Tort Law
to the mind of a reasonable man, then
Vicarious Liability
1. Answer is b. The principle here talks about
‘common’ employment and option b is the
one that stresses on it by stating that both
of them were employed by Fowler, i.e. had
common employment.
2. Answer is c. Direct application of the
principle.
3. Answer is c. Direct Application of
principle.
4. Answer is c because his act of driving falls
well within the ‘course of employment’.
5. Answer is d because the Harbour Board
has the actual control over the drivers, not
Higgins and Clark Ltd. The master-servant
relationship exists between the drivers and
Harbour Board, and they are employed
with Higgins and Clark Ltd. in capacity of
independent contractors.
6. Answer is d because the crack was
‘invisible’ making it impossible for him to
discern it and avert the injury.
7. Answer is c, as there was no negligent act,
and hence no liability arising out of it,
vicarious or otherwise.
8. Answer is b.
9. Answer is a. This is an act essential related
to the authorized act which is driving.
Contributory
Negligence/Negligence
10. Answer is a. Reasonable foreseeability
does not imply remote possibility. If the
possibility of danger emerging is only a
170
© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
mere possibility which would never occur
there is no negligence in not having taken
extraordinary precautions.
11. Answer is b. Self-Explanatory.
12. Answer is b. It was entirely the fault of the
driver as Ratanlal’s farm was a furlong
(220 yards) from the tracks which is
reasonable enough. Also, the driver was
operating the locomotive negligently
causing it to emit ‘large’ quantities of
spark. Hence, there was no ‘contributory’
negligence.
13. Answer is b. Same reason as above, as
there was no negligence on the part of
Ratanlal, there is no question of
apportionment or complete waiver of
damages.
14. Answer is c. Self-explanatory.
ASSAULT AND BATTERY
15. Answer is d. Both the options are correct.
Direct Application of the principle.
16. Answer is b. The given principle
exonerates an insane person from liability.
Direct application of principle.
17. Answer is b. Here the principle talks about
battery, and the person who actually hit
and injured Keel was Hainlaine and
therefore he alone will be liable.
18. Answer is d. Since the nature of the game
they were playing, it is reasonably clear
that someone ought to get hurt.
19. Answer is b. Battery makes intention
necessary. Since he used unlawful force,
so he is liable for battery.
20. Answer is c. It is no defense for him to say
that he had no intent to cause contact with
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering
 Raj. Ram’s intentions toward Ramesh are
combined with the harmful contact with
Raj to create a battery.
21. Answer is c. Direct application of
principle iii. Here, the principle of battery
omits the word ‘intentional’ in the
definition and therefore, battery will be
said to have been committed if an
unlawful force is used against a person
irrespective of whether there existed an
intention.
22. Answer is a. He intended to kill Manning.
23. Answer is a. Since he was an expert
pitcher and had on occasions immediately
following heckling looked directly at the
hecklers, it can be concluded that he
intended to throw the ball in the direction
of the hecklers and caused them imminent
apprehension of being hit.
24. Answer is b. The tobacco smoke is
‘particulate matter’ capable of making
physical contact and of offending a
reasonable sense of personal dignity, and
thus since the person intentionally directed
the smoke toward Leich, he could be held
liable for committing battery.
25. Answer is b. The principle here clearly
mandates that there be a ‘specific’
wrongful intent or malice on the part of
the defendant for him to be held liable for
the same. Since it doesn’t exist in the facts
given above, they will not be liable.
26. Answer is c. To constitute battery, it is not
necessary to touch the person’s body or
even his clothing; knocking or snatching
anything from the person’s hand or
touching anything connected with his
person, when done in a rude or insolent
manner, would be sufficient.
171
© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
27. Answer is b. For battery to be committed,
all that is necessary is that the person
intends to cause the other, directly or
indirectly, to come in contact with a
foreign substance in a manner which the
other will reasonably regard as offensive.
So here Lalit is liable as though he had
directly thrown the filth in the other
person’s face or had otherwise smeared it
with it.
28. Answer is a. The act done need not be
very substantial or ‘big’ to constitute
battery. Even an indirect trespass against
someone’s person would incur liability.
29. Answer is b. For battery to be said to have
been committed, it is not necessary that
the other should know of the offensive
contact when it is inflicted. The person’s
liability is based upon his intentional
invasion of the other’s dignitary interest in
the inviolability of his person and the
affront to other’s dignity involved therein.
It is as keenly felt by one who only knows
after the event that an indignity has been
perpetrated upon him as by one who is
conscious of it while it is being
perpetrated.
30. Answer is c.
31. Answer is a.
32. Answer is c. An individual has the right to
refuse medical treatment even if such a
refusal would result in an increased
likelihood of the individual’s death. Also,
the lady had informed the hospital of her
religious beliefs but the hospital
authorities still persisted in treating her as
they would have treated a patient without
those beliefs.
33. Answer is b. Self-Explanatory. Also, she
had already filled out the form refusing
blood transfusion and therefore the
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering
 doctors’ still continuing with
transfusion would be battery.
34. Answer is c. The husband had given his
implied consent when he said “I don’t
want her to die either”, and therefore, the
transfusion carried on by the authorities
won’t constitute battery against her
person.
35. Answer is c. Since she said nothing, it
would be deemed that there was an
apparent consent on her part to A to let
him kiss her, and given the consent, the act
no longer falls within the category of
‘offensive’ touching.
36. Answer is b. Here his remaining silent was
not consent for A to go ahead and smack
him in the face. Hence, the liability.
37. Answer is a. Direct application of
principle.
38. Answer is a. Direct Application of
principle. Consent had been given in both
of these cases and hence, no liability arises
out of the action of the other.
39. Answer is c. because Manav had not
consented to use brass knuckles in the
fight.
40. Answer is d. Self-Explanatory.
41. Answer is a. Direct application of
principle. Also, the additional knowledge
about Shah’s health makes him liable for
battery as in that case, it becomes
intentional as he might be reasonably
expected to understand that there might be
‘some’ repercussions because of his heart
problem.
42. Answer is a. Had he known the fact that
Shah has a heart problem and still had hit
him, the consent would not have been a
bar to recovery of damages.
© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
the 43. Answer is b. Manya had not consented to
it knowing it would be permanent. Had he
known that and still consented to it, Karim
Dada would have been exonerated from
the liability to compensate him.
44. Answer is c. Both the answers are correct.
45. Answer is b. Direct Application.
46. Answer is a. He had obtained the consent
and hence, no liability lies with him.
47. Answer is b. The principle (iii) mentioned
here clarifies that recovery will not be
negated even if consent exists if the act in
question was made criminal to protect a
specific set of people.
48. Answer is c. Here, principle (ii) says that a
person should have been able to express a
rational will to waive off any future
recovery on his part. But given the fact
that he was inebriated, he was incapable of
expressing a ‘rational’ will and Malami
knew that he was drunk. Malami being the
sober one, should have not engaged in the
fight as no clear or rational will had been
expressed. Hence, the consent is not
enough to bar Hollerud from recovering
damages from him.
DEFAMATION
49. Answer is a. The letter here was not
published by him as it was stolen by a
thief without any fault of Jacques.
50. Answer is b. The principle here clearly
says that a person shall be liable for
transmitting the defamatory content only if
he knew about the defamatory content
being there. Here, option c could have
been right but such an assumption that he
must have read the paper and then passed
it on to Kate can’t be taken without any
172
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering
 such mention. Therefore, the correct
answer is b.
51. Answer is b. Direct application. He had
marked the news item. The reasonable
assumption would be that he had already
read it and then marked it.
52. Answer is c. The privilege applies even
though the car actually belongs to Brook.
53. Answer is a. Here, Maneka had not asked
him about the issue and his publication
was completely on his own, and therefore
not privileged.
54. Answer is b. Here, since Maneka herself
had asked Rajeevabout the chauffeur’s
activities, it becomes clear that the
chauffeur was indeed taking the car out
without her permission, and therefore, in
this regard, his publication to Maneka
about her chauffeur was privileged and
won’t give rise to any liability as opposed
to the above question wherein no
indication had been made of the fact that
the chauffeur was taking the car without
her permission.
55. Answer is a. The fact that Mukesh
believes the rumor to be false does not
constitute an abuse of the privilege. Also,
he had stated it to her as a rumor. Also,
since it was a father-daughter relationship,
there did exist a conditional privilege.
Hence, there is no abuse of privilege.
56. Answer is a. Direct application of the
principle. Obvious innocence of the
company is no defence.
57. Answer is b. Ignorance of any fact is no
excuse.
58. Answer is c. Option a is incorrect as it
says that the newspaper wrote about
Harold, the Camberwell barman, when in
fact the newspaper wrote about “Harold
173
© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
Newstead, a Camberwell ‘man’”. Option c
is correct as given in the principle, the
liability for defamation does not depend
upon the intention of the defendant to
defame but upon the fact that the statement
made by him was considered to be
defamatory.
59. Answer is a. Direct application of
principles. Principle 2 negates the
presence of intention, and therefore,
irrespective of what her intentions were,
she would be liable for demeaning Jamil.
60. Answer is a.
61. Answer is b. Self-Explanatory.
62. Answer is b. Publication simply means
communication to a third party, either
intentionally or negligently. When he left
the cartoon at his desk, he risked
publication. And when the stenographer
sees it, it has actually been ‘published’.
63. Answer is a. Even though c is correct too,
it is not the right option here as the
principle talks about ‘publication’ and not
broadly about what constitutes defamation
and what doesn’t.
64. Answer is d.
65. Answer is c.
66. Answer is a.
STRICT LIABILITY
67. Answer is b. Any time a person ignites
rocket with the intention of sending it aloft
to explode in the presence of large crowds
of people, a high risk of serious personal
injury or property damage is created.
68. Answer is b. Here, the facts clearly
mention that the bull had never shown any
vicious propensity or behaviour before,
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering
 and as such, Maxwell cannot be presumed reduce the damages due to Nicole’s
to have knowledge of the same. For this contributory negligence.
reason, he is not liable.
75. Answer is d.
69. Answer is d. It is not the mere keeping of
savage animals but the neglect in being
able to restrain them that gives rise to TRESPASS AND CONVERSION
strict liability. Here, the ape was on exhibit 76. Answer is b.
and there was no neglect in restraining
him. Hence, no strict liability arises. 77. Answer is a. Self-Explanatory.

70. Answer is c. Here the injury did not result
from any vicious propensity of the bear.
He did nothing but walk in the charge of
his owner and keeper, Peter. He was being
moved quietly upon a public thoroughfare
for a lawful purpose.
71. Answer is c. Self-Explanatory. As a note,
the concept of ‘strict’ liability implies that
there will exist a liability in spite of the
circumstances. Here, even though there
was an intervening act(that of Snell), the
liability transfers to the owner because he
is the one who owned the dog, aggravated
by the fact that the dog had a ‘vicious
propensity’ and the same was known to
the owner. In light of these two facts, it
was the duty of the owner to see to it that
there was no escape of the dog, and in case
of any such escape, whatever damages
accrue shall culminate in a ‘strict’ liability
for the owner. As a general rule, when a
person keeps an animal which he knows to
be dangerous, s/he shall be liable for the
consequences of his wrongful act, even
though the immediate cause of damage is
the act of a third party.
72. Answer is a.
73. Answer is c. As per the principle, she has
been wrongfully restrained.
74. Answer is d. None of the options above
are correct. The correct answer would
78. Answer is a.
79. Answer is a.The fact that they had the
right to permit or easement doesn’t mean
that they had earned a right to leave
behind things and when that happened, it
constituted trespass.
80. Answer is b. An ancient legal maxim,
transliterated, propounds “to whomsoever
the soil belongs, he owns also to the sky
and to the depths”. The space above and
under the land possessed by a person is
also his/her to use, albeit to a reasonable
extent. Hence, any unauthorized usage of
the same by any other person would be
unlawful and hence constitute the tort of
trespass. The word ‘land’ in the context of
the principle here doesn’t refer to ‘land’ in
its general usage. Rather, the term
conjures the space above and area under it
too.
81. Answer is d. The pushing of the car ‘three
or four feet’ does not fall within any of the
subheads laid out in the principle above.
Also, option a is incorrect as the car is still
there, just 3-4 feet from where he had
actually parked it. Option b is incorrect
too, as he can easily spot his car as it has
just been displaced by 3-4 feet. Option c is
way off the mark, completely unrelated to
the principle.
82. Answer is a. Direct application.

174

© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering
 83. Answer is a. Since the horse recovers
‘promptly’, no conversion was caused.
84. Answer is c. This is different from the
above situation in that the horse takes a
month to recover and thus, it is conversion
too, along with being a trespass to the
horse.
85. Answer is a. Since there is a workshop
right across the road there and the tyre was
indeed replaced there, the car was ready to
go again. Hence no conversion of the car
is caused, only the tyre.
86. Answer is c. Both. Because the facts say
that they were in a desert area and it would
therefore be hard for her to get her tyre
replaced quickly, and this would lead to a
conversion of both the tyre and the car.
87. Answer is b. Self-explanatory. Also, since
it is common knowledge that when a dog
has once acquired the habit of egg-
sucking, it is impossible to break him free
of it, he had no other choice. Thus, he is
not liable.
88. Answer is b. Self-Explanatory.
89. Answer is c. Direct application of
principle.
NERVOUS SHOCK
90. Answer is b. The driver owed a duty of
care to the boy, but he knew nothing of the
mother. She was not on the highway and
he could not have known that she was at
the window nor was there any reason why
he should anticipate that she would see his
cab at all.
JOINT TORTFEASORS
91. Answer is b. The common design was to
search for the escape of gas and both acted
175
© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
in furtherance of a common intention.
Hence, liability arises for both.
VOLUNTI NON FIT INJURIA
92. Answer is b. d is not correct as the
principle doesn’t talk about medical
negligence. ‘a’ is not correct for the same
reason.
93. Answer is a. Self Explanatory.
94. Answer is a. She can claim damages as the
act of the rescuer was the natural and
probable consequence of the defendant’s
wrongful act which the latter could have
avoided had it not been for their
carelessness. Also, this is a rescue case.
The defence of VolentiNon Fit Injuria is
therefore not available, and the company is
therefore liable.
PUBLIC NUISANCE AND
PRIVATE NUISANCE
95. Answer is b. Special damages were
incurred by the plaintiff as apart from the
general pollution of the atmosphere
endured by the public, his medical practice
was also jeopardized because of the dust
emanating from the machinery.
96. Answer is a. Self Explanatory.
97. Answer is a. The fact that the plaintiff
himself ‘came to nuisance’ is not a
defence.
98. Answer is c. The erection of the proposed
kiln at that place would amount to
actionable nuisance and therefore the firm
had a right to resist the erection of the
same.
99. Answer is b. The loss was suffered
because of an exceptionally delicate trade
being carried on by him and paper
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering
 generally would not have been damaged
by Kilvert’s operations.
100. Answer is c. The substantial addition to
the noise would be caused by the running
of an impugned flour machine and the
whirring sound that it generates and will
seriously interfere with the physical
comfort of Gur Prasad and as such it
would amount to nuisance and Gur Prasad
was entitled to an injunction against
RadheyShyam.
101. Answer is c. Self-explanatory.
102. d is the closest to the principal. Since
there is no legal right of D that has been
violated by A sending the telegram, TTC
delivering the telegram, D getting the
telegram or D acting on the contents of
telegram, there is nothing that he can
recover from A, notwithstanding the
damage.
103. b. This is an example of doing an
unauthorised act. When Krishna asked
Sudarshan to manage the rice anyhow the
intention was not to give licence for an
illegal act of cheating on the customer. In
such a situation if Sudarshan went beyond
the order to do something illegal his
employer cannot be held liable for it.
104. a. As the demolition interferes with the
peaceful enjoyment of Sundar’s property,
Urmila’s act will amount to nuisance and
the fact that she has taken permission for
such demolition becomes irrelevant as the
permission only extends to allow such
demolition as long as it does not infringe
upon somebody else’s right.
105. a. Mr. Arora was warned of the danger
and was asked to be more careful, still he
moved around in the house briskly which
led to his fall.
176
© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
106. b. Seeing a masked stranger in the house
in the middle of the night can cause a
reasonable apprehension in the mind of a
person of potential threat to him or his
property. In such a case,Mridul’s action
can be defended by right to self defence.
107. d. Mridul apprehended Kalia who had
trespassed his property with the intention
to commit a crime and thus he had right to
do so till the concerned authorities took
over his possession.
108. c. As the use of force by Ravi was in
excess of the force required to hold back
Kalia he will be liable for grievous hurt.
109. d. None of them can take the defence as
there was no immediate threat to them.
110. a. The answer is self explanatory.
111. a. The answer is self explanatory.
112. a. The answer is self explanatory.
113. a. The principle clearly lays down that in
case of an injury caused due to failure of
maintaining a machine, the employer will
be liable to pay compensation. In such a
case it becomes irrelevant whether it was
maintained by the owner of the machine
and not directly by the employer.
114. b. As per the principle the employer
should make sure that the employee has
understood the risk involved but in the
present case Mayappan made no such
effort to make the risks understood to
Lenin who did not understand his
language. Thus he will be liable for the
injury caused.
115. a. Self-explanatory
116. a. The answer is self explanatory.
117. b. Ashfaaq is not liable as his act would
not amount to interference because he was
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering
 authorised by Kareena to sew the cloth. It
is an example of doing an authorised act
wrongfully for which compensation can be
claimed but it will not amount to
conversion.
118. b. As the thieves were still on the stage
of preparation, no legal injury can be said
to be caused to anyone. Thus no action can
be taken against them.
119. d. A specially abled person has the
constitutional right to be given special
treatment. In such a case, denial of such
facilities by the college authorities
infringes his right.
120. c. Here Mehtu is ignorant of the law and
not of facts. The procedure to submit taxes
are also mentioned under tax laws and thus
it will fall under ignorance of law and not
facts.
121. d. The answer is self explanatory.
122. a. The answer is self explanatory.
123. b. The answer is self explanatory.
124. c. The answer is self explanatory.
125. a. b cannot be the answer since if a plate
was fitted improperly, it would have
caused other complications in the patients
before breaking.
126. a. The answer is self explanatory.
127. b. The rule does not apply here because
in a hotel room, the furniture is under the
control of many people at the same time. It
could even be the staff of the hotel at that
time who were liable for the accident.
128. a. The answer is self explanatory.
129. a. The rule will apply as the bottle was
in complete control of the manufacturer
just before Archana held it and thus any
177
© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
negligence could be attributed to the
manufacturing company.
130. b. The rule will not apply as the driver
was in no way involved with the
attachment of the trolly with the tractor.It
was the owner who did it and thus no
negligence can be attributed to him.
131. a. She clearly breached the duty of care.
132. b. The Rule does not apply as it is a big
possibility that the damage was caused by
the pests and not by the poison.
133. c. Being the main surgeon the patient
and the procedure were in complete
control of Dr. Rastogi. In such a case, it
becomes irrelevant that the procedure was
concluded by a junior doctor in case of
negligence due to which injury was caused
to the patient.
134. d. The answer is self-explanatory.
135. b. The answer is self-explanatory.
136. a. The answer is self-explanatory.
137. a. The answer is self-explanatory.
138. a. The answer is self-explanatory.
139. b. He will lose the case as the judge was
performing a sovereign function.
140. b. The answer is self-explanatory.
141. b. The answer is self-explanatory.
142. b. The answer is self-explanatory.
143. b. Had the injury been caused due to
some negligence on part of the faculty
doctor, immunity would have applied but
maintaining the hospital equipments will
not fall under the sovereign function as
that was in the control of hospital’s private
staff.
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering
 144. c. Delegating the task to a compounder
was outside the authority of the doctor and
thus cannot be claimed as a sovereign
function.
145. a. The answer is self-explanatory.
146. c. The answer is self explanatory.
147. d. Being a minor the child needed the
permission of his parents to stay there. He
was given the permission only for a week.
Beyond that, he was kept back there by
luring the child with all the luxuries
without the consent of the parents.
148. d. This will not amount to false
imprisonment as Sudheer was not confined
to the room against his will but was not
even aware that he could not move if he
wanted to.
149. d. As the intention was not to restrain
the person’s movement but to injure him
as can be seen from the facts, it will not
amount to false imprisonment.
150. c. It is not necessary for false
imprisonment that the aggrieved is
confined to a closed area but it can be an
open area from where he or she cannot
move.
151. c. Injury in torts also includes mental
injury which is the direct consequence of
one’s action and in the present case it is
easily foreseeable that Downton’s action
can cause such injury to Wilkinson.
152. b. The answer is self explanatory.
153. c. The pain that she went through,she
would have faced even if the operation
was successful, whereas, the charges for
the psychologist’s treatment is not
foreseeable by a reasonable person. Thus,
the doctor is liable only to compensate for
178
© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
the mental distress and the charges for the
operation.
154. b. As she had to go through the painful
process one extra time she will be
compensated for the pain, mental distress
and the operation expenses.
155. b. The pain and suffering that he went
through would have occurred even if the
surgery was successful. Thus Hawkins
will only get compensated for failure to
perform.
156. a. The answer is self explanatory.
157. a. The answer is self explanatory.
158. d. She was not allowed to make any
movements outside the house beyond the
instructions of Aslam. Thus it can be said
that her liberty was completely restrained.
159. d. She was not allowed to make any
movements outside the house beyond the
instructions of Anmol. Thus it can be said
that her liberty was completely restrained.
160. a. The answer is self explanatory.
161. d. The answer is self explanatory.
162. a. As there was sufficient time to avoid
the accident and more importantly, it was
Ring’s duty to not drive if his vision and
hearing was impaired. In such a case,he is
liable for negligence. C.cannot be the
answer as the principle does not talk about
contributory negligence.
163. b. Though he was driving at a reasonable
speed, he was not riding the bicycle
attentively as it is not difficult to notice an
open car door in the middle of the
afternoon on a slow speed bicycle.
Therefore, he is liable for contributing to
the negligence.
164. a. Same as above.
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering
 165. c is the correct answer as once the Court
gave the temporary order to possess the
land in favour of Gaurav, the property was
in his possession. Rahul, irrespective of
the reason or the background facts, entered
that plot and this amounts to trespass.
166. c. His act of driving the customer home
definitely fell outside his course of
employment and as such, the Galaxy Bar
and Restaurant won’t be liable.
167. c. The principle clearly says “malicious
prosecution is the ‘unsuccessful’ initiation
of….”. Since Faizal Khan was convicted,
the proceeding was successful and hence,
it is not a case of malicious prosecution.
168. a. The driver was supposed to transport
coal and his act of driving after drinking
was an incorrect way of doing that which
was authorized. Hence, this is a case of
doing an authorized act wrongly. Hence,
the state shall be liable as the driver was
employed by it and his act falls within the
course of employment as it happened
while he was doing his authorized act of
driving, although because of a wrongdoing
on his part ‘while’ driving.
169. d. Self-explanatory.
170. b. He could have got the car serviced
and thus avoided the accident. This was
not an inevitable accident as this could
have been prevented by ‘ordinary care’,
and hence, liability arises.
171. c. Self Explanatory.
172. a. Direct Application.
173. c. Self Explanatory
174. d. Direct application of the principle.
179
© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
175. d. Kleptomania is not the same as
unsound mind, and he will therefore be
liable for it.
176. d.
177. b. The auto driver was not a servant of
Prithvi. Furthermore, he was under no
obligation to drive fast. As per the given
facts, he alone is liable. Had the auto been
owned by someone else, then both the
driver and the auto-owner would have
been liable. But since no mention to that
effect has been made in the given facts, the
auto driver alone shall be liable.
178. c. Even though he ordered non-alcoholic
drinks and was served alcoholic ones, he
came to know of his drunkness after the
show was over but still chose to drive back
to his house. He should not have driven his
car back home himself as he knew by then
that he was intoxicated. Hence, he will be
liable for the collision as he voluntarily
chose to drive after involuntarily quaffing
alcoholic drinks.
179. a. Direct application of the principle.
Here even though there were six or seven
persons between both of them, Kashyap’s
advancing towards Sinha with a clenched
fist and hurling abuses at him would
constitute assault. Hence, the liability.
180. a. It is a case of volunti non fit injuria.
Hence, he can’t sue Vips & Co.
181. b. Since the principle says that for any
wrong done by any of the partners within
the course of employment, all the partners
will be liable in the same way, both are
liable here. The partner acted in the course
of his employment when he bribed the
plaintiff’s clerk.
182. a. There is no negligence as the fact that
the female elephant had already been
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering
 participating in such rides and festivals for
13 years and was also used in shootings,
religious functions etc. implies that there
was no negligence on the part of the
person offering the ride. Hence, this was
not reasonably foreseeable and thus he
owed no duty of care to them.
Consequently, no liability.
183. d. The principle talks about the doctrine
of last opportunity. Here, Chappu had the
last opportunity to avoid the accident and
thus, it is he who will be liable to pay the
damages.
184. b. The fact that Ramu consented to sit on
the roof of the bus shows negligence on
his part. Hence, there was negligence on
the part of both parties, and the damages to
be awarded forRamu’s death will therefore
be reduced to this extent.
185. a. Here, Bahadur knew about the vicious
propensity of the dogs and in view of this,
he chained them and also instructed his
servant to take care of them. Despite this,
they attacked the postman. Bahadur
therefore won’t be liable as he had taken
reasonable care to avoid any such incident.
186. a. The given principle is that of
nuisance. Since Q’s shrubs were damaged
because of the toxic fumes emanating
from P’s shoe factory (“intangible
object”), the latter would be liable for
nuisance as this constitutes an
unauthorized interference with Q’s
property.
187. d. The facts say that the degree of care
required varies with the situation. Here,
the fact that Mohan had only one good
eye, aggravated the gravity of the situation
and therefore, there arose a greater degree
of care to be undertaken by Ram Gopal.
By not providing Mohan with goggles,
even if an injury seemed remote, he was
180
© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
acting negligently and will be liable for the
same.
188. a. A is not liable because he acted as a
reasonable man would. Also, the closing
down of a factory which provided
employment to many just because B had
been hurt through no fault of A would be
unfair.
189. a. It is a direct application of the given
principle. The principle clearly states that
obstructing a highway or the areas in close
proximity to it is nuisance. Here, he
parked his lorry in close proximity to the
Sunsaan Highway and this constituted
nuisance.
190. a. Both are liable here since negligence
was committed by both of them. The
driver committed negligence insofar as he
tried to overtake another bus by a hair’s
breadth and hurting Mr. Floyd in the
process, and the conductor was negligent
because he rang the bell ‘in a haste’.
191. b. Since there was negligence on part of
both the buses, Ramesh and Suresh can
claim damages against both the buses.
192. c. Since the fan had a latent or hidden
defect, the occupier of the restaurant
cannot reasonably be expected to have
known about it. Hence, there was no
negligence on the part of the restaurant
owners and as a result no liability arises on
their part.
193. a. Under the rule of strict liability, even
though Mahendra did not intentionally
cause the harm, he will still be liable as the
water in the reservoir escaped and caused
damage to Ravindra’s farm.
194. a. The tenant is not liable for trespass as
a tenant has the right to use the compound
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering
 of that building for parking his car without
causing any inconvenience to anybody.
195. a. The bus owner is liable as letting the
conductor drive the bus was a wrongful
way of doing an authorized act of driving
by the driver, and the liability for any
damages accruing from the same lies with
the owner of the bus.
196. a. The firm is liable because Mr.Sinha
represented himself to be working for the
firm and therefore, his actions from the
point of view of a third party fall within
the scope of employment, and therefore,
liability lies with the firm.
197. c. The principle talks about master
servant relationship but in the given facts,
the existing relationship is not that of
master and servant. Hence, option c is the
correct answer.
198. a. She is liable for defamation as she
wrote the letter in Urdu wholly aware of
the fact that her husband didn’t know Urdu
and would need to have someone read the
letter for him. She therefore intended the
publication of the same, and will therefore
be liable for defaming him.
199. a. Ravan is liable here since he knew
Ram would read the letter in all
probability and therefore published the
defamatory content.
200. a. Direct application of principle.
201. a. For malicious prosecution to be there,
it is necessary that there be prosecution.
Mere police proceedings are not
prosecution.
202. a. The hospital is liable as the patient
gave consent for the operation but not for
the wrongful removal of the uterus.
Therefore, she cannot be said to have
given her consent for the same.
181
© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
203. c. Selfexplanatory.
204. d. This is a case of an independent
contractor relationship, and as such,
Pattrick can’t be held liable for their fault.
205. d. Debu will not be liable as the
workshop owner was not Debu’s servant
but an independent contractor and Debu
can’t be held liable for his fault.
206. d. Direct application. The friend was not
his agent or servant and hence the liability
won’t pass on to him.
207. a. Since a heart attack is not reasonably
foreseeable, the employer can’t be held
liable for the injuries caused due to the
same.
208. a. SelfExplanatory.
209. a. The Board was required to take care
of the wire and make sure it was 15 feet
above the ground. The failure to do so
constitutes negligence on their part and
hence liability arises.
210. a. There was negligence on the part of
the StateElectricity Board.
211. a. Even though it was A whose actions
resulted in the explosion, both are liable as
they shared a common intention of
searching for an escape of gas.
212. a. There has been damage without any
legal injury. Hence, B can’t sue A for
damages.
213. a. As the principle says there has been a
transfer of chlorinated lime, and there
exists liability not only under the law of
contract but also concurrent liability for
negligence. Therefore, Kishore is liable for
negligence.
214. b. Contrast this with the famous case of
Donoghue v Stevenson. There, the
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering
 problem lied with the manufacturing of the
ginger beer. In this case, however, an
expired can was sold and this was not the
fault of the manufacturer but the retailer.
Hence, the liability rests with the retailer.
215. a. Self-explanatory.
216. a. Now, since this was a school zone, the
driver was expected to drive slow enough
to be able to avoid causing injury to any of
the school kids. Also, in such situations,
the speed should be such that the vehicle
can come to a halt instantaneously on
application of brakes. Hence, the driver
was negligent here.
217. a. Bunny will be liable as he had no
evidence to prove what he said was right,
and in the wake of that, he can’t resort to
the defence of truth. Hence, the liability.
218. a. This is not nuisance as hurting a
religious feeling is not an actionable
wrong under nuisance. Also, he was free
to not watch the movie if he had issues
with it.
219. a. Since the noise from the printing
machinery kept him and his family awake
at night, there was a substantial
interference with his right to enjoy his
property. And therefore, Parvej is liable
for nuisance.
220. a. Self-explanatory.
221. a. Here she is liable as she had known
about the nature of the badly maintained
lamp but had still not undertaken to get it
fixed. Since that lamp fell and caused
injuries, liability lies with her for not
taking care of it and getting in repaired.
222. a. Direct application of principle.
223. a. Direct application of principle.
182
© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
224. a. The truck was being used for both
delivery to the members of the military
organization and to others. Also,
maintaining a farm is not a sovereign
function.
225. a. The principle clearly states that when
words refer to a certain group of people, a
single person out of that group can’t sue
for defamation until he can show that he
was being referred to. Here, he has no
reasonable grounds to prove that it was he
who was being referred to.
226. a. There is no contributory negligence.
Option a mentions the reason.
227. a. Yes, this is contributory negligence as
he could have avoided the accident had he
not been riding‘violently’.
228. a. There was no contributory negligence
as it is a common practice to rest elbows
on the windows of the bus etc. Hence, it
was the duty of the driver to maintain safe
distance while overtaking/passing a
vehicle.
229. a. The hotel authorities should have
ensured that the pool was safe in all
respects for use by the people staying at
the hotel. There was no contributory
negligence on Amber’s part.
230. b. Direct application of the principle.
231. c. As per the principle, if there is any
negligence on the part of the plaintiff, the
defence of contributory negligence can be
pleaded.
232. c. He got off the ‘moving’ tramcar and
the driver of the omnibus could not have
reasonably foreseen this to be happening.
Also, it was a remote act and he could not
have saved the boy as even applying the
brakes would not have helped.
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering
 233. a. Direct application of the principle. He
laid down live electric wire without any
warning to that effect.
234. a. There was harm caused due to his
cutting the tree and he had not even
warned about the same. Even if the person
was a trespasser, he should have warned
him about the same.
235. a. Direct application of the principle.
236. a. Matt is liable here because he should
have exercised more caution with regards
to children. Also, he didn’t give any
warning about the deadly nature of the
berries that could have stopped children
from consuming them.
237. a. A long period of time had passed and
Himani had done nothing to end the
trespassing. It will be deemed that she
tacitly licensed their entry, and is therefore
liable.
238. c. The principle says that there must be a
false statement and therefore, Krantiveer
will be liable only if the gun sold was not
manufactured by the mentioned
manufacturer.
239. a. Direct application of principle.
240. a. As per the principle, the liability for
the manufacturer accrues only if the defect
was in manufacturing, not if the same
could have been a result of any defect
other than a manufacturing defect. Hence,
in the given facts, the manufacturer won’t
be liable.
241. c. Direct application of the principle.
Here, the plaintiff’s apparatus was
‘sensitive’ and so the defendant won’t be
liable.
242. a. Now, the ‘heaviest rainfall in human
memory’ is something that is outside the
183
© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
control of human beings and since the
heavy rainfall was the trigger, the defense
of Act of God will be available to Agnes.
There was no negligence on her part.
243. a. Here, there existed a duty on the part
of the people from the electricity board to
look after the wire and to see to it that they
were in a suitable condition. Their failure
to do so corroborates the impromptu
snapping of the wire, and raises a
presumption of negligence on the part of
the people from the board, and hence the
burden of proof lies on the defendant.
244. a. Res IpsaLoquitor applies here since
the driver had already been driving fast
and the bursting of the tyre was due to the
high speed he was driving at, which
ultimately led to the death of two
passengers.
245. a. The driver is liable as he was
negligent in trying to take the bus through
on the side that was not spacious enough,
and caused the death of a passenger.
246. a. Since the facts specifically mention
that whatever happened was not due to the
fault of the defendant, this is not a case
where ‘res ipsaloquitor’ comes into play.
247. a. The plaintiff here was a licensee and
therefore the liability for the injury caused
due to the rickety staircase lies with the
defendant.
248. a. Nareshis notliable here as he had
warned the duo against the pitfalls of
working while the boiler was alight. They
ignored it and went ahead with their work,
which resulted in harm. So he isn’t liable
for it.
249. a. The landlord is liable because he was
aware of the structural defects in the wall
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering
 but chose to ignore them. Hence, the
liability.
250. a. Liable because they should have taken
care of the fact that the swimming pool
might be used by people and that injuries
might result from any negligence.
251. a. Liable because he should have taken
care of the wall given that it adjoined a
highway. Failure to do so resulted in
injuries for which he is liable. The
collapse is evidence that it was in a bad
condition and needed to be repaired.
252. a. Not liable because there was no
negligence on the part of Nagar Nigam
and the pole was well within its life when
it fell. Also, there was no negligence as the
pole was in good shape and didn’t need
any repair before it fell.
253. a. Direct application of the principle.
254. a. The defendants were aware of the
presence of children, and in the wake of
this knowledge, should have taken
effective measures to prevent them from
being harmed.
255. a. He was called to attend Rajeev Kalra
but didn’t come because he was attending
to his ‘private’ patients. He is therefore
responsible for the death of the deceased.
256. a. Self-explanatory.
257. a. The bank is not liable as he was acting
as a friend of Himani’s husband and not in
the course of his employment as an official
of the bank. Hence, no liability for the
same.
258. a. Makai alone is liable as he is the one
who mixed the gin in Chappu’s drink, and
Chappu got drunk involuntarily.
184
© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
259. a. He is not liable for his brother’s
actions as his brother was not his agent.
260. a. Since he has not been harmed, he
cannot sue.
261. a. There is no cause of action as no legal
injury has been caused.
262. a. He cannot recover as anyone who
wanted to use that passage would have to
incur costs in taking another route. Hence,
no special damage has been caused to him.
263. a. The principle talks about aerial
trespass not being trespass in India ‘only’.
The facts talk about people living in
Southampton and hence, liability arises.
264. a. Direct application of the principle.
265. a. Yes, he has suffered special damage
as he had to incur extra expenditure in
unloading the cargo and transporting the
same by land.
266. a. Won’t succeed because the reporting
had been substantially correct.
267. a. Vasudha is overly sensitive and the
same cannot be reason enough for her to
successfully sue them.
268. a. As there was no reasonable
apprehension in Will’s mind, this is not
assault.
269. a. Because there was a reasonable
apprehension of battery.
270. a. Sticking his leg out to make her fall
would constitute battery as it was use of a
force that was unlawful.
271. a. No cause of action as there has been
no injury of a legal right.
272. a. No battery, as battery is the
intentional use of unlawful force against a
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering
 person. Here, it was not done with an
intention to hurt.
273. a. SelfExplanatory.
274. a. It is not a case of malicious
prosecution as he was ultimately found
guilty.
275. a. Because it was not done with a
dishonest intention.
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW
276. Answer is c.
277. Answer is d. Direct application.
278. Answer is c.
279. Answer is a.
280. Answer is b. He will not succeed as the
State had imprisoned him by way of a
procedure established by law, the judicial
process.
281. Answer is b. S. 497 aims to protect
women from sexual offences, and the
same has been made not to unreasonably
discriminate on the basis of sex, but is
rather a positive discrimination.
282. Answer is b. Self-Explanatory.
283. Answer is c. The fact that he is a teacher
talking to students in a classroom and said
that which to any reasonable, ordinary
person won’t sound like incitement to
cause disruption makes him not liable for
sedition.
284. Answer is b. Since the principle talks
about freedom of speech and expression,
the correct answer is b.
285. Answer is b. The fact that he is a
member of Opposition added to the fact
that he had just asked to end corruption,
would exonerate him from liability.
Ending corruption could also be by having
185
© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
the government change hands and have a
new party come to power. It doesn’t
necessarily imply resorting to violent
means or causing any untoward disruption.
286. Answer is d. Here, the principles given
merge fundamental rights, right to
freedom of speech and expression and the
offence of sedition. Here, since he has not
said anything that might incite disaffection
towards the government, he has not abused
his freedom of speech. No liability arises.
287. Answer is d. Equality before the law
means treating equals equally and
unequals, unequally. The law does allow
positive discrimination but the
discrimination should be connected to the
goals it serves to meet. Here,
discrimination as per a person’s BMI is a
completely irrelevant basis of
classification. Hence, option d is the
answer.
288. Answer is b. Direct application of
principle.
289. Answer is b. Self-Explanatory.
290. a. Freedom of speech and expression is
not absolute and can be restricted to
maintain public order. In the present case,
the publications tends to disturb public
order and thus,arestriction may be put by
declaring it an offence, it will
beconstitutional.
291. a. This fundamental right can also be
restricted to maintain public order and thus
the editor and publisherare liable for the
offence.
292. b. Dhirubhai is not a State organisation
but a private body and thus has the
freedom to choose whom to give the
medicines to.
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering
 293. a. The discrimination made by Sukhveer
Singh is unreasonable as Bhajji does not
fall under any of the three categories for
which special treatment is allowed, viz,
women, children and socially and
economically backward classes.
294. b. The restriction put on Prof. Arup is
reasonable as it is justified for the former
employer to give clearance as to any
accusation so that the latter can make an
informed decision in employing the
accused.
295. c is the correct answer. An advocate has
the legal duty to work in the best interests
of his client in the course of the
proceedings. Once the judgement had been
given, being also an officer of the court, he
was obliged to act in accordance with it
and therefore, has no legal obligation to
offer Seth a haven in his house. Also, it
would have been wrong on his part if he
let him hide in his house as it would be in
contravention of his duty as an officer of
the court.
296. c. Direct application of the principle.
297. d. The court summoned Raj but it was
he who didn’t go for whatever reasons.
This would constitute an opportunity given
to be heard. The court’s decree in absence
of Raj therefore holds good.
298. b. The principle says that anticipatory
bail means a bail in anticipation of arrest
due to ‘any’ offence.
299. a. Option b is incorrect as it zooms in on
one of the three reasons stated in the
principle, i.e. same matter ‘or’ same
parties ‘or’ under the same title. Here, the
matter is substantially regarding the same
matter as was sub judice in the District
Court of Kanpur, and hence, it will have to
be stayed.
186
© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
300. a. The principles say that there can be no
retrospective application of penal law.
Hence the correct answer is a. Option c is
not the correct reason as it will fall within
the territorial jurisdiction of India given
the fact that Hatt is an Indian telecom
operator.
301. d. Expulsion is not the same as
conviction and hence, he can’t take
recourse to double jeopardy.
302. c. Article 15 has not been violated and
therefore, he won’t be successful.
303. b. Not cementing the canal led to this.
Also, there was no public interest that was
furthered by not cementing the canal.
LAW OF CONTRACTS
304. Answer is b.
305. Answer is b. Self-Explanatory.
306. Answer is b. There was an intimidation
by the Khans and the firmhad to accept a
lesser amount because of their financial
problem and therefore, there existed an
inequitable conduct.
307. Answer is a. The February 1971 letter
said that the corporation ‘may be’
prepared to sell the house. Also, in one of
the subsequent letters it was affirmed
when the letter read- ‘to make a formal
application to buy…’ There exists no
legally binding contract as this was just an
invitation to treat, not an offer.
308. Answer is b. Self-Explanatory.
309. Answer is a. Once Hyde made the
counter-offer of $950 he put an end to
Wrench’s offer which could not, therefore,
be accepted later. A counter-offer kills the
original offer, i.e. Hyde’s ultimate
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering
 assertion of being ready to pay $1000 no be deemed to be no agreement at all.
more constituted acceptance but was an Hence, no breach.
offer by him after Wrench’s offer had been
‘killed’. 328. Answer is a.

310. Answer is b. That Monday morning 329. Answer is a.

telegram was a mere enquiry and not a 330. Answer is a It is clear that acceptance
counter-offer so that it did not put an end was not gives as per the prescribed mode
to McLean’s offer. and applying the given principle, B’s
311. Answer is c. Self- Explanatory. acceptance is not binding on A.
331. Answer is b.
312. Answer is b. Self- Explanatory.
332. Answer is d.
313. Answer is c. Theconsentisnotvalidastheprincipalexerted
undueinfluenceontheparents.
314. Answer is c. Based on the promise of the 333. Answer is b.
friend to bring a band, no consideration
has been promised in return. 334. Answer is a. Here, Sam had threatened
that he would kill her family and she
315. Answer is d. Law put on him a pre- consented to it only because of the threat.
existing duty to arrest the thief and
therefore no valid consideration flowed 335. Answer is d. This principle mentions
from him to Ron who promised him a only offer and acceptance. Also, even
sum. though d. is not the most appropriate
answer, out of the given options, option a.
316. Answer is c. and b. are wrong, as the former talks about
317. Answer is a. coercion which the principle here doesn’t,
and the latter is irrelevant. Option c. talks
318. Answer is d. about ‘free will’ which has not been
mentioned anywhere in the principle to be
319. Answer is a. used in the given facts. Hence, d. is the
most appropriate of the given options,
320. Answer is b.
albeit not the most accurate.
321. Answer is a.
336. Answer is a. Here, since both the
322. Answer is c. principles are to be applied, it is a case of
coercion and therea. is correct. Option b. is
323. Answer is c. irrelevant. As regards option c., none of
the principles mentions the word ‘free
324. Answer is d.
will’ and even though the same is correct,
325. Answer is d. ‘a.’ is the better option since the keyword
‘coercion’ is what has been talked about in
326. Answer is a. the principle. Option d. would anyways
contravene principle i and hence, can’t be
327. Answer is b. Since any agreement is
the correct answer.
restraint of marriage is void, there would

187

© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering
 337. Answer is a. The fact that he asked his
daughter to buy his own house and then let
him live in it is proof that he used his
authority over his step-daughter. Hence,
there was a dominating position which
Shakti extorted to get his daughter to buy
the house and let him live there.
338. Answer is c. There exists a fiduciary
relationship between a doctor and
his/her/its patient. The doctor here
extorted that fiduciary position to ask her
to get a root canal done which wasn’t
required at all.
339. Answer is a. Direct application.
340. Answer is a. Direct application of
principle.
341. Answer is d. For being able to claim
special damages, there must have been an
intimation of the special circumstances
which in this case is missing.
342. Answer is b. The principle clearly
mentions that the aim is not to enhance the
position of the person who has suffered
due to the breach. It’s just to compensate
for it.
343. Answer is c. Option a. and d.are
incorrect. There might have been a
confusion in choosing between b and c. In
that case, read principle ii again. Now, out
of the two options, it is option c that
focuses also on the second part given in
the principle, i.e. that of returning the
goods. Hence, option b can be cancelled
out.
344. Answer is c. Direct application of
principle.
345. Answer is d.
346. Answer is c. The principle doesn’t talk
about part completion and part breach of a
188
© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
contract. It talks of a general situation and
accordingly, option c. is the answer here.
347. Answer is a. Direct application of
principle.
348. Answer is b. Direct application of
principle ii.
349. Answer is c. Direct application of the
principle. Here,Manisha was the one who
coerced Aish, not the one who was
coerced. Hence, only Aish will have the
option to render the contract void.
350. Answer is b.
351. Answer is b. Direct application.
352. Answer is a. Since Joydeep wasn’t
aware of the defect, he can’t be said to
have made Satyajit enter into the contract
with the intent to deceive.
353. Answer is c. Direct application of the
principle.
354. b. The injury caused to Sudheer and
Shyama was foreseeable whereas the
injury caused to Arnab was not directly
foreseeable by a reasonable person. Thus,
the restaurant owner is only liable to the
two and not Arnab.
355. b. The injury caused to Arnab can easily
be foreseen by a reasonable person. If a
circumscribing wall collapses, it is likely
to cause damage to things on both the
sides of the wall.
356. a. Mr. Takle will fail as the contract is
void due to impossibility of performance.
357. b. As Munna was in jail at the time when
Irani decided to make his film, it became
impossible for Munna to act in it,
frustrating the contract.
358. a. The answer is self explanatory.
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering
 359. c. A promise to get a job in the public
services is an illegal consideration as the
job can only be obtained on the basis of
the candidate’s merit and the decision lies
with government authorities and not some
private person. Thus, the contract is void
ab initio.
360. c. It does not affect the validity of the
contract that the it was entered into in the
presence of majors or the consideration for
the contract was given to the minor by his
aunt as long as the contract was entered
into by the minor himself and not a
guardian on his behalf.
361. a. As per the principle, a minor is
responsible to pay for the depreciation in
the value of the product only if he was
treated fairly.In the present case, the
contract will be rescinded and Pettit will
get his money back as the terms of the
contract were unfair, viz. the 20% interest
on the installments sounds unreasonable
and thus the seller has no right to retain the
amount paid.
362. c. As the terms of the contract were fair,
Patrick is liable to compensate for the
depreciation in the value of the good.
363. a. The fact that the house was haunted
was a fact essential to effect the party’s
willingness to enter into the contract and
could not have been discovered by simple
due diligence. Thus it was the duty of
Heckley to reveal this fact to Stambovsky
and his failure to do so in the absence of
any fraudulent intention, amounts to
misrepresentation.
364. b. The fact that the house was prone to
termite infestation could be found out by
basic due diligence and in its
absence,Dobert has no claim against
Swinton.
189
© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
365. b. The answer is self explanatory.
366. b. The mistake was not regarding a fact
as both the parties knew it to be a gem, but
it was regarding the valuation of the
object, which does not affect the validity
of the contract.
367. b. Here the mistake is regarding a fact as
the substance for which the contract is
entered into is different from the substance
agreed for. The contract was for a barren
cow for slaughter whereas later it was
found out that the cow was with a calf and
could be used for dairy farming.
368. a. The quotation made in the tender was
a fact essential to the contract and a
mistake relating to it by both the parties
would affect the contract by making it
void.
369. b. The answer is self explanatory.
370. a. The case falls under the exception of
promissory estoppel, where even a
unilateral promise becomes binding upon
the promisee acting in furtherance of such
promise and in the event of the promisor
going back on his promise, the promisee
would have to face losses.
371. a. Dickinson will lose as Dodds revoked
his offer before it was accepted by him by
selling the land to a third party.
372. b. Direct application of principles.
373. c. Pepsico is not liable as they showed
no willingness to give away a Harrier Jet
as it was not included in the catalogue and
was used just as an advertisement
gimmick. A reasonable person could not
have assumed to get a plane that
expensive, that to belonging to the Air
force, to be given away as a prize for some
points collected by buying the beverage.
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering
 374. a. He will lose as the advertisement
amounted to invitation to offer and not an
offer and thus could not be concluded by
giving acceptance to it.
375. c. Direct application of principle.
376. a. Though hundred percent success is
not guaranteed in such cases but by
making an explicit promise to give such
results, Dr. O’Connor bound himself with
the contract and in the failure to achieve
the desired result, he is liable to
compensate.
377. a.
378. a. The option given to the hirer to
purchase the vehicle if he wanted was an
offer and not an invitation to offer.
379. b. The answer is self explanatory.
380. a. The answer is self explanatory.
381. c. Though the contract laid down no
responsibility on Dalbir to maintain the
vehicle but its terms made it essential for
him to appoint an efficient person to
handle it. Had the driver appointed by him
been efficient, he would have been able to
catch such a major defect in the vehicle
and informed and sent it for maintenance
to Preetam. Thus Dalbir was also negligent
and thus cannot claim indemnification.
382. c. The vehicle was in the possession of
the parking station owner as it could only
be taken back by the owner when he
presented and surrendered the ticket.
383. c. The answer is self explanatory.
384. b. As per the principle, if a bailee passes
the possession of the goods to a sub-bailee
as per the instructions of the bailor, then
he will generally be held to have thereby
terminated his obligations as
190
© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
baileeentirely. Here Gilchrist used the
shed as per the instructions of York and it
was a rule that the keys to the shed had to
be given to the owner at night and thus
there was an implied permission from
York to sub-bail the goods, making
Gilchrist free of any liability.
385. d. Sohail is not liable under a bailment
contract as the possession of the goods
was not transferred to him by Humaira but
she was only using the space to store her
luggage.
386. b. Nidhi is not liable as there was no
delivery of goods by Lila to her.
387. a. The answer is self explanatory.
388. b. X is not liable as the possession of the
car was not with him even though the car
was physically present at his showroom.
389. b. The answer is self explanatory.
390. b. In the above facts, he won’t be
successful since there was no acceptance
of the offer made by the bank, and for it to
be a binding contract, an offer needs to be
supplemented with an acceptance.
391. c. The facts mention the offer given by
Harris, but nothing in the above facts
establishes that there had been an
acceptance of the same by Yasir, and
therefore no binding contract exists.
392. b. Option b. is the correct answer here.
When the owner of the HiFi towers
responded by quoting the price, they were
inviting the representative of the real
estate company to make an offer. The
rep.’s reply was an offer rather than an
acceptance and since the offer wasn’t
subsequently accepted by the owner, there
was no binding contract. So, MLF won’t
succeed in suing them.
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering
 393. b. There was no intention to create a
legal relationship between them as they
are husband and wife. This case is similar
to Balfour v Balfour. It is presumed that
there is generally no intention to create a
legal relationship in case of a husband and
wife relationship, mother-daughter.
394. b. Ron first found Hardip’sson and then
came to know of the offer made by him.
Therefore, his actions were not subsequent
to or in pursuance of the offer made by
Hardip. For an offer to be accepted, the
offer must be known to the person who
gives the acceptance to begin with. Since,
he did not know of it till after he had
turned over the child to his father, no
acceptance can be said to have been made.
395. c. c. is the correct answer as Randhir
wasn’t officially told about his
appointment and the communication made
by his friend won’t count as it was not
made in his official capacity. He made it to
Randhir in his capacity as his friend, and
therefore, the suit will fail.
396. c. The correct answer is c. It is a direct
application of principle 2 given above. The
principle clearly says the performance of
conditions of an offer constitutes
acceptance. This case is similar to the
famous case of Carbolic Smoke Ball
factory. Here, the purchase of the
medicine and its use as per the directions
constituted acceptance, and hence, he will
be successful in recovering the amount.
397. c. This is so because the offer had
already been accepted before they changed
their mind, and insofar as their acceptance
goes, there does exist a valid contract.
398. a. Self-Explanatory.
191
© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
399. c. Since the resignation was withdrawn
before it was accepted and became
effective, he will be successful in the suit.
400. b. Lucky won’t be successful here
because as the principle says all that
should have been done to draw Lucky’s
attention to the stipulated terms was
indeed done. They had mentioned it on the
backside that they he would have to bring
the original ticket to be able to claim the
lottery prize money. And hence, he won’t
be able to claim the money with the copy
of the ticket.
401. b. The consideration that flowed from
his father to him was his release from all
his debts provided he stopped
complaining, the latter of which was not
real. Hence, in absence of real
consideration flowing from either of the
parties to the other, there is no binding
contract.
402. c. There exists no contract here as there
was a per-existing legal duty on his part to
testify and therefore, there was no
consideration flowing from him to Jessica
in lieu of her 10,000 as what he promised
to do for those 10,000 bucks was already a
pre-existing duty on him.
403. d. SelfExplanatory.
404. c. Direct application of principle 2.
405. c. This is so because the second
principle says ‘’in regards to goods or
property’’. Money falls in neither of the
categories, and hence, it becomes a direct
application of principle 1. The
moneylender therefore won’t be able to
enforce the contract and recover the 10000
bucks.
406. b. This is a contract of service and
therefore, the fact that he is a minor won’t
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering
 exonerate him from the liability to pay the
fine.
407. a. Principle 1 says that doing any act that
is forbidden by IPC to obtain consent is
invalid and the second principle says that
attempt to commit suicide is forbidden by
IPC. All in all, the two principles read
together can be summed up as- “Consent
obtained by threatening to commit suicide
is invalid”. Direct application of this
principle.
408. a. It is so as their assertion that they will
go on strike if the bonuses were not paid
was not coercion, and the paying of
bonuses was not an impossible act.
Plummeting profits doesn’t make paying
of bonuses an ‘impossible’ act. Hence,
they will be successful in their suit for
breach of contract.
409. d. Rocket Singh’s claim that the
computers were the best in the market and
that the customers had never complained
about them was subjective. There was no
statement as fact of that which was not
true and hence, he didn’t commit fraud
and as such, the employers will be
successful in claiming their payment.
410. C.is the answer as the principle mentions
that it is not wrong to ask someone to
work exclusively for a person. Here, since
the nature of the job was such that he
might be required to show up at any hour,
his taking any other employment was a
violation of the mentioned ‘exclusivity of
employment’ and he is, therefore, liable.
411. c. Direct application of the principle.
412. a. Second principle says that there must
have been an intention to create a legal
relationship for the foregoing principle to
be applicable. When the VC of the newly-
conceived law school said that he
192
© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
‘promised…’ he didn’t intend to create a
legal relationship. Hence, no liability.
413. b. SinceAbhishek was acting on behalf
of his father, the contract entered into was
not actually with a minor but rather his
father, Amitabh. Hence, it holds good.
414. c. The offer here was standing offer and
Dalve will be bound by it.
415. Answer is b.
416. d. Chatur was asked to sell
consignments of mangoes to retailers of
UP, but instead sold them to retailers of
Saudi Arabia. As per the given principle,
he will have to account for those profits
made in the course of the agency.
417. a. Here, he could have procured wheat
from India, albeit at a higher cost which
would have meant lower profits, and
therefore, this is a case of commercial
impossibility and he will be bound by his
contract.
418. b. The principle talks about inducing
someone to make a breach of contract
without any lawful justification. It is not
the case here as they asked him to perform
and paid him twice of what he was being
paid for his earlier gig. Hence, no liability
for the breach as it was not done in an
unlawful way.
419. a. Direct application of the principle.
420. d. By the strict application of the
principle, the correct answer is d. The fact
talks about a mere non-disclosure not
being ground enough to constitute fraud. V
did not disclose that he had short
attendance and the same as per the
principle won’t constitute fraud.
421. a. They are liable as they had committed
fraud in that they had stated the purpose of
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering
 raising loan to be the completion of the
buildings and development of company’s
business, whereas in fact the money was
borrowed to pay the pressing liabilities.
422. a. He is not liable for fraud as he sold
the pigs and told the buyer that they were
being sold with all faults. The buyer went
ahead and still bought them fully aware of
the same.
423. a. Here, the second principle says that
the buyer should exercise caution. In not
examining the gun while buying it, the
buyer waived any future claim to get
damages for it.
424. a. As per the principle, it was his duty to
communicate to Stark the dangerous
nature of the acid, failing which, he is
liable for injuries caused because of the
non-communication of the same.
425. a. Since they had already given due
warning, they cannot be held liable.
CRIMINAL LAW
426. Answer is c. One may think that their
intent had only been to play a prank on C,
but giving him the shock pen while being
aware of his weak heart indicates they
‘willed’ to kill him, since they obviously
had the ‘knowledge’ that their act could
cause his death.
427. Answer is c. Bublu is not liable as in the
situation any reasonable person would
have assumed that the person was not an
actual public servant.
428. Answer is a.
Theseniorsareliabletobepunishedastheyrag
gedthefirstyearsandmadethemfeel
humiliated.
429. Answer is d. They will succeed as
193
© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
theaction of the juniors fulfilled all the
conditions of battery.
430. Answer is b. Even though Majnumeant
to just give Laila a love letter, since she
did not know him,the situation seems as
though he intended to intimidate Laila.
431. Answer is c. Self-Explanatory.
432. Answer is a. This is so because the man
had not consented to a fake doctor
operating upon him. His consent was just
to a doctor operating on a man, not a fake
one. Also, using an ordinary knife on a
person while operating upon him can be
fatal and the same when done shall give
rise to liability for culpable homicide
amounting to murder.
433. Answer is c. In a bailable offence, bail is
a matter of right. So there is no ground for
apprehension of arrest.
434. Answer is a. Direct application.
435. Answer is b. Direct application.
436. Answer is b. Direct application.
437. Answer is c. Self-explanatory.
438. Answer is c. Both Kalia and Sambha had
also planned the robbery.
439. Answer is a. Self-explanatory.
440. Answer is d.Self-explanatory.
441. Answer is a. Self-explanatory
442. Answer is a.Self-explanatory.
443. Answer is d. Though even d. doesn’t
quite hit the nail on the head, of all the
four options, it is the better one.
444. Answer is a. Direct application of the
principle.
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering
 445. Answer is c. Banerjee has enticed her
and thus, is liable for kidnapping.
446. a. The answer is self explanatory.
447. a. Showing a woman with open breasts
would amount to indecent representation.
448. b. For mischief to occur, the loss caused
should be wrongful but in the present case,
the loss was done under a legal authority
and thus it will not amount to mischief.
449. b. The answer is self explanatory.
450. b. The answer is self explanatory.
451. d. For either extortion or robbery, the
person put in fear should be induced to
give away the property but in the present
case, no such inducement was made.The
owner was simply deprived of his property
by dishonestly removing it from his
possession. Thus, it is neither robbery nor
extortion.
452. a. As the threat is not immediate and the
person put in fear is not in the immediate
presence of the person threatening, it is
extortion, not robbery.
453. c. For theft to occur the movement of the
property should be dishonest done without
the consent of the owner but here consent
of the owner exist although it is
compromised. Thus it does not amount to
theft.
454. d. Charging of Khurshid in a direction
with a huge knife in a public area can
cause reasonable apprehension of threat in
the minds of the people. Thus by
constructive intention, he will be liable for
assault against Mannu even though his
actual intention was directed towards the
other man.
194
© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
455. a. From the facts present before us it
cannot be said that Bittoo was aware of the
consequences of his act. He use to derive
pleasure out of bullying his classmates and
could not have been said to have any
malicious intention behind it. Thus, he
cannot be held liable for any offence.
456. d. From the facts it can clearly be seen
that Mayank knew the consequences of
telling the truth in court. Thus, he is liable
for giving false testimony in court.
457. a. From the facts it can be gathered that
Mayank was not mature enough to
understand the consequences but was told
the same by his dad after which he decided
to lie. Thus he is not liable for any offence.
458. a. The Cardinal’s act disturbs public
tranquility and thus he is liable for the
offence.
459. a. Intention includes knowledge of the
outcome of an action and in the present
case, it can be assumed that the editor and
publisher should have known that an
outrageous statement like the one made in
the article tends to enrage the people of
that particular community even if it is
based on true facts (which is not a defence
under Section 295A). Thus, they will be
liable for the offence.
460. b.Sanal had no deliberate malicious
intention to hurt religious sentiments.
461. a. Direct application of the principle.
462. d. Bal Thackeray is not a religious figure
but apolitical figure and thus, a statement
about him cannot be said to have evoked
Section 295A.
463. b. The editor is not liable as the caption
seems to express an opinion based on the
public display of an action by Saatchi. It
does not make any allegation on him but
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering
 simply questions the possible reasons for
such action as depicted in the photograph.
464. b. The intention was not to kill but to
just cause grievous injury,although he did
not convey his intentions to the two men
because death was caused by them. Thus,
he cannot be held liable for murder.
465. a. The intention to kill can be presumed
here with the knowledge of the fact that if
a person is shot in his chest, in all
probability, he is going to die.
466. a. The intention to kill can be presumed
here with the knowledge of the fact that if
a person is shot in his stomach, in all
probability, he is going to die.
467. a. The builder’s act amounted to
culpable homicide as he clearly had the
knowledge that his act is likely to cause
death. And as he was rash and negligent in
ignoring the fact that the construction was
dangerous and could cause injury, he is
liable for endangering human life as well.
468. b. The contractor was negligent in not
noticing the dangerousness of the
construction but the facts do not show any
outright knowledge of the contractor about
the danger. Thus he cannot be held liable
for culpable homicide but for endangering
human life.
469. a. The engineer’s act amounted to
culpable homicide as being an engineer he
ought to have knowledge of the fact that
his design is likely to cause death. And as
he was rash and negligent in ignoring the
fact that the construction was dangerous
and could cause injury, he is liable for
endangering human life as well.
470. b. As the intention and the act done was
not so grave as to cause death to the
195
© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
person, for sure he will not be liable for
murder bur for culpable homicide.
471. b. He is not liable of either culpable
homicide or murder as the injury was
neither caused by him nor with his
consent. Although, he could be held liable
for abetment of the offence as he
supported Kundan in leaving Harish in the
injured condition on the roadside.
472. c. Same as above.
473. a. He is only liable of culpable homicide
as he did not intend to cause death of Tony
but simply had the knowledge that
whoever steps on that concealed pit is
likely to die.
474. b. As the intention and the actwas done
to cause death to the person, he will be
liable for murder.
475. b.
476. b. As the intention and the act done was
not so grave as to cause death to the
person for sure but the knowledge of such
outcome could be presumed, he will not be
liable for murder but for culpable
homicide.
477. a.
478. c. He is liable of culpable homicide and
not simple battery as the force used by him
leads tothe presumption of knowledge that
his act was likely to cause death of the
person.
479. b. The answer is self explanatory.
480. b. The answer is self explanatory.
481. c. Yasmeen’s humiliating behaviour
towards Bajrangi and the fact that she
played with his emotions incited him to
commit the offence. Thus, she is liable of
abetment.
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering
 482. a. Jyoti’s threat to kill herself was the
reason that encouraged Ginni to commit
the crime. Thus, she is liable for abetment.
483. a. He also participated in the offence by
suggesting to Jyoti to take such a step.
484. a. He is liable for abetment as by
blackmailing Arun for such a huge ransom
and eventually killing his only child, he
encouraged him to commit suicide.
485. a. The fact that she encouraged Munni to
commit the offence amounts to abetment
and not mere attempt to abet. It is
irrelevant whether Munni acted on the
abetment.
486. a. His grave negligence caused Hassan
physical disability which could extend life
long. This is a reason grave enough to
incite someone to commit suicide.
487. a. For a domestic help,Rs. 50,000 is a
huge amount, for some it could be their
lifelong savings and if she loses that
because of the company, it can be a reason
big enough to incite her to commit suicide.
488. b. He is liable as he isblackmailing
Sangeetainsisting on her to marry him,
inducing her to commit suicide.
489. a. Self explanatory.
490. c. Saifi is not liable for culpable
homicide as he neither intended to kill
Khurshid nor did he have the knowledge
that he was suffering from such heart
condition that his act can amount to his
death. He is also not liable for abetment of
suicide as Khurshid did not commit
suicide but died naturally of a physical
ailment, even though Saifi’s action
aggravated the ailment.
491. b. Nick will be liable because the
principle mandates that there be an
196
© Clat Possible. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or circulation
of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
intention to cause death, not that there be
an intention to cause the death of the
person who is killed. Also, when he went
after who he thought to have been David,
his intention was to shoot the guy he went
after. So the death ‘was’ caused as an
extension of the intention to kill. Hence,
the liability.
492. d. He had enough time up his sleeve to
take recourse to public authorities since
the chemical was still being prepared and
was not ready to be disseminated into the
water supply. His use of force was not
required. Hence, the liability.
493. c. Direct application of the principle.
494. a. Self-Explanatory.
495. a. Self-Explanatory.
MISCELLANEOUS
496. b. The Professor has invented a new
product by adding a new technique to the
earlier model of fans to make it
suicideproof. Thus, he will be granted
patent over the new product.
497. b. Patent will not be granted as no new
product is formed but it is just a discovery
of using an old product in a new way.
498. d. Direct application of principle. Since
Shehzade sold the books at half the price
for commercial purpose, he can’t escape
liability by saying that he did so for
educational purpose.
499. d. The principle talks about Hindu Law
and the given facts talk about people who
are Parsis. Hence, the outcome cannot be
determined.
500. a. Self-Explanatory.
www.clatpossible.com
A Team Satyam Offering