AILET (All India Law Entrance Test) 2020 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 75

Legal Principle: Generally, the owner of the property has a duty to maintain his property so as to make it reasonably safe for use. However, the occupier also owes a duty to take such care as is reasonable to see that the visitor is reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be therein.

Facts: Sheila is a painter. She went to her friend Ruchi՚s house for meeting her. Sheila requested to use the bathroom and injured her right hand on a broken water faucet handle. Sheila filed a personal injury action for hand injuries suffered alleging that Ruchi failed to warn her that her bathroom fixtures were cracked and dangerous. Ruchi says she had complained to the landlord about the broken handle so the landlord is liable. Decide whether the Sheila՚s injury the proximate cause of Ruchi՚s negligence?

A. A licensee or social guest was obliged to take the premises as he or she found them, and the possessor of the premises owed a duty only to refrain from wanton or wilful injury.

B. The landlord is liable as Ruchi had complained to the landlord about the broken handle and it is the duty of the landlord to get the repair work done.

C. Ruchi is not liable as the use of toilet is not the purposes for which Sheila was invited or permitted by the occupier to be therein.

D. Ruchi owes a duty to warn of a dangerous condition so the guest can take special precautions, like the host would, when they come in contact with it.

Question 76

Legal Principle: Intimidation involves a threat to do something unlawful or ‘illegitimate’ ; it must be intended to coerce the claimant to take or not take certain action.

Facts: Hari, a skilled draughtsman and employee of the Overseas Airways Corporation (OAC) , resigned his membership of the Association of Engineering and Shipbuilding Draughtsmen (AESD) , a registered trade union. It was agreed between OAC and AESD (among others) that no strike or lockout should take place and disputes should be handled by arbitration. He resigned from his union, the Association of Engineering and Shipbuilding Draftsman (AESD) , after a disagreement. The Corporation and AESD had a contract that stipulates that the employer will only hire workers from a specific union and those workers can only remain with that employer while they are a part of the union so AESD threatened a strike unless Hari resigned also from his job or was fired. Corporation suspended Hari and, after some months, dismissed him with one week՚s salary in lieu of notice. Hari brought an action for damages alleging that he was the victim of a tortious intimidation. Decide.

A. The union was guilty of the tort of intimidation. It was unlawful intimidation to use a threat to break their contracts with their employer as a weapon to make him do something which he was legally entitled to do but which they knew would cause loss to Hari.

B. The Union was not guilty of intimidation as no unlawful means were used to induce Corporation to terminate his contract of service.

C. There was a contract between Union and Corporation that stipulates that the employer will only hire workers from a specific union and those workers can only remain with that employer while they are a part of the union so the Union is not liable.

D. Hari cannot claim damages as he was paid one week՚s salary in lieu of notice.

Question 77

Legal Principles:

(1) A deceit occurs when a misrepresentation is made with the express intention of defrauding a party, subsequently causing loss to that party.

(2) “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.

Fact: XY Company in its prospectus stated that the company was permitted to make engines that were powered by electricity, rather than by fuel. In reality, the company did not possess such a right as this had to be approved by the Government Board. Gaining the approval for such a claim from the Board was considered a formality in such circumstances and the claim was put forward in the prospectus with this information in mind. However, the claim of the company for this right was later refused by the Board. The individuals who had purchased a stake in the business, upon reliance on the statement, brought a claim for deceit against the defendant՚s business. Decide.

A. The company is liable for false representation as their claims were eventually turned out to be false.

B. The company is liable as their false statements has resulted in causing loss to the shareholders.

C. The company is not liable as the statement in its prospectus was simply incorrect and not fraudulent.

D. The shareholders should have collected as much information regarding the company as possible before purchasing a stake in it.

Question 78

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) Generally, nuisances cannot be justified on the ground of necessity, pecuniary interest, convenience, or economic advantage to a defendant.

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

(4) In cases of nuisance, the court may grant an injunction restricting the nuisance from occurring in the future when the loss could not adequately compensate.

Facts: Tina purchased a house in an estate which was adjacent to a functioning, in use, cricket field. The members of Super Eleven Cricket Club used to play Cricket in that field for over 70 years. After Tina moved into the property, cricket balls began to fly over the field՚s protective barrier and into the Tina՚s property. Tina complained, which caused Super Eleven Cricket Club to erect a chain link fence. This improved matters as less balls were now flying onto the Tina՚s property but it did not fully solve the issue as some still got through. The club offered Tina to pay for any damage done or injuries received as a result of the balls landing onto her land, including fixing any broken windows and similar. Tina, however, refused all of the club՚s offers and filed a case against the members of the Club alleging nuisance and negligence and requested court to grant an injunction to prevent the club from playing cricket on their ground. Tina argued that even though the club offered to make good any damage and that there had been no injuries, she was not able to use her garden when matches were being played for fear of being struck by a cricket ball. Decide.

A. The members of Club are not liable as Tina was aware about the activities of the Cricket Club and had willingly purchased the property.

B. The members of the Club are liable for nuisance and court should pass an order of compensation as the injury is small and could be compensated in terms of money.

C. The members of the Club are liable for nuisance and court should pass an order of injunction. The plaintiff՚s right to enjoyment of her property outweighs the right of the members of the Club to play cricket.

D. The Club is not liable as they have already taken sufficient measures to mitigate the effects of their act and are ready and willing to do so in future too.

Question 79

Legal Principles:

(1) According to rule of strict liability, any 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 in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage, irrespective of fault, which is the natural consequence of its escape in respect of the non-natural use of land.

(2) A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would be likely to injure his neighbour.

Facts: PN was the owner of a gas pipe which passed under the surface of an old railway between Ramnagar and Kotpur. XY was the local council which was responsible for a water pipe which supplied water to a block of flats in the nearby Shining Apartment Complex. A leak developed which was undetected for some time. The water collected at an embankment which housed PN՚s high pressure gas main. The water caused the embankment to collapse and left the gas main exposed and unsupported. This was a serious and immediate risk and PN took action to avoid the potential danger. They then sought to recover the cost of the remedial works. PN argued that the XY Council was liable for negligence under strict liability.

A. The Council is liable under strict liability rule as the damage is not remote as it was possible for the Council to reasonably foresee a leakage which would eventually lead to collapse of the gas main.

B. The escape of water as a result of leak is sufficient to make the Council liable.

C. The Council is not liable as PN should have been careful in detecting the leak earlier. They cannot shift the blame on the Council.

D. The Council is not liable under rule of strict liability for the damage as the Council՚s use was neither a non- natural nor dangerous use of the land.

Developed by: