Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
com
Legal Aptitude
Total Time: 90 mins
www.edusaathi.com
a) Raju can sue the Lakshmi Service Centre for
damages including exemplary or special
damages to the extent of Rs. 30,000
b) Raju can sue Lakshmi Service Centre only for
ordinary damages for two days delay
c) Raju cannot sue Lakshmi Service Centre for
any damages
d) Raju can sue the Manager of the Service
Centre for damages.
5. PRINCIPLE: The standard to determine
whether a person has been guilty of
negligence is the standard of care which, in
the given circumstances, a reasonable man
could have foreseen.
FACTS: The Agricultural University constructed
200 houses for its employees in its premises. Two
huge bore wells were sunk and motors were
installed. They did not cover the pump rooms
properly. A child, 6 years old, from one of the
quarters was playing near the pump house. On
hearing the noise of the pump, she was curious to
see the motor. She touched the motor that was
not covered properly and three of her fingers
were cut.
a) The parents of the child cannot sue the
University on any grounds
b) Inspite of the child's act, her parents can
successfully sue the University for damages
c) The University can be made liable only to the
extent of the cost of treatment as the child
also contributed to the incident
d) Only the child can sue and not her parents.
www.edusaathi.com
b) Book seller can enforce the contract even
against the minor as the contract was for his
necessities
c) Book seller can enforce the contract after A
becomes a major
d) Even after A becomes a major, this contract
cannot be enforced by the .book seller.
9. PRINCIPLE: An agreement is void and
unenforceable if considerations and objects
are unlawful.
info@edusaathi.com
www.edusaathi.com
d) The child should have taken adequate
care from protecting herself from the
snake bite.
14. FACTS: Mr. 'X' delivered a lecture at a local
Rotary Club in favour of an accused who is
prosecuted for assaulting a police officer. He
said that the accused is a victim of prevailing
corruption in the judiciary and he knows that
the accused is going to be punished by the
Court for being honest. Mr. 'X' is charged for
committing contempt of Court.
PRINCIPLE: A person shall not be guilty of
contempt of Court on the ground that he it as
published whether by words, spoken or written,
or by signs, or by visible representations, or
otherwise) any matter which interferes or tends
to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to
obstruct, the course of justice in connection with
any civil or criminal 'proceeding pending at that
time of publication, if at that time he had no
reasonable grounds for believing that the
proceeding was pending.
a)
b)
c)
d)
Page 4
www.edusaathi.com
a) No, company is not liable to any one
b) Yes, company is liable to Ramesh
c) Yes, company is liable to engineers.
d) None of the above.
18. FACTS: Mr. 'A' in search of job met a quarry
owner and requested him to provide any job
for the time being. The quarry owner allowed
him to work as a labourer and to carry stone
boulders from one place to another in the
quarry. Unaware of working condition and
environment Mr. 'A' tried to remove a huge
stone having live dynamite inside, which blew
up fracturing the leg of Mr. 'A'. Mr. 'A' filed
suit against the quarry owner. Whether 'A'
would succeed?
PRINCIPLE: In any suit for damages, the workman
shall not be deemed to have undertaken any risk
attaching to the employment unless the employer
proves that the risk was fully explained to and
understood by the workman and that the
workman voluntarily undertook the same.
a) NO, he undertook the risk of employment.
b) No, he was aware of the dangers involved in
the job.
c) Yes, he was never explained the hazards of
the given job.
d) None of the above.
19. FACTS: Mr. 'A' saw an unknown man jumping
the boundary wall and entering his house in
the night. He hid himself in a corner carrying a
sword and waiting for the person. The
moment the person entered the house, he hit
the person and cut his head. Whether Mr. 'A'
committed offence of killing a man?
PRINCIPLE: Any act- done in exercise of right of
private defence shall not be an offence. The right
to private defence in no case extends to the
inflicting of more harm that it is necessary to
inflict for the purpose of defence.
a) Yes, because he should allow any person
entering his house.
b) No, he has not committed any offence.
c) No, he has not committed any offence
because he exercised right of private defence.
info@edusaathi.com
Page 5
www.edusaathi.com
which contains indecent representation of women
in any form.
PRINCIPLE 2: Any person who contravenes the
provisions of Principle 1 shall commit an offence
punishable with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two
years, and with fine which may extend to two
thousand rupees.
a) Yes, Ashok has committed an offence.
b) No, Ashok has not committed any offence.
c) Ashok has not committed any offence but
offence is committed by the sponsoring
society.
d) Society has not committed any offence but
Ashok definitely has committed the offence.
22. FACTS: Rohan entered into an agreement with
a Banker and deposited Rs. Five lakh with the
Banker. The terms of the contract provided
that Rohan's son Suresh shall be the
beneficiary of the 'deposited amount only, if
he marries after he attains legally
marriageable age. Is agreement between
Rohan and Banker void?
List I - Decisions:
a. Win cannot inherit the property of Sudhir.
b. Win can inherit the property of Sudhir.
List II - Reasons:
i.
ii.
iii.
www.edusaathi.com
iv.
Her claim was submitted after she was remarried.
Your decision and reason
Mark the right decision with reason from the
following
a)
b)
c)
d)
(a)- (i)
(a)- (ii)
(b)- (iii)
(b)- (iv)
25. PRINCIPLES:
1) If a person commits an act by which death is
caused to another person and the act is done
with the intention of causing death, that
person is liable for murder.
2) A person has a right of self defence to the
extent of causing death to another provided
he apprehends death by the act of the latter.
FACTS: Shuva went to a hardware shop owned by
Anup. Bargaining on some item led to altercation
between the two and Shuva picked up a sharp object
and hit at Anup. When Anil') started bleeding, his wife
Mridula intervened and she was also hit by Shuva and
she became unconscious. Finding himself totally
cornered, Anup delivered a severe blow to Shuva with
a sharp object, Shuva died instantly.
Possible Decisions:
a) Anup murdered Shuva.
b) Anup killed Shuva .with the intention of killing
to save himself and his wife.
c) Anup killed. Shuva without any intention to do
so lust to save himself and his wife.
Probable Reasons kir the decision:
i.
(a)- (i)
(a)- (iii)
(c) -(ii)
(b) -(i)
info@edusaathi.com
26. PRINCIPLES:
1) Consumable goods which are not fit for
consumption are not marketable.
2) A consumer shall not suffer on account of
unmarketable goods.
3) A seller is liable for knowingly selling
unmarketable goods.
4) A manufacturer shall be liable for the quality
of his products.
FACTS: Ram bought a Coca Cola bottle from Shama's
shop. Back at home, the server opened the bottle and
poured the drink into the glasses of Ram and his
friend Tom. As Tom started drinking, he felt irritation
in his throat. Immediately, Ram and Tom took the
sample to test and found nitric acid in the content.
Ram filed a suit against Shama, Coca Cola company
and the bottler, Kishen and Co.
Suggested Decisions:
(a) Ram cannot get compensation.
(b) Tom can get compensation.
(c) Both Ram and Tom can get compensation.
Suggested Reasons.
(i)
(a)- (ii)
(b)- (vi)
(c) -(v)
(c) -(iv)
27. PRINCIPLES:
1) If A is asked to do something by B, B is
responsible for the act, not A.
Page 7
www.edusaathi.com
2) If A, while acting for B commits a wrong, A
is responsible for the wrong, not B.
3) If A is authorized to do something for B,
but in the name of A without disclosing
B's presence, both A and B may be held
liable.
FACTS: Somu contracted with Amar whereunder Amar
would buy a pumpset to be used in-Somu's farm. Such
a pumpset was in short supply in the market. Gulab, a
dealer, had such a pumpset and he refused to sell it to
Amar. Amar threatened Gulab of serious
consequences if he fails to part with the pumpset.
Gulab filed a complaint against Amar.
Proposed Decisions
(a) Amar alone is liable for the wrong though he
acted for'Somu.
(b) Amar is not liable for the wrong, though he is
bound by the contract with Somu.
(c) Somu is hound by the 'contract and liable for the
wrong.
(d) Both Somu and Amar are liable for the wrong.
Suggested Reasons
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(a)- (i)
(a)- (ii)
(c) -(iii)
(d) -(iv)
28. PRINCIPLES:
1) The owner of a land has absolute 'interest
on the property including the contents
over and under the property,
2) Water flowing below your land is not
yours though you can use it:
info@edusaathi.com
www.edusaathi.com
Nandan's service_ Syndicate Bank, after a couple of
years,. terminated Nandan's service. Nagamma,
unaware of this fact, was handing over her savings to
Nandan who misappropriated them. Nagamma
realised this nearly after thive months, when she went
to the Bank to withdraw money. She filed a complaint
against the Bank.
Possible Decisions
(a) Syndicate Bank shall be liable to
compensate Nagamma.
(b) Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to
compensate Nagamma.
(c) Nagamma has to blame herself for hei
negligence.
Possible Reasons
(i)
Nandan was not acting in the course
of employment after the termination
of his service.
(ii)
A person cannot blame others for his
own negligence.
(iii)
Nagamma was entitled to be
informed by the Bank about Nandan.
(iv)
The Bank is entitled to expect its
customers to know actual position.
Your decision with the reason
31. PRINCIPLES:
(1) A person is liable for negligence, if he fails
to take care of his neighbors interest,
(2) A neighbor is anyone whose interests
should have been foreseeable by a reasonable
man while carrying on his activities.
FACTS: A cricket match was going on in a
closed door stadium: A cricket fan who could
not get into the stadium was watching the
game by climbing up a nearby tree and sitting
there. The cricket ball in the course of the
Page 9
www.edusaathi.com
game went out of the stadium and hit this
person and injured him. He filed a suit against
the organizers.
Possible Decisions
(a) The organizers are liable compensate the injured
person.
(b) The organizers are not liable compensate the
injured person.
(c) The injured person should have avoided the place
where he might be hit by the cricket ball.
Possible Reasons
(i)
The organizers are responsible for the people
inside the stadium.
(ii)
The organizers could not have foreseen
somebody watching the game by climbing up
a tree.
(iii)
A person crazy about something must pay the
price for that. (iv) The organizers shall be
liable to everybody likely to watch the game.
Possible Decisions:
(a) The hospital need not share its profit with the
patient.
(b) The hospital may share its profits ex gratia basis.
(c) The hospital shall share its profit with the patient.
Possible Reasons
(i)
The patient, far from being deprived the use
of his appendix, ac benefitted by its removal.
(ii)
The hospital instead of throw away the
appendix conducted research on it on its own
and development of drug was the result its
own effort.
(iii)
The hospital could not have ac its success
without that ap belonging to the patient.
(iv)
Everybody must care for and with others.
Your decision with the reason
(a) (a)- (i)
(b) (a)- (ii)
33. PRINCIPLES:
(1) Copying including attempt to copy
examinations is a serious offence.
(2) One shall not take any unauthorized
materials into the examination hat
FACTS:
Rohini, an examinee in PUC,' thoroughly checked
while entering the examination hall. She did not have
anything other than authorised materials such as pen,
instrument box, etc., with her. As she was writing her
paper, an invigilator found close to her feet a bunch d
chits. The invigilator on scrutiny found that the chits
contained answers to the paper being written by
Rohini. Rohini's answers tallied with the answers in
the chits. A charge of copying was leveled against
Rohini.
Probable Decisions
(a) Rohini shall be punished for copying.
(b) Rohini cannot be punished for copying.
Probable Reasons
info@edusaathi.com
Page 10
www.edusaathi.com
(i)
Something lying near the feet does not mean
that the person is in possession of that thing.
(ii)
The fact that she was checked thoroughly
while getting into the hall must be conclusive.
(iii)
Similarities between her answers and the
answers in the chit indicate that she used
those chits.
(iv)
After using those chits, she must have failed
to dispose of them properly.
Your decision with the reason
(a) (a)- (iii)
(b) (a)- (iv)
(c) (b)- (iii)
(d) (b)- (i)
www.edusaathi.com
but he refused to pay sales tax on his sale transactions
on the ground that these were not the contracts
freely entered into by him.
(a) Tapan would succeed_ because the price
and quantity were not negotiated by him
(b) Tapan would not succeed because free
consent between the parties was there
despite the restriction on price and
quantity
(c) He would succeed because the
Government under the new order forced
him to enter into contracts
(d) Both (a) "and(c).
37. LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
An occupier is not normally liable to a
trespasser except in respect of willful act
intended to cause him harm or done with
reckless disregard.
FACTUAL SITUATION:
Tony, a richman, had kept a ferocious dog to guard his
house. He strictly instructed all his servants not to go
near the dog. Further a special attender was hired to
take care of the dog. Visitors were warned by a
prominent warning sign board about this dog.
One day, a 13 year old boy playing in the
neighbourhood, running after his ball got into the
house. The dog attacked him and killed him. Tony was
sued for damages.
(a) Tony was not liable because the boy was a
trespasser
(b) Tony is not liable because a 13 year old
boy ought to have known about the
presence of the ferocious dog
(c) Tony is liable of the negligence of his
servant to keep watch on such a ferocious
dog during the day time
(d) Both (a) and (b).
38. LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
A master will be liable for the wrongful acts of
his servants in the course of employment.
FACTUAL SITUATION:
Maria was an old widow who opened an account with
the Indian Overseas Bank, whereby she would deposit
Rs. 5 everyday in the bank. Stephen was her
neighbour who used to collect the amount and
deposit them in the bank. Stephen would get a small
info@edusaathi.com
www.edusaathi.com
he came out of his hotel and asked two labourers to
cut down a dry tree in Pandara Road and when they
agreed he paid them Rs. 150 Indian currency for
cutting down the tree. They cut and made the log into
small pieces and the foreigner along with the tree
cutters set fire and got their body warm. After some
time, the Police Patrol car watched it and arrested the
foreigner arid two labourers on the spot. The
foreigner pleaded that the tree was dry and he did not know the cutting of tree from road side is an
offence in India.
(a) The foreigner shall not be responsible for
the offence because he himself has not
cut the tree but got it cut through the
Indian people
(b) The foreigner shall be punished because
in India cutting of tree from road side is
an offence
(c) The pretence that he does not know such
act is an offence is not an excuse for a
foreigner also
(d) Both (b) and (c).
41. LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
The occupier of a premises owes a duty of
care to all his invitees and visitors.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Devi who was the owner of a
big home with a compound wall, constructed an
underground tank to store water. This was covered by
jute bags since the work was incomplete. The
postman who came inside to deliver a registered
letter, fell into this tank and hurt himself. There was
also a box on the outside of the compound wall,
where all the mail could be depbsited. The injured
man filed a suit against Devi claiming compensation.
(a) Devi is not liable, because she did not
invite the postman to her house
(b) Devi is not liable, because the postman
could have delivered the letter in the box
on the outside of the compound wall
(c) Devi is not liable because the postman
was required to take care of himself
(d) Devi is liable because the postman came
into the premises in the course of his
duty.
42. LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
info@edusaathi.com
Page 13
www.edusaathi.com
44. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: The acceptance to an offer
should be given only in the mode prescribed by
the proposer, for a contract to become
enforceable.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A offered to buy a horse from
B requesting that the acceptance should be sent
through A's agent. B sent his acceptance through his
servant, who reached A's office a day after A's agent
reached.
QUESTION: Is A bound by B's acceptance?
a. No, because the contract is binding only
when the acceptance is made in the
prescribed mode.
b. No, because B should have intimated A
about the servant coming with the
acceptance.
c. Yes, because B did send the acceptance.
d. Yes, because the servant is B's
employee.
45. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Violation of a Legal Right,
with or without damage, gives rise to a tort.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A establishes a coaching class
and charge Rs. 5000 per year as fees. A's neighbour
B establishes another coaching class thereby
creating a competition. This forces A to reduce his
fees to Rs. 3000 per year.
QUESTION: Can A claim damages from B for the loss
caused to him?
a) Yes, he can as B has violated his Legal
Right.
b) No, A has reduced the fees on his own.
c) No, because though there was damage
there was no legal injury.
d) None of the above.
46. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A parent is not liable for a
tort committed by his/her child except when the
parent affords the child an opportunity to
commit the tort.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A mother takes her 7 year old
son with her to market. On reaching the market she
shuts the car ignition, pulls the handbrake and puts
the car in gear. She leaves her son in the car only.
The child starts playing with the car, she releases the
brakes and pushes the gear lever to neutral. As a
result, the car starts moving down the road and runs
down a pedestrian.
info@edusaathi.com
Page 14
www.edusaathi.com
(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).
49. PRINCIPLE: No person shall be convicted of any
offence except for violation of a law in force at
the time of the commission of the Act charged
as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty
greater than that which might have been
inflicted under the law in force at the time of
the commission of the offence.
info@edusaathi.com
Page 15
21. A
41. D
2.
22. B
42. C
3.
23. A
43. D
4.
24. B
44. A
5.
25. C
45. C
6.
26. D
46. B
7.
27. A
47. C
8.
28. B
48. C
9.
29. C
49. B
10. D
30. C
50. C
11. C
31. C
12. B
32. B
13. A
33. A
14. B
34. D
15. C
35. C
16. C
36. B
17. B
37. D
18. C
38. A
19. D
39. D
20. B
40. B