soon as Aadil is released and safely returns home, Chulbul tells Baalu that he shall not enforce the employment contract. Baalu and Dhanraj are not sure as to what is to be done next.
Baalu will succeed in getting the employment contract enforced if he can show that
- (a)
he is the best friend of Aadil
- (b)
it was his father, and not he, who used coercion against Chulbul
- (c)
Chulbul has promised his father to employ him
- (d)
none of the above
Legal Principles
Rules:
A. A minor is a person who is below the age of 18. However, where a guardian administers the minor's property the age of majority is 21.
B. A minor is not permitted by law to enter into a contract. Hence, where a minor enters into a contract with a major person, the contract is not enforceable. This effectively means that neither the minor nor the other party can make any claim on the basis of the contract.
C. In a contract with a minor, if the other party hands over any money or confers any other benefit on the minor, the same shall not be recoverable from the minor unless the other party was deceived by the minor to hand over money or any other benefit. The other party will have to show that the minor misrepresented her age, he was ignorant about the age of the minor and that he handed over the benefit on the basis of such representation.
Facts: Ajay convinces Bandita, a girl aged 18 that she should sell her land to him. Bandita's mother Chaaru is her guardian. Nonetheless, Bandita, without the permission of Chaaru, sells the land to Ajay for a total sum of rupees 50 lakh, paid in full and final settlement of the price. Chaaru challenges this transaction claiming that Bandita is a minor and hence the possession of the land shall not be given to Ajay. Thus, Ajay is in a difficult situation and has no idea how to recover his money from Bandita
Which of the following is correct?
- (a)
If Ajay is allowed to recover the money, that will defeat the law framed for protecting the minors against fraudulent persons
- (b)
If Ajay is not allowed to recover that will cause him injustice as he has not paid the entire sale price
- (c)
If Ajay is not allowed to recover, Chaaru will benefit from both the money and the land
- (d)
None of the above
Legal Principles
Rules:
A. A minor is a person who is below the age of 18. However, where a guardian administers the minor's property the age of majority is 21.
B. A minor is not permitted by law to enter into a contract. Hence, where a minor enters into a contract with a major person, the contract is not enforceable. This effectively means that neither the minor nor the other party can makeany claim on the basis of the contract.
C. In a contract with a minor, if the other party hands over any money or confers any other benefit on the minor, the same shall not be recoverable from the minor unless the other party was deceived by the minor to hand over money or any other benefit. The other party will have to show that the minor misrepresented her age, he was ignorant about the age of the minor and that he handed over the benefit on the basis of such representation.
Facts: Ajay convinces Bandita, a girl aged 18 that she should sell her land to him. Bandita's mother Chaaru is her guardian. Nonetheless, Bandita, without the permission of Chaaru, sells the land to Ajay for a total sum of rupees 50 lakh, paid in full and final settlement of the price. Chaaru challenges this transaction claiming that Bandita is a minor and hence the possession of the land shall not be given to Ajay. Thus, Ajay is in a difficult situation and has no idea how to recover his money from Bandita
Which of the following is correct?
- (a)
Ajay should be allowed to recover the money because even though there is no contract, Bandita and Chaaru should not be allowed to unjustly benefit from Ajay's money
- (b)
Ajay should be allowed the possession of the land because Chaaru can always decide to approve the transaction between Ajay and Bandita
- (c)
Ajay should not be allowed to recover because he induced Bandita, a minor, to sell the land
- (d)
None of the above
Legal Principles
Rules:
A. A minor is a person who is below the age of 18. However, where a guardian administers the minor's property the age of majority is 21.
B. A minor is not permitted by law to enter into a contract. Hence, where a minor enters into a contract with a major person, the contract is not enforceable. This effectively means that neither the minor nor the other party can make any claim on the basis of the contract.
C. In a contract with a minor, if the other party hands over any money or confers any other benefit on the minor, the same shall not be recoverable from the minor unless the other party was deceived by the minor to hand over money or any other benefit. The other party will have to show that the minor misrepresented her age, he was ignorant about the age of the minor and that he handed over the benefit on the basis of such representation.
Facts: Ajay convinces Bandita, a girl aged 18 that she should sell her land to him. Bandita's mother Chaaru is her guardian. Nonetheless, Bandita, without the permission of Chaaru, sells the land to Ajay for a total sum of rupees 50 lakh, paid in full and final settlement of the price. Chaaru challenges this transaction claiming that Bandita is a minor and hence the possession of the land shall not be given to Ajay. Thus, Ajay is in a difficult situation and has no idea how to recover his money from Bandita
In order to defend the sale, Bandita will need to show that
- (a)
Bandita has attained the age of majority
- (b)
Bandita is mature enough to make rational decisions regarding her own affairs
- (c)
the sale transaction was beneficial to her interest and will enhance her financial status
- (d)
none of the above
Legal Principles
Rules:
A. A minor is a person who is below the age of 18. However, where a guardian administers the minor's property the age of majority is 21.
B. A minor is not permitted by law to enter into a contract. Hence, where a minor enters into a contract with a major person, the contract is not enforceable. This effectively means that neither the minor nor the other party can make any claim on the basis of the contract.
C. In a contract with a minor, if the other party hands over any money or confers any other benefit on the minor, the same shall not be recoverable from the minor unless the other party was deceived by the minor to hand over money or any other benefit. The other party will have to show that the minor misrepresented her age, he was ignorant about the age of the minor and that he handed over the benefit on the basis of such representation.
Facts: Ajay convinces Bandita, a girl aged 18 that she should sell her land to him. Bandita's mother Chaaru is her guardian. Nonetheless, Bandita, without the permission of Chaaru, sells the land to Ajay for a total sum of rupees 50 lakh, paid in full and final settlement of the price. Chaaru challenges this transaction claiming that Bandita is a minor and hence the possession of the land shall not be given to Ajay. Thus, Ajay is in a difficult situation and has no idea how to recover his money from Bandita
Chaaru is justified in challenging the sale transaction because
- (a)
Bandita is of unsound mind and is not in a position to make rational decisions
- (b)
Though Bandita is an I8-years old, she will be treated as a minor, as Chaaru is her guardian
- (c)
Though Bandita is an I8-year old, she cannot sell the land without the permission of her mother
- (d)
Though Bandita is an 18-year old she should not be treated like a person who has attained the age of majority
'A' agrees to pay Rs.5,000 to 'B' if it rains, and 'B' promises to pay a like amount to 'A' if it does not rain, this agreement is called
- (a)
quasi contract
- (b)
contingent contract
- (c)
wagering agreement
- (d)
voidable contract
Legal Principle: Performance of a legal duty cannot be a consideration for a promise.
Factual Situation: 'A's wallet is stolen by a thief. 'A' to pay a sum of Rs.500 to the person who is able to apprehend the thief and get back his wallet. The policeman's servant 'X' apprehends the thief and gets back the wallet. 'A' refuses to pay 'X' the promised Rs.500. Choose the correct option:
I. The servant is entitled to the reward
II. The policeman would have been entitled to the reward had he been the person to apprehend the thief
III. The policeman would be entitled to the reward even if he had not apprehended the thief
IV. The servant would not be entitled to the reward'
- (a)
I and III
- (b)
I only
- (c)
I, II and IV
- (d)
III only
Legal Principle: A contract obtained by misrepresentation is voidable at the option of the buyer
Factual Situation: Anand wants to sell his house. Anupama approaches him with an offer to buy the house and Anand shows her the house. The house is not in a very good condition and visibly requires repairs, without which it is uninhabitable. Anand does not tell anything regarding the required repairs to be livable. Anupama purchases the house for a huge be livable.consideration. Later on when she wants to move in her things into the house to start living, she realizes the heavy repairs that the house requires urgent
- (a)
Anupama will not succeed because she has to be careful about what she is purchasing in all circumstances, unless the defects are concealed and cannot be seen or have been hidden.
- (b)
Anupama will succeed because Anand knowingly sold the house and he should have informed Anupama about the condition of the house
- (c)
Anupama will succeed because she would never have purchased the house in case she was told about the status of the house
- (d)
A buyer always has the option to refuse performance of his part of the contract
'A' offers to buy all the grains grown on 'B's land for Rs.10,000 to which 'B' agreed. The agreement between 'A' and 'B' is
- (a)
Void as it is uncertain
- (b)
Void as the consideration is inadequate
- (c)
Valid and enforceable
- (d)
Void for restraint of trade
Legal Principle: Every agreement in restraint of marriage of any person other than a minor is void.
Factual Situation: Rohit and Prachi were deeply in love and wanted to marry each other. But their parents were strongly opposed to the idea as they belonged to different castes. Ultimately, they were compelled to execute an agreement in the presence of a lawyer stating that they shall not marry each other and the same was signed by their parents as witnesses. Thereafter both of them fled away from home and solemnized their marriage'.
- (a)
Their marriage is void as they have broken their agreement
- (b)
Their marriage is voidable and could be declare invalid by anyone of them
- (c)
Their marriage is valid despite the violation of the agreement executed by them
- (d)
Their marriage is voidable till it is accepted by their parents
Legal 'Principle: In case of a breach of contract compensation can be awarded for the personal inconvenience suffered by a party by reason of the breach which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it.
Factual Situation: Sunita and Sushmita bought bus tickets for a journey from Adyar to Mandaveli. The bus was to go to St. Thomas Mount via Mandaveli However, the driver mistakenly took a wrong direction and the two girls were dropped at a distance of 21h miles from Mandaveli on the highway. With no other transportation in sight nor a place to stay, the two had to walk 21h miles at midnight. Later they filed a case against the bus company and claimed 5,000 as damages for inconvenience caused in having to and 6,500 for Sushmita having fallen ill by catching cold during the night.
Decision:
- (a)
Both the amounts are liable to be paid because Sunita and Sushmita suffered loss for no fault of theirs
- (b)
The bus company is liable to pay both the amounts claimed because the loss was suffered on account of the fault of the bus company and the inconvenience suffered and illness arose was in the normal course of things from breach of contract
- (c)
The compensation for inconvenience suffered by being forced to walk at night is liable to be paid by the bus company. However, no compensation for Sushmita's illness because this was not expected on account of breach of Contract-
- (d)
The bus company is not liable to pay any amount,because it was the driver's fault
Legal Principle: Mere silence as to the facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not a fraud, unless the circumstances of the case are such that, on close examination it is found to be the duty of the person keeping silent to speak,or unless his silence is, in itself, equivalent to speech.
Factual Situation: X sells by auction to Y, a horse which X knows to be of unsound state of mind. X says nothing to Y about the horse's unsound state of mind. Give the correct answer
- (a)
X can be held liable for fraud
- (b)
X can be held liable for misrepresentation
- (c)
X cannot be held liable, because he did not say
- (d)
anything positive about the mental state of the horse X cannot be held liable because it is the buyer who must be aware of the things
Legal Principle: Proposal (communication) + Acceptance (communication) + Consideration + Contract The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made.
Factual Situation: X's nephew absconded from home. He sent his servant in search of the boy. After the servant had left, X by handbills offered to pay Rs.501 to anybody finding his nephew. The servant came to know of this offer only after he had already traced the missing child. He, therefore, brought an action to recover the reward.
- (a)
His action would fail because he was not aware of the offer.
- (b)
His action would not fail because it was a general offer.
- (c)
The fact that he was not aware of the offer does not make any difference and hence it was a valid contract. It is a mere formality.
- (d)
None of the above
Legal Principle: Every person, who is of the age of majority , is competent to contract according to the law to which he is subject.
Factual Situation: A minor mortgaged his house in favour of Thakur Das, a moneylender, to secure a loan of Rs. 20,000. A part of this, i.e. Rs.10,500 was actually advanced, the attorney who was acting for the moneylender, received information that the plaintiff was still a minor. Subsequently, the minor commenced an action stating that he was underage when he executed the mortgage and the same should, therefore, be cancelled. He prayed for setting aside the mortgage. The mortgagee/ moneylender prayed for the refund of Rs.10,500 from the minor.
- (a)
As a minor's contract is void, any money advanced to a minor can be recovered
- (b)
A minor's contract is void ab initio, any money advanced to a minor cannot be recovered
- (c)
A minor's contract is voidable, any money advanced to a minor can be recovered
- (d)
Advanced money can be recovered because the minor has given wrong information about his age
Legal Principle: When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have made a proposal.
Factual Situation: Ramanuj telegraphed to Shyam Sunder, writing: 'Will you sell me your Rolls Royce car? Telegram the lowest cash price.' Shyam Sunder also replied by telegram: 'Lowest price for car is Rs.20 lakh,' Ramanuj immediately sent his consent through telegram stating: 'I agree to buy the car for Rs. 20 lakh asked by you.' Shyam Sunder refused to sell the car.
- (a)
He cannot refuse to sell the car because the contract has already been made
- (b)
He can refuse to sell the car because it was only invitation to offer and not the real offer
- (c)
It was not a valid offer because willingness to enter into a contract was absent
- (d)
None of these
The railway authorities allowed a train to be over crowded. In consequence, a legitimate passenger Mr X got his pocket picked. Choose the appropriate answer.
- (a)
Mr X can sue the railway authorities for the loss suffered
- (b)
Mr X cannot sue because he had given his consent to travel in an over-crowded train
- (c)
Mr X cannot sue the railway authorities because there was no infringement of his legal right and mere fact that the loss was caused does not give rise to a cause of action
- (d)
None of these
X, a married woman, agreed to live in adultery with B and also agreed to serve him as his housekeeper. In return, B agreed to pay X Rs.500 per month for living in adultery and Rs.per month for housekeeping. The agreement is
- (a)
valid
- (b)
void
- (c)
void as to the first object but valid with respect to the second object
- (d)
unlawful as being opposed to public policy
Assertion (A): A void contract is not necessarily illegal.
Reason (R): Every illegal contract is void.
- (a)
Both A and R are individually true, and R is the correct explanation of A
- (b)
Both A and R are individually true, but R is not the correct explanation of A
- (c)
A is true but R is false
- (d)
A is false but R is true