AILET (All India Law Entrance Test) 2020 MCQs Questions with Solutions and Explanations at Doorsteptutor. Com Part 12

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

Question 80

Legal Principles:

(1) When the negligent act of two or more person results in the same damage, it is called composite negligence. The liability in such a case is joint and several of the tort-feasers.

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

(3) The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability.

(4) The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred ‘but for’ the negligence of the defendant.

Facts: Zara filed a civil suit against five drug manufacturing companies. Zara՚s mother took synthetic Estrogen while pregnant with her. As a result of receiving the drug in-utero, Zara developed cancer as an adult. The drug was manufactured by the Defendants, five major drug companies and by about 195 other companies not named in the suit. The Defendants together produced 90 % of the drug. Zara is unable to identify which company produced the actual drug her mother took. Decide whether the Defendants only can be held liable for Zara՚s cancer.

A. No, as the industry responsible for the production of this drug is large, so holding only the defendants responsible is not correct.

B. Yes, as defendants joins a substantial share of the manufactures into the lawsuit, the chances of the actual tort-feasor escaping liability is greatly reduced.

C. No, as defendants can be made liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would be likely to injure someone.

D. No, Zara is not entitled to any damages as the drugs her mother was administered were needed at that time and her mother had taken the medicines voluntarily. Zara developed cancer after so many years and she must prove that harm would not have occurred ‘but for’ the negligence of the defendants.

Question 81

Legal Principles:

(1) Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person՚s reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.

(2) The statement must tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right- thinking members of society.

(3) A mere vulgar abuse is not defamation.

(4) Defamation encompasses both written statements, known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander.

(5) A public official or public figure can recover damages for defamation on a matter of public concern only if he proves that the speaker acted with actual malice.

Facts: In 2018, a police officer, Suresh Singh, shot and killed Dayal. After the officer was convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, Dayal՚s family retained a lawyer, Kaushal, to represent them in civil litigation against the officer. In a magazine called Indian Opinion, the Anti-Communist Society accused Kaushal of being a “Naxalite” and a “Communist-fronter” because he chose to represent clients who were suing a law enforcement officer. Because the statements contained serious inaccuracies, Kaushal filed a libel action against the editors of the magazine. Decide whether he will succeed.

A. No, as it is mere vulgar abuse.

B. The statement may be defamatory but the editors of the magazine are not liable unless Kaushal is able to establish actual malice in making the statement.

C. No, as the statement does not tend to lower Kaushal in the estimation of right-thinking members of society and print media is known for such type of journalism.

D. Yes, as statement is defamatory and Kaushal is not required to establish actual malice to successfully bring a claim of defamation.

Question 82

Legal Principle: A contract may, in some circumstances, be discharged by a breach of contract. Where there exists a breach of condition this will enable the innocent party the right to repudiate the contract (bring the contract to an end) in addition to claiming damages.

Facts: In April, Sagar Tour &Travels agreed to employ Hiten as his courier for three months from 1 June 2020, to go on a trip around the European continent. On 11 May, Sagar Tour & Travels wrote to say that Hiten was no longer needed. On 22 May, Hiten sued Sagar Tour & Travels for breach of contract. Sagar Tour & Travels argued that Hiten was still under an obligation to stay ready and willing to perform till the day when performance was due, and therefore could commence no action before June 1,2020

A. A breach of contract by renouncing the duty to perform the future obligation does not render the party liable immediately to a suit of action for damages by the injured party.

B. The renunciation of a contract of future conduct by one party immediately dissolves the obligation of the other party to perform the contract.

C. Hiten has suffered no harm and the offer can be revoked any time before June 1,2020 so he cannot claim any damages.

D. A contract for future conduct do not constitutes an implied promise that, in the meantime, neither party will prejudice the performance of that promise.

Question 83

Legal Principle: An agreement between two private parties that creates mutual legal obligations. A contract can be either oral or written.

Facts: Mr. Ram and Mr. Rahim were work colleagues who had an arrangement regarding shared lifts to work. Rahim would drive his motorbike and Ram would ride pillion in return for a weekly sum of money. Unfortunately, both were killed in a road traffic accident and the wife of Mr. Ram made a claim for damages against the estate of Mr. Rahim. However, Rahim՚s insurance policy did not cover pillion passengers and as his estate had no assets or money to satisfy the judgment, Mrs. Ram pursued the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) .

The MIB have an agreement whereby accidents and consequential claims would be satisfied by the Government in circumstances where the driver has no relevant policy of insurance. However, the rules covering this situation require Mr. Ram was carried for “hire or reward” . Mrs. Ram argues that there was a contract in place between Ram and Rahim for the lifts to work. Decide whether there was a contract so as to make Mrs. Ram eligible for claim from MIB.

A. Notwithstanding the regular payment of money in return for the lift, it was not a legal obligation as to create a contract. There were no terms as to how long this was too last, what would happen in default of payment or the availability of transport, or anything written down so as to at least make their intention clear.

B. Yes, there was clearly an offer of transport and this was accepted. In addition, the consideration exchanged by the parties was the service of transport and the money paid by Ram.

C. Yes, the practice of agreements between colleagues sharing a lift to work (or “car-pooling” ) is an accepted and wide spread practice. Parties will usually agree that one will take their car and in return the others will make a contribution towards the petrol costs.

D. No, unless the wife of Ram can show that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of Rahim.

Question 84

Legal Principles:

(1) Offer is a proposal made by one person to another to do an act or abstain from doing it. The person who makes the offer is known as the promisor or offeror and the person to whom an offer is made is known as the promise or the offeree.

(2) A contract comes into being by the acceptance of an offer. When the person to whom the offer is made signifies his consent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted and the parties are at consensus ad idem regarding the terms of the agreement.

Facts: Mr. Kumar visited the Holiday Bliss Hotel. He had not made an in advance booking and upon arrival requested a room for the night. He signed the register and there was no mention at that stage of any other terms or conditions that might impact upon his stay at the hotel. During the course of his stay Mr. Kumar discovered that someone had broken into his room and stolen certain property including a coat. Kumar filed a case of negligence on the Hotel administration. Nevertheless, the Hotel sought to rely upon an exclusion clause that was placed in the bedroom the claimant stayed in. This stated that the hotel would not accept liability for lost or stolen items belonging to customers. Decide whether the exclusion clause that was displayed in the bedroom constituted a valid term of the contract.

A. The contract was made when Kumar signed the register at the reception and so the acceptance of the offer mean acceptance of all the terms of the offer.

B. There is a valid contract between Kumar and Hotel and the Hotel has taken reasonable steps to bring exclusion clause to Kumar՚s attention in the room.

C. Terms must be brought to the attention of the customer, consumer or party against whom they are trying to be enforced at the moment the contract was entered into. Kumar was not given notice of this exclusion clause until he had already entered into the contract and therefore it was unenforceable against him.

D. Though the terms must be brought to the attention of the customer, consumer or party against whom they are trying to be enforced at the moment the contract was entered into. But, such type of clauses is generally part of all contracts and customers should be aware of such exclusion of liability clauses.

Developed by: