AILET (All India Law Entrance Test) 2018 MCQs Questions with Solutions and Explanations at Doorsteptutor. Com Part 11

Glide to success with Doorsteptutor material for AILET : get questions, notes, tests, video lectures and more- for all subjects of AILET.

Question 81

Legal Principle:

(1) ‘Misrepresentation’ means and includes - the positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true; any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gains an advantage of the person committing it, or any one claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him; causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement, to make a mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement.

(2) The tort of negligent misstatement is defined as an inaccurate statement made honestly but carelessly usually in the form of advice given by a party with special skill/knowledge to a party that doesn՚t possess this skill or knowledge.

Factual Situation: The plaintiff, Mr. Madan, entered into a tenancy agreement with the defendant, Esso Petroleum, in respect of a petrol station owned by the latter. During the course of the negotiation of the agreement, ‘expert’ advisers employed by the defendant had provided an estimate of the sales which the petrol station could expect which was based on inaccurate information and consequently was significantly inflated, the value of the rent on the agreement had been calculated based on this inflated figure, as a result, it was impossible for the plaintiff to operate the petrol station profitably. Whether the plaintiff could have any action for negligent misrepresentation?

A. The contract could not be held void for misrepresentation as the defendants presented the inflated figure as an estimate rather than as a hard fact.

B. The defendant has no obligation to disclose as the parties contracting should obtain the necessary information themselves without relying upon the other party.

C. As the defendant had taken it upon themselves to employ experts for the purpose of providing an estimate of sales, they owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to ensure that this was done on the basis of accurate information. Hence, the plaintiff can recover the losses which he had suffered as a result of the defendant՚s negligent misstatement.

D. Both (A) and (C)

Question 82

Directions: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below arid select the most appropriate answer.

Legal Principles:

(1) The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.

(2) The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant՚s conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.

(3) The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred ‘but for’ the negligence of the defendant. The claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant՚s breach of duty caused the harm.

Factual Situation: Amar worked for an iron works, Luxmi Mills & Co. Ltd. Operating a remotely controlled crane, Amar galvanized items by dipping them into a large tank of molten metal. In order to protect its crane operators, whose controls were located just a few feet from the tank, Luxmi Mills erected a low wall around the tank and also provided a sheet of corrugated iron that crane operators placed between themselves and the wall. The operators were not facing the tank while opening the crane. Thus, they could not see the operation of the crane and therefore relied upon signals from another worker located farther from the tank. Many other galvanizers at the time situated their operators in enclosed, windowed spaces from which they could safely see and perform their work. Luxmi Mills eventually adopted that practice as well. One day, Amar was working on the crane. At one point, he either turned toward the tank or leaned out to see the worker giving him instructions, thereby placing his head outside the Iron sheet. A spray of molten metal burned Amar՚s lip. When it failed to heal and began to ulcerate, he consulted a doctor who diagnosed the wound as cancerous. Amar ultimately died from the spread of cancer after three years. His widow sued Luxmi Mills for negligence. Whether the employers would be liable for the full extent of the burn and cancer that had developed as a result?

A. The employers are liable for all of the consequences of their negligence; thus, liable for the employee՚s death. His predisposition to cancer did not matter, nor did the results of the injury. The question of liability was, whether the defendant could reasonable foresee the injury.

B. The employers are not liable because the duty of care towards Amar was not broached by them as they were using the same practices which were used by other companies at that time.

C. The employers are not liable because Amar suffered injury due to his own negligence in stepping out of the protective shield.

D. The employers are liable for bums and not for the death which happened due to Amar՚s cancerous condition which could not have been known to the employers.

Question 83

Directions: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below arid select the most appropriate answer.

Legal Principles:

(1) The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.

(2) The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant՚s conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.

(3) The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred ‘but for’ the negligence of the defendant. The claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant՚s breach of duty caused the harm.

Factual Situation: A 13-year-old boy fell from a tree. He went to a hospital where his hip was examined, but an incorrect diagnosis was made. After 5 days it was found that he was suffering from avascular necrosis. This was more advanced and serious than if it had been spotted straight away. Despite receiving treatment, it was determined that he had suffered from a muscular condition (avascular necrosis) which left the boy with a permanent disability and further left a strong probability that he would develop severe osteoarthratis later in life. The expert medical testimony indicated that had his fractured hip been identified on his initial hospital visit, there was a 25 % chance of his condition having been successfully treated. He is claiming compensation for the negligence of hospital. Whether the hospital՚s negligence on his initial visit had caused his injury?

A. No, because there are very less chances that correct diagnosis and treatment would have prevented the disability from occurring.

B. Where there are a number of possible causes, the claimant must still prove the defendant՚s breach of duty caused the harm or was a material contribution.

C. Yes, because there are some chances that correct diagnosis and treatment would have prevented the disability from occurring.

D. Both (A) and (B)

Question 84

Legal Principle: Vicarious liability is when employers are held liable for the torts committed by their employees during the course of employment.

Factual Situation: New Vision School opened a boarding house (Shivaji House) for boys in the year 2000 for the students having behavioural and emotional difficulties. The claimants in the instant case had resided there between 2000 to 2003, being aged 12 to 15 during that time, under the care of a warden, who was in charge of maintaining discipline and the running of the house. The warden lived in the House, with his disabled wife, and together they were the only two members of staff in the House. His duties were ensuring order, in making sure the children went to bed, went to school, engaged in evening activities, and supervising other staff. It had been alleged by some of the boys that the warden had sexually abused them, including inappropriate advances and taking trips alone with them. A criminal investigation took place some ten years later, resulting in the warden being sentenced to seven years imprisonment. Following this, the victims brought an action for personal injury against the employers, alleging that they were vicariously liable. Whether the employers of the warden may be held vicariously liable for their employee՚s intentional sexual abuse of school boys placed under his care?

A. No. vicarious liability could only arise when the employee is acting during the course of his employment and for his employer՚s benefit.

B. No, the employers cannot be made liable for acts which are not authorized by them.

C. Yes, there was a sufficient connection between the work that the warden was employed to do and the abuse that he committed to render it within the scope of employment. The abuse was committed at the time, premises and during the course of the wardens care of the boys.

D. Yes, because the employers should be made liable in cases of sexual abuse of differently abled children.

Developed by: