CLAT 2012 Solved Paper (Part 23 of 27)

  1. Principle: Ignorance of Fact is excused but ignorance of law is no excuse Fact: X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the Airport of Bombay on 28 Nov. 1962 it was found on searching that X carried 34 kg of Gold Bars on his person and that he had not declared it in the ‘Manifest for Transit’ On 26th Nov. 1962 the Government of India had issued a notification modifying its earlier exemption, making it mandatory now that the gold must be declared in the “Manifest” of the aircraft.

    1. X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days ago

    2. X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusable

    3. X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusable

    4. X's liability would depend on the discretion of the court

    Answer: c

  2. 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. Facts: 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.

    1. His action would fail because he was not aware of the offer

    2. His action would not fail because it was a general offer

    3. 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

    4. None of the above

    Answer: a

  3. Principle: Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or not capable of being made certain, are void. Facts: A horse was bought for a certain price coupled with a promise to give Rs. 500 more if the horse is proved lucky.

    1. This is a valid agreement.

    2. This agreement is void for uncertainty because it is very difficult to determine what luck, bad or good, the horse has brought to the buyer.

    3. The agreement is partially valid and partially void.

    4. None of the above:

    Answer: b

  4. 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. Facts: 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-

    1. X can be held liable for fraud.

    2. X can be held liable for misrepresentation

    3. X cannot be held liable, because he did not say anything positive about the mental state of the horse.

    4. X cannot be held liable because it is the buyer who must be aware of the things.

    Answer: c

  5. Principle: Any direct physical interference with goods in somebody's possession without lawful justification is called trespass of goods. Facts: Z purchased a car from a person who had no title to it and sent it to a garage for repair. X believing wrongly that the car was his, removed it from the garage.

    1. X can be held responsible for trespass of goods

    2. X cannot be held responsible for trespass of goods as he was under a wrong belief.

    3. X has not committed any wrong.

    4. None of the above:

    Answer: a