1.

Facts:
Mohan promised to take Sunder cut for a dinner in TAJ COROMANDAL. Even after two
weeks. Mohan did not fulfill the promise. Sunder wants to sue Mohan to enforce that
promise.
Principles:
(I) An agreement enforceable in a court of law is a contract.
(II) In order for an agreement to be enforceable in a court of law, there must be a meeting
of minds between both the parties,
(III) Parties to a contract should do should do something for the other party. The obligation
to do something for the other party is mutual. This is called ‘consideration’ and absence
of consideration renders the contract unenforceable.
If Sunder goes to court:
Answers:
(a) He can compel Mohan to buy him a dinner at Taj Coromandal
(b) He can recover the value of dinner from Mohan.
(c) This promise will not be enforced by a Court of Law, as there is no consideration from
Sunder.
(d) None of the above answers is correct.

2. Facts:
Ravi was walking on a lonely road. Mariyan came with a knife and said to Ravi, “Your life
or your purse”. Ravi pulled out his revolver. On seeing it, Maniyan ran. Ravi shot Maniyan
in his legs.
Principles:
(I) Any person may use reasonable force in order to protect his property or person.
(II) However, the force employed must be proportionate to the apprehended danger.
Answers:
(a) Ravi will not be punished, as there was danger to is property.
(b) Ravi will not be punished, as the force he used was proportionate to the apprehended
injury.
(c) Ravi will be punished, as the force employed was disproportionate to the apprehended
injury.
(d) As Maniyan ran to escape there was no longer a threat to Ravi’s property. So Ravi will
be punished.

3. Facts:
Rajiv is a servant of Jawaharlal. On his way to Jawahar’s house to report for duty, he goes
to have a cup of coffee. There he sees Singh and accuses Mr. Singh of being a dishonest
person. Mr. Singh wants to sue Jawaharlal, as Rajiv is Jawahar’s servant.

Principles:
 (I) Master is liable for the wrongful acts committed by servants, in the course of their
employment if third parties suffer damages in consequence.
(II) However the master is not liable if the wrongful act was committed by the servant has
no connection what so ever with the servant’s contract of employment.
(III) If a person by an act lowers the reputation of another in the eye of right thinking
people, then the person who suffered loss of reputation can sue for damages.
Answers:
(a) Jawaharlal is liable because Rajiv defamed Singh
(b) Jawaharlal is not liable as the defamation was not in the course of Rajiv’s employment.
(c) Rajiv is liable even though the defamation was not in the course of employment.
(d) None of the above answers is correct.

4. In order to ensure that people live in an amicable atmosphere the Government of India
decided to abolish courts and constituted Dispute Settlement Boards. Further, to achieve
this objective, the law stipulated that lawyers should not be allowed to espouse the claims
of parties, and instead their claims be espoused by social workers.
Principles:
(I) Any law made by the Parliament that infringes the fundamental rights of the citizens is
invalid and un-enforceable.
(II) Freedom to carry on trade or profession of one’s own choice is a fundamental right.
(III) The Parliament is competent to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of this
tight.
(IV) If the restrictions, of fundamental rights imposed by the Parliament, totally removes
or
Nullifies any fundamental right then it will be construed as an unreasonable
restriction.
Answers:
(a) The law made by the Parliament is valid, as it does not infringe any fundamental right.
(b) The law made by the Parliament is valid as even though there is restriction of
fundamental right, such a restriction is reasonable.
(c) The law made by the Parliament is invalid as it constitutes an infringement of
fundamental rights and the restriction imposed is not reasonable.
(d) None of the above answers is correct.

5. Rama told Sita “You are a thief. You stole my heart”. Sita was furious and she felt that she
was defamed.
Principles:
(I) “If a person makes a statement that lowers the reputation of another person in the eyes
of right thinking people, then it is defamation.
(II) The person whose reputation is affected can sue the culprit and recover damages.
 Answers:
(a) Rama has defamed Sita and hence he is liable to pay damages.
(b) Rama is liable to pay as Sita’s reputation was lowered in the eyes of right thinking
people.
(c) Rama is not responsible, as right thinking people will not mistake this statement.
(d) None of the above answers is correct.

6. Vasu was walking on a street. When Vasu was crossing Venkar’s house, a bag of rice fell
on Vasu and he was injured. But he did not know what caused the bag of rice to fall on
him.
Principles:
(I) In order to succeed in an action for damages, the person who files the case must prove
that the defendant is at fault.
(II) However, if the factors which caused the accident were in the normal course of the
defendant and if the accident is of such a nature that it would not have happened, in the
normal than the law presumes fault on the part of the persons who had control over the
factors that caused the accident.
Answers:
In an action for damages brought by Vase
(a) Vase cannot succeed, as he could not prove the Venkat was at fault.
(b) Vasu can succeed because the law will presume that Venkar is at fault.
(c) Vasu can succeed as the rice bag fell on him.
(d) None of the above answers is correct.

7. Dr. ramayya took his car to Dolphin Co. Ltd., a garage which he had been frequenting, for
servicing. Since Dolphin C. Ltd., was out of the way, Dr. Ramayya requested the owner
to drop him near a bus terminal so that he may get back to his work. The owner directed a
mechanic by name Shankar to drop Dr. Ramayya in the same car which he had brought
for servicing and bring the car back. On the way, the car collided with a lorry, due to the
negligence of Shankar. The owner of the lorry, James is seeking the legal advice as to the
course of action.
Principle:
Where the owner of a vehicle, being himself in possession and occupation of it, requests
or allows another person to drive, the owner is liable as principal for damage caused by
the person actually driving.
Answers:
(a) Dr. Ramayya is liable, because the car belongs to him and he requested for the
assistance of Shankar.
(b) Dolphin Co. Ltd., is liable, because Shankar is their driver.
(c) Dr. Ramayya is liable, because he could have asked Shankar to drive carefully.
(d) Dolphin Co. Ltd., is liable, because, the car is entrusted to their care.
8. Facts: Tiwari is a servant of Ajit. On his way to Ajit’s house to report for duty, he goes to
have a cup of coffee. There he sees Singh and accuses Mr. Singh of being a dishonest
person. Mr. Singh wants to sue Ajit, as Tiwari is is Ajit’s servant.
Principles:
i. Master is liable for the wrongful acts committed by servants, in the course of their
employment if third patties suffer damages in consequences.
ii. However the master is not liable if the wrongful act committed by the servant has no
connection what so ever with the servant’s contract of employment.
iii. If a person by an act lowers the reputation of another in the eye of right thinking
people, them the person who suffered loss of reputation can sue for damages.
Answers:
(a) Ajit is liable because Tiwari defamed Singh.
(b) Ajit is not liable as the defamation was not in the course of Tiwari’s employment.
(c) Ajit is liable even though the defamation was not in the course of employment.
(d) None of the above answers is correct.

9. Facts:
Hanuman Stores sent certain items in a horse carriage to a customer’s house, which
happened to be by the side of a main read, and near a school zone. The driver of the
carriage delivered the items to the customers and went inside the house to collect the
receipt, leaving the carriage unattended on the road. Some naughty children of nearby
school threw stones at the horses. The horses ran in confusion and they were about to run
over an old woman. A traffic police, at great risk to his life, somehow seized the horses
and stopped the carriage. He suffered serious personal injuries in the process. They
policeman seeks compensation from Hanuman Stores.
Principles:
(1) Whoever is under a duty of care to another shall be liable for any injury to the latter
directly resulting from the breach of that duty.
(2) Harm suffered voluntarily does not constitute legal injury.
Answers:
(a) Hanuman Stores is not liable, because they do not owe a duty of care to the old woman
or policeman.
(b) Hanuman Stores is not liable because some naughty children scared away their horses.
(c) The policeman cannot succeed, because he suffered injury voluntarily.
(d) The policeman can succeed, because he owed a duty of care to old woman.

10. Facts: Mohan promised to take Sundar out for a dinner in Chola Sheraton. Even after two
weeks, Mohan did not fulfill the promise. Sundar wants to sue Mohan to enforce that
promise.

Principles:
 (1) An agreement enforceable in a court of law is a contract.
(2) In order for an agreement to be enforceable in a court of law, there must be a meeting
of minds between both the parties.
(3) Parties to a contract should do something for the other party. The obligation to do
something for the other party is mutual. This is called ‘consideration’ and absence of
consideration renders the contract unenforceable.
If Sundar goes to court:
Answers:
(a) He can compel Mohan to buy him a dinner at Chola Sheraton.
(b) He can recover the value of dinner from Mohan.
(c) This promise will boot be enforced by a Court of Law as there is no consideration from
Sundar.
(d) None of the above answers is correct.

11. A master shall be liable for the acts of his servants done in the course of employment.
HMT, a public sector undertaking, is operating a number of bus services for its
employees in Bangalore. These buses are quite distinct in their appearance and carry the
board “for HMT employees only”. M, a villager from neighboring state, was waiting for
a regular bus in one of the bus stops in Bangalore. A bus belonging to HMT happened to
stop nearby and a number of people got into the bus. M. without realizing that it was
HMT bus, got into the bus and soon thereafter, the bus met with an accident due to the
driver’s negligence. M, along with several others, was injured in the accident M seeks to
file a suit against HMT claiming damages.
(a) M will succeed, because he got into the bus without realising that it was HMT bus.
(b) M will not succeed, because it was for him to find out whether it was a public transport.
(c) M will succeed, because the driver was anyhow duty-bound to drive carefully.

12. A partner shall share with other partners whatever profit he makes in the course of
partnership business.
P a partner in a Bangalore firm engaged in textile business, went to a nearby place to buy
some silk sarees. The manufacturers there in told him: “If you buy 500 sarees, you will
get a discount of Rs. 50 in each saree”. P in fact required only 400 sarees for his firm;
nevertheless he bought 500 sarees and kept 100 sarees for himself. After sometime, he on
his own sold 100 sarees and made a good profit. Other partners demand that he should
share these profits with them.
(a) P has to share the profits, because he bought those 100 sarees in the course of
partnership business.
(b) P need not share it, because he has already benefited the firm by getting a substantial
discount in the purchases.
(c) P need not share the profits, because his additional buying of 100 sarees was to get the
discount and help the firm.
13. Under Indian Constitution, everybody shall be equal before law.
The Income Tax Act happens to provide that those whose annual income is up to Rs.
60,000/- shall pay 10% of their income as tax: and those whose annual income exceeds
Rs. 60,000/- shall pay the tax at the rate of 20%. Those citizens whose annual income
exceeds Rs. 60,000/- challenger Legislation on the ground that it is a violation of the
principle of equality before law.
(a) They will succeed, because the law discriminates against the people who earn more
than Rs. 60,000/- per annum.
(b) They will not succeed, because the people who eaten more than Rs. 60,000/- are not
equal to the people who earn less than Rs. 60,000/-.
(c) They will not succeed, because this law enables the Government to equalise the
incomes of all the people in the country.

14. No one can accept a proposal without any knowledge there of

Ramesh proposed to give a reward of Rs. 1000/- to anyone informing him the where
about of his lost dog. The proposal was printed in a daily newspaper by name “The Daily
Observer”, on 1. 1. 1994. On 3rd January, Rahim, a friend of Ramesh, happened to see
the dog and informed Ramesh about it. Ramesh immediately rushed to the spot and
collected the dog. At that time, neither Rahim knew about the award (since he was not
regular reader of “The Daily Observer”), nor Ramesh mentioned anything about the
award. On the 5th January, Rahim came to know about the announcement of the award
through a friend of him and he demanded the reward of Rs. 1000/- from Ramesh. Ramesh
refused to pay.
(a) Ramesh has to pay the amount, because he had promised to pay the amount to anyone
giving the information about the dog.
(b) Ramesh need not pay the amount, because he had given the information without
knowing about the reward.
(c) Ramesh need not pay the amount because the promise was made only to the readers of
“The Daily Observer”.

15. Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any property out of the possession of another
person, moves that property for such taking, is said to commit theft.
Suresh went into the house of his friend Ramesh to discuss some important matter. Since
Ramesh was not at home, Suresh waited for him in the latter’s d rowing room. When
Ramesh did not turn up, Suresh took out a pen from Ramesh’s table and wrote down a
message and went home. While going back, by force of habit, he just dropped the pen
into the pocket. Subsequently, he forgot about it. Since the pen happened to be very
valuable one, Ramesh complained to the police and the police traced the pen in Suresh’s
house.
(a) Suresh committed theft, because he took the pen without Ramesh’s consent.
(b) Suresh committed theft, because he failed to return the pen.
(c) Suresh did not committed theft, because he did not have the dishonest intention.