List of top Questions asked in CLAT

Principles: (1) On the death of husband, the widow shall inherit the property of her deceased husband along with children equally.
(2) A widow cannot claim the property of the deceased if on the date when the question of succession opens, she has married.
(3) A female acquiring property in any way has the absolute title to the property.
Facts: When Sudhir died he had $\frac{1}{3}$ share of the family property, which the three brothers Rudhir, Sudhir, and Yasu inherited from their father, B. Sudhir died on September 23, 2006, without having any issue. The widow of Sudhir, Ms. Win, remarried on January 1, 2007. Rudhir and Yasu refused Win the share from Sudhir’s portion when Win claimed the entire property belonging to Sudhir on January 30, 2007.
List I – Decisions:
(a) Win cannot inherit the property of Sudhir
(b) Win can inherit the property of Sudhir
List II – Reasons:
(i) Widows not belong to the family.
(ii) Win was remarried.
(iii) Her claim was on the date of Sudhir’s death.
(iv) Her claim submitted after she was remarried.

Principles:
1. A master shall be liable for the fraudulent acts of his servants committed in the course of employment.
2. Whether an act is committed in the course of employment has to be judged in context.
3. Both master and third parties must exercise reasonable care in this regard.
Facts: Rama Bhai, a widow, opened an SB account with Syndicate Bank with the help of her nephew Keshav, who worked as a clerk in the bank. After a year, Keshav was dismissed from service. Unaware, Rama Bhai continued giving him her savings, which he misappropriated. She later sought compensation from the bank.
Possible decisions:
(a) Bank shall be liable to compensate Rama Bhai
(b) Bank shall not be liable to compensate Rama Bhai
(c) Rama Bhai cannot blame others for her negligence
Possible reasons:
(i) Keshav was not an employee when the fraud was committed.
(ii) The bank was not aware of the special arrangement between Rama Bhai and Keshav.
(iii) The bank must take care of vulnerable customers.
(iv) Rama Bhai should have checked about Keshav.

Principles:
1. A person is liable for negligence if he fails to take care of his neighbour’s interest.
2. A neighbour is anyone whose interests should have been foreseeable.
Facts: During a cricket match in a closed stadium, a fan who could not get a ticket climbed a nearby tree to watch. A ball hit him, causing injury. He sued the organizers.
Possible decisions:
(a) Organizers liable to compensate
(b) Organizers not liable
(c) Injured person should have avoided the risky spot
Possible reasons:
(i) Organizers are responsible for people inside the stadium.
(ii) Organizers could not have foreseen someone watching from a tree.
(iii) A person crazy about something must take the risk.
(iv) Organizers must be liable to all viewers.

Principles:
1. Copying, including an attempt to copy in an examination, is a serious offence.
2. One shall not take any unauthorized materials into the examination hall.
Facts: Rohini, an examinee in PUC, was thoroughly checked before entering the examination hall and was found carrying only authorized materials such as a pen and instrument box. While she was writing, the invigilator found chits near her feet containing answers matching her paper. Her answers tallied with the chits. A charge of copying was brought against her.
Probable decisions:
(a) Rohini shall be punished for copying.
(b) Rohini cannot be punished for copying.
Probable reasons:
(i) Something lying near the feet does not mean the person possesses it.
(ii) Being thoroughly checked at entry should be conclusive proof of no unauthorized material.
(iii) Similarities between her answers and the chits indicate she used them.
(iv) After using chits, she must have disposed of them.

Principles: (1) If a person commits an act by which death is caused to another person and the act is done with the intention of causing death, the person is liable for murder.
(2) A person has a right of self-defense to the extent of causing death to another provided he apprehends death by the act of the latter.
Facts: Shuva went to a hardware shop owned by Anup. Bargaining on some item led to an altercation between the two, and Shuva picked up a sharp object and hit Anup. When Anup started bleeding, his wife Mridula intervened and was also hit by Shuva, rendering her unconscious. Finding himself totally cornered, Anup delivered a severe blow to Shuva with a sharp object. Shuva died instantly.
Possible decisions: (a) Anup murdered Shuva
(b) Anup killed Shuva with the intention of killing to save himself and his wife
(c) Anup killed Shuva without any intention to do so just to save himself and his wife
Probable reasons: (i) If a person kills another instantly on the spot, the intention to kill is obvious.
(ii) Anup used force apprehending death of himself and his wife.
(iii) Anup used disproportionate force.
(iv) There was nothing to show that Shuva wanted to kill Anup or his wife.

Principles: (1) Consumable goods which are not fit for consumption are not marketable.
(2) A consumer shall not suffer on account of unmarketable goods.
(3) A seller is liable for knowingly selling unmarketable goods.
(4) A manufacturer shall be liable for the quality of his products.
Facts: Ram bought a Coca Cola bottle from Shama’s shop. Back at home, the server opened the bottle and poured the drink into the glasses of Ram and his friend Tom. As Tom started drinking, he felt irritation in his throat. Immediately, Ram and Tom took the sample to test and found nitric acid in the content. Ram filed a suit against Shama, Coca Cola company, and the bottler, Kishen & Co. Suggested Decisions: (a) Ram cannot get compensation
(b) Tom cannot get compensation
(c) Both Ram and Tom can get compensation
Suggested Reasons: (i) Shama did not know the contents of sealed bottles.
(ii) Ram did not actually suffer though he bought the bottle.
(iii) Tom did not buy the bottle.
(iv) Coca Cola company is responsible since it supplied the concentrate.
(v) Kishen & Co. is responsible since it added water, sugar etc. and sealed the bottle.
(vi) Shama is responsible for selling the defective product.

Under the same fact-situation as in Q.158, which statement, if true, {seriously weakens the argument?}

Opponents of capital punishment cite: (i) humans cannot terminate what they cannot generate; (ii) punishment aims at reformation; (iii) opportunity to repent must be given. Defenders reply that punishment is for paying one’s dues; reformation/repentance is peripheral. Hence death penalty is admissible. What is the {focus of this debate?}

Fred Whipple first thought that, like Mercury, Venus keeps one face towards the Sun; if so, the dark side would be very cold. Using Petit and Nicholson’s earlier work he knew this was {not the case, so he concluded Venus must rotate fairly often to keep the dark side warmer. Which of the following is the {original premise} used to reach the conclusion?}

All contracts are agreements. All agreements are accepted offers. Which of the following derivations is correct?

No minor can enter into a contract of work. Working in a shop can be done only by a contract. Which derivation is correct?

All motor vehicles are required to have third party insurance. Any vehicle not using mechanical device is not a motor vehicle. Which is the correct derivation?

A contract contravening public policy is void. There cannot be a general definition of public policy. Which is the correct derivation?

International law is the law between sovereign states. A sovereign is the supreme authority not bound by legal constraints. Which is the correct derivation?

According to the passage, assign a truth value to: “Unequal weights at equal distances are in {disequilibrium.”}

According to the passage, assign a truth value to: “Unequal distances are in {disequilibrium.”}