List of top Legal Studies Questions

Legal Principles:
1. Offer is a proposal made by one person to another to do an act or abstain from doing it. The person who makes the offer is known as the promisor or offeror and the person to whom an offer is made is known as the promisee or the offeree.
2. A contract comes into being by the acceptance of an offer. When the person to whom the offer is made signifies his consent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted and the parties are at consensus ad idem regarding the terms of the agreement.
Facts: In Dec. 2019, a convicted murderer who was sentenced to death escaped from the custody of Ramesh, a prison official. Ramesh later offered a reward of INR 50,000 to anyone who captured the fugitive and returned him to the authorities. In Jan. 2020, without knowledge or notice of the reward, Sunil captured the fugitive and took him to Ramesh's jail house. Ramesh refused Sunil's demands for the reward money. Sunil filed a case against Ramesh to recover the reward. Ramesh alleges that there is no contract between Ramesh and Sunil.

Legal Principles:
1. When the negligent act of two or more person results in the same damage, it is called composite negligence. The liability in such a case is joint and several of the tort-feasers.
2. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would be likely to injure someone.
3. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability.
4. The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred but for the negligence of the defendant.
Facts: Zara filed a civil suit against five drug manufacturing companies. Zara's mother took synthetic estrogen while pregnant with her. As a result of receiving the drug in-utero, Zara developed cancer as an adult. The drug was manufactured by the Defendants, five major drug companies and by about 195 other companies not named in the suit. The Defendants together produced 90% of the drug. Zara is unable to identify which company produced the actual drug her mother took. Decide whether the Defendants only can be held liable for Zara's cancer.

Legal Principles:
1. Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.
2. The statement must tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right- thinking members of society.
3. A mere vulgar abuse is not defamation.
4. Defamation encompasses both written statements, known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander.
5. A public official or public figure can recover damages for defamation on a
matter of public concern only if he proves that the speaker acted with actual malice.
Facts: In 2018, a police officer, Suresh Singh, shot and killed Dayal. After the officer was convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, Dayal's family retained a lawyer, Kaushal, to represent them in civil litigation against the officer. In a magazine called Indian Opinion, the Anti-Communist Society accused Kaushal of being a "Naxalite" and a "Communist-fronter" because he chose to represent clients who were suing a law enforcement officer. Because the statements contained serious inaccuracies, Kaushal filed a libel action against the editors of the magazine. Decide whether he will succeed.

Legal principle: A contract may, in some circumstances, be discharged by a breach of contract. Where there exists a breach of condition this will enable the innocent party the right to repudiate the contract (bring the contract to an end) in addition to claiming damages.
Facts: In April, Sagar Tour & Travels agreed to employ Hiten as his courier for three months from 1 June 2020, to go on a trip around the European continent. On 11 May, Sagar Tour & Travels wrote to say that Hiten was no longer needed. On 22 May, Hiten sued Sagar Tour & Travels for breach of contract. Sagar Tour & Travels argued that Hiten was still under an obligation to stay ready and willing to perform till the day when performance was due, and therefore could commence no action before June 1, 2020.

Legal Principle: An agreement between two private parties that creates mutual legal obligations. A contract can be either oral or written.
Facts: Mr. Ram and Mr. Rahim were work colleagues who had an arrangement regarding shared lifts to work. Rahim would drive his motorbike and Ram would ride pillion in return for a weekly sum of money. Unfortunately both were killed in a road traffic accident and the wife of Mr. Ram made a claim for damages against the estate of Mr. Rahim. However Rahim's insurance policy did not cover pillion passengers and as his estate had no assets or money to satisfy the judgment, Mrs. Ram pursued the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB).
The MIB have an agreement whereby accidents and consequential claims would be satisfied by the Government in circumstances where the driver has no relevant policy of insurance. However the rules covering this situation require Mr. Ram was carried for "hire or reward". Mrs. Ram argues that there was a contract in place between Ram and Rahim for the lifts to work. Decide whether there was a contract so as to make Mrs. Ram eligible for claim from MIB.

Legal Principles:
1. Offer is a proposal made by one person to another to do an act or abstain from doing it. The person who makes the offer is known as the promisor or offeror and the person to whom an offer is made is known as the promisee or the offeree.
2. A contract comes into being by the acceptance of an offer. When the person to whom the offer is made signifies his consent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted and the parties are at consensus ad idem regarding the terms of the agreement.
Facts: Mr. Kumar visited the Holiday Bliss Hotel. He had not made an in advance booking and upon arrival requested a room for the night. He signed the register and there was no mention at that stage of any other terms or conditions that might impact upon his stay at the hotel. During the course of his stay Mr. Kumar discovered that someone had broken into his room and stolen certain property including a coat. Kumar filed a case of negligence on the Hotel administration. Nevertheless, the Hotel sought to rely upon an exclusion clause that was placed in the bedroom the claimant stayed in. This stated that the hotel would not accept liability for lost or stolen items belonging to customers. Decide whether the exclusion clause that was displayed in the bedroom constituted a valid term of the contract.

Legal Principles:
1. When one person signify to another person his willingness to do or not do something (abstain) with a view to obtain the assent of such person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal or an offer.
2. The communication of the offer is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made.
3. Communication of acceptance is complete when it is put in the course of transmission to him as to be out of the power of the acceptor to withdraw the same and when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer.
4. In case of the proposer, the communication of the acceptance is complete when he puts such acceptance in the course of transmission.
5. The communication in case of the acceptor is complete when the proposer acquires knowledge of such acceptance.
6. An offer may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards.
Facts: G offered to sell the L fleeces of wool for a certain price. G requested that the response be made by post. This letter was misdirected by G so that it was not received for 3 days after it was sent. L decided to accept the offer and responded on the same day. This was posted on the 5th July but not received until the 9th July. However, G decided on the 8th July that as he had not received a response so decided to sell the wool to someone else. But L argued that a contract had been created as he had accepted their offer. Decide.

Legal Principles:
1. In order to convert a proposal into a promise the acceptance must be absolute and unqualified.
2. Acceptance must be expressed in some usual and reasonable manner, unless the proposal prescribes the manner in which it is to be accepted. If the proposal prescribes a manner in which it is to be accepted, and the acceptance is not made in such manner, the proposer may, within a reasonable time after the acceptance is communicated to him, insist that his proposal shall be accepted in the prescribed manner, and not otherwise; but, if he fails to do so, he accepts the acceptance.
Facts: TUV's employee performing installation on Motorola's premises was injured due to the negligence of Motorola employees. TUV had executed a purchase order that contained an indemnity form. First purchase order contained indemnity provision which narrowly applied to damages caused by the negligence of TUV's employees. It attached a broader indemnity form page which would make TUV also responsible for the negligence of Motorola employees in connection with the work. This page was marked VOID. Amendment 2 to Purchase order contained same provision and attached same additional indemnity form which this time was not marked VOID. But also contained the additional language that "acceptance should be executed on acknowledgement copy which should be returned to the buyer." Employce was injured several months before the acknowledgement copy of the second purchase order was executed, but was in the course of performing work related to the second purchase order. Decide whether TUV liable under the broader indemnity provision.

Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
1. Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who has a duty to take care but fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
3. The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred 'but for the negligence of the defendant.
4. Duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others.
5. Conversations between a doctor and patient are generally confidential but there are few exceptions.
Soman was the student of PRQ University. He met Pamela in a youth festival and fell in love with her. However, Pamela was not interested in having any serious relationship with Soman. Due to this, Soman went into emotional crisis and started consulting a psychologist in the PRQ Memorial Hospital. In October 2018, Soman murdered Pamela. Pamela's parents contended that only a short time prior, Soman had expressed his intention to murder their daughter to his therapist, Dr. Surana, a psychologist employed by the University. They further alleged that Dr. Surana had warned campus police of Soman's intentions, and that the police had briefly detained him, but then released him. Pamela's parents filed a case of negligence against the Police Department and the University officials on two grounds: the failure to confine Soman, in spite of his expressed intentions to kill Pamela, and failure to warn Pamela or her parents. Defendants maintained that they owed no duty of care to the victim, and were immune from suit. Which of the following is incorrect?

Legal Principle: Genexrally, the owner of the property has a duty to maintain his property so as to make it reasonably safe for use. However, the occupier also owes a duty to take such care as is reasonable to see that the visitor is reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be therein.
Facts: Sheila is a painter. She went to her friend Ruchi's house for meeting her. Sheila requested to use the bathroom and injured her right hand on a broken water faucet handle. Sheila filed a personal injury action for hand injuries suffered alleging that Ruchi failed to warn her that her bathroom fixtures were cracked and dangerous. Ruchi says she had complained to the landlord about the broken handle so the landlord is liable. Decide whether the Sheila's injury the proximate cause of Ruchi's negligence?

Legal Principle: Intimidation involves a threat to do something unlawful or 'illegitimate'; it must be intended to coerce the claimant to take or not take certain action.
Facts: Hari, a skilled draughtsman and employee of the Overseas Airways Corporation (OAC), resigned his membership of the Association of Engineering and Shipbuilding Draughtsmen (AESD), a registered trade union. It was agreed between OAC and AESD (among others) that no strike or lockout should take place and disputes should be handled by arbitration. He resigned from his union, the Association of Engineering and Shipbuilding Draftsman (AESD), after a disagreement. The Corporation and AESD had a contract that stipulates that the employer will only hire workers from a specific union and those workers can only remain with that employer while they are a part of the union so AESD threatened a strike unless Hari resigned also from his job or was fired. Corporation suspended Hari and, after some months, dismissed him with one week's salary in lieu of notice. Hari brought an action for damages alleging that he was the victim of a tortious intimidation. Decide.

Legal Principles:
1. Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
2. Generally, nuisances cannot be justified on the ground of necessity, pecuniary interest, convenience, or economic advantage to a defendant.
3. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would be likely to injure his neighbour.
4. In cases of nuisance, the court may grant an injunction restricting the nuisance from occurring in the future when the loss could not adequately compensated.
Facts: Tina purchased a house in an estate which was adjacent to a functioning, in use, cricket field. The members of Super Eleven Cricket Club used to play Cricket in that field for over 70 years. After Tina moved into the property, cricket balls began to fly over the field's protective barrier and into the Tina's property. Tina complained, which caused Super Eleven Cricket Club to erect a chain link fence. This improved matters as less balls were now flying onto the Tina's property but it did not fully solve the issue as some still got through. The club offered Tina to pay for any damage done or injuries received as a result of the balls landing onto her land, including fixing any broken windows and similar. Tina, however, refused all of the club's offers and filed a case against the members of the Club alleging nuisance and negligence and requested court to grant an injunction to prevent the club from playing cricket on their ground. Tina argued that even though the club offered to make good any damage and that there had been no injuries, she was not able to use her garden when matches were being played for fear of being struck by a cricket ball. Decide.

Legal Principles:
1. According to rule of strict liability, any person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage, irrespective of fault, which is the natural consequence of its escape in respect of the non-natural use of land.
2. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would be likely to injure his neighbour.
Facts: PN was the owner of a gas pipe which passed under the surface of an old railway between Ramnagar and Kotpur. XY was the local council which was responsible for a water pipe which supplied water to a block of flats in the nearby Shining Apartment Complex. A leak developed which was undetected for some time. The water collected at an embankment which housed PN's high pressure gas main. The water caused the embankment to collapse and left the gas main exposed and unsupported. This was a serious and immediate risk and PN took action to avoid the potential danger. They then sought to recover the cost of the remedial works. PN argued that the XY Council was liable for negligence under strict liability.

Legal Principles:
1. A deceit occurs when a misrepresentation is made with the express intention of defrauding a party, subsequently causing loss to that party.
2. "Misrepresentation" means and includes the positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true; any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gains an advantage of the person committing it, or any one claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him; causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement, to make a mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement.
Fact: XY Company in its prospectus stated that the company was permitted to make engines that were powered by electricity, rather than by fuel. In reality, the company did not possess such a right as this had to be approved by the Government Board. Gaining the approval for such a claim from the Board was considered a formality in such circumstances and the claim was put forward in the prospectus with this information in mind. However, the claim of the company for this right was later refused by the Board. The individuals who had purchased a stake in the business, upon reliance on the statement, brought a claim for deceit against the defendant's business. Decide.

Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
1. Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who has a duty to take care but fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
3. The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred 'but for the negligence of the defendant.
4. Duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others.
5. Conversations between a doctor and patient are generally confidential but there are few exceptions.
A company called KLM, manufacturers of electrical equipment, was the target of a takeover by ABS Industries. KLM was not doing well. In March 2019, KLM had issued a profit warning, which had halved its share price. In May 2019, KLM's directors made a preliminary announcement in its annual profits for the year up to March. This confirmed that the position was bad. The share price fell again. At this point, ABS had begun buying up shares in large numbers. In June 2019, the annual accounts, which were done with the help of the accountant Dinesh, were issued to the shareholders, which now included ABS. ABS reached a shareholding of 29.9% of the company, at which point it made a general offer for the remaining shares, as the City Code's rules on takeovers required. But once it had control, ABS found that KLM's accounts were in an even worse state than had been revealed by the directors or the auditors. It sued Dinesh for negligence in preparing the accounts and sought to recover its losses. This was the difference in value between the company as it had and what it would have had if the accounts had been accurate. Which of the following answers in incorrect?

Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
1. Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who has a duty to take care but fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
3. The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred 'but for the negligence of the defendant.
4. Duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others.
5. Conversations between a doctor and patient are generally confidential but there are few exceptions.
In 2005, the local council of Delhi approved building plans for the erection of a block of apartments. The approved plans showed the base wall and concrete foundations of the block to be three feet or deeper to the approval of local authority. The notice of approval said that the bylaws of the council required that notice should be given to the council both at the commencement of the work and when the foundations were ready to be covered by the rest of the building work. The council had the power to inspect the foundations andrequire any corrections necessary to bring the work into conformity with the bylaws, but was not under an obligation to do so.
The block of apartments was finished in 2006. The builder (who was also the owner) granted 99-year leases for the apartments, the last conveyance taking place in 2010. In 2017 structural movements occurred resulting in failure of the building comprising cracks in the wall, sloping of the floors and other defects. In 2019, the plaintiffs who were lessees of the apartments filed cases for negligence against the builder and the council.
The plaintiffs claimed that the damage was a consequence of the block having been built on inadequate foundations, there being a depth of two feet six inches only as against the three feet or deeper shown on the plans and required under the bylaws. The plaintiffs claimed damages in negligence against the council for approving the foundations and/or in failing to inspect the foundations. Decide whether the council owed a duty of care to the claimants in respect of the incorrect depth of the foundations laid by the third-party builder?

The sustainable Development Goals are to be realised by

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is based in

The 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law provides for

How many judges are elected to International Criminal Court?

ILO was created in

The phrase 'war crime' includes

UNESCO was established in

The extinction of statehood takes place in international law as a result of

Dualist theory in international law is supported by