AILET (All India Law Entrance Test) 2018 MCQs Questions with Solutions and Explanations at Doorsteptutor. Com Part 9

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

Question 75

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

Legal Principles:

(1) Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.

(2) The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima face answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.

(3) A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to Insure his neighbour.

(4) The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance.

Legal Principle:

(1) An assault is an act which intentionally causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on a person.

(2) A battery consists of an intentional application of force to another person without any lawful justification.

Factual Situation: Jagan was in his car when he was approached by a police officer who told him to move the vehicle. Jagan did so, reversed his car and rolled it on to the foot of the police officer. The officer forcefully told him to move the car off his foot at which point Jagan swore at him and refused to move his vehicle and turned the engine off. Jagan was convicted for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. Is he liable for battery or assault?

A. He is not liable because there cannot be an assault in omitting to act and that driving on to the officer՚s foot was accidental, meaning that he was lacking mensrea when the act causing damage had occurred.

B. He is not liable as the act neither amount to an attempt nor a threat to commit a battery that amounts to an actionable tort of assault.

C. Jagan՚s crime was not the refusal to move the car but that of having driven on to the toot of the officer and decided not to cease the act, he had established a continual act of battery.

D. He is neither liable for assault nor battery as he accidently drove his car on the police officer՚s foot.

Question 76

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

Legal Principles:

(1) Consideration is something that moves from the promisor, to the promisor, at the implied or express request of the latter, in return for his promise. The Item that moves can be a right, interest, profit, loss, responsibility given or suffered, forbearance or a benefit which is of some value in the eyes of law.

(2) An offer may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards.

Factual Situation: The defendant, Mr. Dhawan, wrote to the complainant, Mr. Chaman, with an offer to sell his house to him for ₹ 8,00, 000. He promised that he would keep this offer open to him until Friday. However, on the Thursday Mr. Dhawan accepted an offer from a third party and sold his house. According to Mr. Chaman, he was going to accept this offer but had not said anything to Mr. Dhawan because he understood that he had time until Friday. Mr. Dhawan communicated to Mr. Chaman that the offer had been withdrawn, through a friend to the complainant. After hearing this, Mr. Chaman went to find the defendant, informing of his acceptance to the offer. Thereafter, the complainant brought an action for specific performance and breach of contract against the defendant. Whether the defendant՚s promise to keep the offer open until Friday morning was a binding contract between the parties and whether he was allowed to revoke this offer and sell to a third party?

A. The statement made by Mr. Dhawan amounts to a valid contract and he has committed a breach by selling the house before Friday.

B. The statement made by Mr. Dhawan was nothing more than a promise; there was no binding contract formed. He had communicated an offer for buying his house to the complainant and this offer can be revoked any time before there is acceptance.

C. The communication by a friend or other party that an offer had been withdrawn Is invalid and could not be treated as if it came from the person himself.

D. Promises to keep an offer open until a certain time is a binding agreement as it is accepted by the other party.

Question 77

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

Legal Principles:

(1) Consideration is something that moves from the promisor, to the promisor, at the implied or express request of the latter, in return for his promise. The Item that moves can be a right, interest, profit, loss, responsibility given or suffered, forbearance or a benefit which is of some value in the eyes of law.

(2) An offer may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards.

Factual Situation: MXM Co. is a building contractor who entered into an agreement with Star Heights Housing Association to refurbish a block of 27 flats. This contract was subject to a liquidated damages clause if they did not complete the contract on time. The MXM Co. engaged Hasan to do the carpentry work for an agreed price of ₹ 20,000. After six months of commencing the work, Hasan realised he had priced the job too low and would be unable to complete at the originally agreed price. He approached MXM Co. who recognised that the price was particularly low and was concerned about completing the contract on time. MXM Co. agreed to make additional payments to Hasan in return for his promise to carry out his existing obligations.

MXM Co. agreed to pay Hasan an additional ₹ 575 per flat. Hasan continued work on the flats for a further period of 6 weeks but only received an additional ₹ 5,000. He then ran out of money and refused to continue unless payment was made. MXM Co. engaged another carpenter to complete the contract and refused to pay Hasan any further sums. Hasan sued for payment under the original agreement and the subsequent agreement. MXM Co. argued that the agreement to make additional payments was unenforceable as Hasan has not provided any consideration lo make this agreement a valid contract. Decide.

A. The agreement to pay extra was unenforceable as Hasan had provided no consideration as he was already under an existing contractual duty to complete the work.

B. Consideration was provided by Hasan in the form of conferring a benefit on the MXM Co. by helping them to avoid the penalty clause. Therefore, MXM Co. was liable to make the extra payments promised.

C. There was no consideration provided by Hasan as to avoid the penalty clause was the main object of the contract. Therefore, MXM Co. was not liable to make the extra payments promised.

D. MXM Co. is liable to pay compensation to Hasan as they have committed a breach of contract by employing another carpenter.

Developed by: