Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

Test : Legal Reasoning [L3]

Test

Legal Aptitude

Test Code

L3

Topic

Legal Reasoning

No. of Questions

10

Maximum Marks

10

Competitive score

8 and above

Time allowed

10 12 minutes

Do send us your score after completing the test.

Question 1
Principle : The Bailee is bound to take care of the goods whether the
bailment is gratuitous or non-gratuitous. [Bailment is the delivery of goods
by one person to another for some purpose, upon a contract that they shall,
when the purpose is accomplished, be returned to the person delivering the
goods.]
Fact: Ram and Shyam go the beach on a Sunday morning. Shyam decides to go
surfing. He

removes and hands over to Ram his diamond ring for safe keeping while

he goes surfing.
Ram spreads out a dhurri on the sand and decides to lie down and rest. He soon gets
into a nap under the benign sun. Shyam eventually returns, wakes up his pal and
asks for his ring.
Ram finds out after much search that the ring is lost/stolen. Shyam demands the
price of his diamond ring. Ram regrets the loss of the ring, but refuses to accept the
liability to compensate Shyam.
a. Ram is liable to pay for the lost ring. As it is clear that it must have
been obvious to anyone that it was a diamond ring and that Ram was
careless and negligent in keeping custody of it.
b. No, Ram is not liable. Ram can argue that Shyam never warned him
that it was an expensive ring.
c. Ram is not liable, as he has not appropriated it for himself and it must
have been lost when he inadvertently dozed off.
d. Shyam is careless and he should have kept the ring to himself.

1
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, Indias Premier Institute for CLAT Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications

Test : Legal Reasoning [L3]

Question 2
Principle: No one can pass a better title on goods than he himself has on
those goods.
Fact: Rajesh Ranjan, a resident of Delhi and his cousin Ramesh Ranjan, who run an
automobile workshop in Khatmandu. Ramesh often buys and sells second hand cars,
after converting their engines into CNG driven. Lokesh Sharma, a resident of
Kathmandu, purchases a converted second hand car from Ramesh, uses it for some
time, and then sells it to one Jayendra. While processing the papers to get the car
transferred to his name, Jayendra discovers that the papers have all been cleverly
forged, and registers a complaint before the Police against Lokesh Sharma. By then,
the Delhi Police bursts a gang of car thieves led by Rajesh Ranjan, and finds out that
Jayendras car had been originally stolen from the house of Rajinder Oberoi, Delhi,
Having paid Lokesh Sharma the negotiated amount in full and in good faith as the
cost of the car, can Jayendra refuse to return the car to Rajinder Oberoi unless he was
reimbursed the money that he had to pay Lokesh Sharma as the cost of the car?
a. Yes, because the transaction between Jayendra and Lokesh Sharma was
genuine and conducted in good faith. Upon completion of the transaction,
Jayendra is entitled to be the full owner of the car. He had no reason to
suspect that it was a stolen car at the time of his purchase.
b. No, because Lokesh acquired a defective ownership of the car from Rajesh.
Rajesh sold the car to Lokesh Sharma knowing fully well that he was not
the rightful owner of the car. Rajesh could not have legally transferred the
full ownership of the car to anybody an ownership that he did not have.
c. Yes, Jayendra should insist on getting the payment from Lokesh
d. None of the above

Question 3
Principle: If a person without any authority prevents a person to proceed in
any direction and is kept confined, he commits an offence of criminal
confinement.
Fact: The Municipality allowed a special permit to hold a marriage party blocking a
part of a public road. The marriage party blocked most of the roads and did not allow
X, a passerby to cross the road. He brings a charge of criminal confinement against
the head of the marriage party and other associates.
a. X will succeed as the marriage party had blocked most of the roads
b. X will not succeed as the marriage party had obtained permission from the
municipality

2
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, Indias Premier Institute for CLAT Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications

Test : Legal Reasoning [L3]

c. X will succeed as Municipality had not such right to give permission to block
a public road
d. X will not succeed as he could have taken an alternate route

Question 4
Principle: A person, who is interested in the payment of money which
another is bound by law to pay, and who therefore pays it, is entitled to be
reimbursed by the other.
Facts: Mr. Ahmed is staying in the house of Mr. Vinod as a tenant. Mr. Vinod is
required to pay the municipality tax for the house in which Mr. Ahmed is staying. Mr.
Vinod was not in station. When the Municipal authorities came, Mr. Ahmed paid the
tax amount. Tax demanded was Rs.5000/-.
a. Mr. Ahmed should have waited for Mr. Vinod to come back
b. Mr. Ahmed is entitled to reimbursement of Rs. 5,000/c. Mr. Ahmed cannot claim Rs. 5,000/- from Mr. Vinod as the payment is
made without Vinod asking for it.
d. Mr. Ahmed should have contacted Mr. Vinod over phone before making the
payment. Hence Mr. Ahmed cannot claim reimbursement.

Question 5
Principle:

To

commit

the

offence

of

defamation,

there

must

be

communication of defamatory statement to a third party.


Facts: Rishikesh is a businessman well known in the world business circles. Ram
Charan, another businessman, has had dealing with him. In one big project, Ram
Charan suffered heavy losses, which he thought resulted from some unscrupulous
dealings of Rishikesh with Ram Charans business rivals. Highly disappointed, Ram
Charan decided to teach Rishikesh a lesson. He flooded the e-mail contacts of
Rishikesh with messages seeking to tarnish the image of the latter. Can Rishkesh sue
Ram Charan for defamation?
a. No print media is involved and so there was no maligning in public.
b. Yes, defamation may result through any medium, so long as persons
who had/are likely to have dealings with Rishikesh are the target group.
c. No. Rishikesh has the option to inform all his contacts the real story
d.

Ramcharan is not liable as there was no publication

3
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, Indias Premier Institute for CLAT Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications

Test : Legal Reasoning [L3]

Question 6
Principle: Nothing is an offence, which is done by a person, who, owing to
unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that
what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law.
Facts: Mithilesh is a mentally ill person under treatment. He has been responding to
the treatment so well that he is lately allowed to move about in the close vicinity of
his house. When his elder brother, Manish, returns home after work, he usually brings
a piece of chocolate for Mithilesh. Today, however, Manish gets very late in the night
to return home, and therefore is unable to bring the usual piece of chocolate.
Mithilesh demands his chocolate, and on being denied one, hell breaks loose and he
runs out, jumps into his brothers jeep, finds the keys in place, drives away at a very
high speed into a lightless street and runs over a pavement dweller sleeping right on
the road, who in the process gets killed. Is there a crime committed, and if so by
whom?
a. Yes, by Mithilesh-he was not completely mad.
b. Yes, by Manish-he left the keys on the jeep ready to be driven away,
knowing fully well that his brother was still somewhat mad. And he
infuriated him
c. No, the pavement dweller was reckless enough to sleep on mid road
d. No Mithilesh, not having been completely cured, could not have
committed any crime for want of criminal intention or criminal
knowledge. Also, Manish could not be blamed except for
forgetfulness, as he could not have programmed Mithilesh to drive
away just in order to kill the pavement driver.
Question 7
Principle: A breach of contract occurs if any party refuses or fails to perform
his part of the contract.
Facts: Rajesh and Ram Charan have been close friends. Rajesh promised to sell his
only scooter to Ram Charan for Rs. 10,000. After sometime, Ram Charan began using
the scooter as if it were his own. One day, Rajesh demanded the money. Ram Charan
denied having agreed to pay anything and said, being a friend, he had the right to use
the scooter. Can Rajesh sue his friend for a breach of contract?
a. Yes, because non-payment of consideration amounts to breach of
contract.
b. No. As a friend, Ram Charan may use the scooter, but its owner
remains Rajesh
c. Claiming a right of user of a property belonging to another is both a
civil and criminal offence.
d. As the contract was not in writing, it cannot be enforced.

4
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, Indias Premier Institute for CLAT Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications

Test : Legal Reasoning [L3]

Question 8
Principle:

Any person liable by any Indian law, to be tried for an offence

committed beyond India shall be dealt with under IPC for any act committed
beyond India in the same manner as if such act had been committed within
India
Facts: There was a criminal conspiracy among 5 Indian nationals to print and
distribute in India counterfeit currency notes. One of them contacted a French
national, Wheeler who sold them the necessary printing machine and materials,
including computerized software to print 500 Rupee notes. The police apprehended
and arrested the 5 Indian culprits and proceeded against them. After some time,
Wheeler landed in Mumbai, was soon apprehended and arrested by the police. Could
the Mumbai courts try him?
a. Yes, because Wheeler was a willing participant in the offence, eager to
make profits from the transaction
b. No, because he was not involved in the criminal conspiracy.
c. No, because he was just a trader selling such commodities
d. No, because he is a foreigner who committed the offence outside India

Question 9
Principle : Manufacturers owe a duty of care to the end users
Facts: The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act defines ice-cream in terms of its
contents, namely ice, cream, permitted colour, and permitted sweetener. An icecream manufacturer is arrested as a sample taken by a food inspector showed that
the colour used contained toxic chemicals. The lawyer defending the accused argues
that since the colour used was not a permitted colour, the seized sample did not
contain ice cream as defined in the Act, that consequently one of the elements that
should constitute ice-cream was missing and that therefore, the Act does not apply
to the case. Is this argument tenable?
a. Yes, because it is based on the literal interpretation of the law.
b. Yes, because the accused has the right to use every argument possible
to defend himself.
c. No, because the very purpose of the law is to prevent food adulteration.
The food Manufacturer has a special duty of care while making food for
public consumption. The defence argument renders the law impossible
to implement.
d. Yes, because the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show
the adverse impact of this food material on consumers at large.

5
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, Indias Premier Institute for CLAT Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications

Test : Legal Reasoning [L3]

Question 10

Principle : Consideration must be of some value in the eyes of the law.

Facts: Ram Ratan promised his friend Rajesh that one month after the marriage
between Rams son and Rajeshs daughter, Ram would like to gift away a Maruti
Esteem to Rajesh . Ram failed to fulfil his promise even after Rajesh gave him six
more months time. Can Rajesh enforce it?
a. Yes, Rajesh can because this is a contract.
b. No, Rajesh cannot, because there is no contract, as there is no
consideration for the

contract. Breach of a general promise of a gift

cannot be enforced.
c. No, Rajesh cannot, because of the dowry prohibition law
d. No, because it is not shown that the gift of the car is conditional upon
the marriage taking place.

ANSWERS ON NEXT PAGE [Attempt the above questions within a duration of 10 - 12


minutes and then check your answers]

6
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, Indias Premier Institute for CLAT Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications

Test : Legal Reasoning [L3]

Question

Answer

Hint

Since Ram has taken custody of the diamond ring for safe
custody, he is clearly negligent in losing it.

Jayendra has to return the car to the original owner,


Rajinder Oberio , as Ramesh has not passed on good title to
Lokesh Sarma who in turn could not have passed any title to
Jayendra.

The marriage party had obtained permission to block only a


part of the road, whereas, they had blocked most part of it,
thus preventing X from crossing the road.

Applying the given legal principle, it is clear that Ahmed paid


the amount which was due by Vinod, legally. Thus Ahmed
can recover the amount from Vinod.

Ram

Charan

is

liable

for

defamation

because

he

communicated the defamatory matter to people known to


Rishikesh.
6

Mithilesh, though recovering well, is not completely normal


and has done the above mentioned act not knowing what
he was up to. Since the legal principle does not mention
negligence, Manish is also not liable.

It is a breach of contract and Rajesh can sue Ram Charan.

Since Wheeler is not liable under the Indian law, and he


also did not commit the act in India, he is not liable.

Applying the principle, there is no justification on the part of


the manufacturer to use toxic substances in food items.

10

This agreement is void for want of consideration. A promise


to gift is not a valid contract.

7
SRIRAM LAW ACADEMY, Indias Premier Institute for CLAT Training.
Visit us at www.sriramlawacademy.com for all updates and notifications

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen