510legal_section_test_1.pdf

8/10/2019 510legal_section_test_1.pdf

1/36

1

www.clatpossible.com

A Team Satyam Offering

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.

LEGAL SECTION TEST 1

Directions: Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation -

Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer among the four

alternatives given.

1. PRINCIPLE(S) Where a plaintiff was in possession of the goods at the time of the

conversion, the defendant cannot set up a plea that a third party has superior title.

FACTS: B stole a gold watch from A. C then stole the watch from B and sold it. B sues C for

conversion.

a) C can be held liable for conversion.

b) B cannot sue C because B is in wrongful possession of the gold watch.

c) Only A can sue C for conversion.

d) None of the above

Ans. (a)In the tort of conversion, it does not matter that B was in wrongful possession of

the watch. If he is in possession of the watch at the time of conversion, he can sue for

conversion. C cannot argue that the third party (i.e. A) has superior title to the watch.

2. PRINCIPLE- False imprisonment is a total restraint of the liberty of a person, for,

however, short a time, without lawful excuse.

FACTS: A, who was shopping in a general provisions store, was stopped by the shopkeeper

when the metal detector started blinking as A tried to the store. When A protested, the

shopkeeper asked his security guards to accompany A to a room at the back of the store
http://www.clatpossible.com/http://www.clatpossible.com/http://www.clatpossible.com/


2/36

2





where A was frisked for five minutes. Eventually, it was discovered that the metal detector

was faulty.

Can A sue the shop for false imprisonment?

a) Yes, the shopkeeper had wrongly detained A because the metal detector was faulty.

b) No, detaining a person for 5 minutes does not amount to false imprisonment.

c) No, the shopkeeper acted within his authority to frisk A when he suspected that A

might be shoplifting.

d) None of the above.

Ans. (c) In cases of false imprisonment, the period for which the detention continues is

immaterial. It is important to note that the shopkeeper had a lawful excuse to detain A on

suspicion that he might be shoplifting.

3. PRINCIPLE- A damage or injury though caused by a tortious act of the defendant will not

qualify for award of damages if it is too remote.

FACTS: A was boiling milk in his apartment; since he was very tired, he fell asleep without

realizing that the stove was still on. Sometime later, the fire alarm got triggered off in the

building. As the people residing in the building rushed out panicking, Bs dog (which had

fractured his leg a few days before and could not run), got badly hurt in the stampede. Can B

sue A for the injury to his dog?

a) Yes, it was As negligence which was directly responsible for the injury to Bs dog.

b) No, A had a duty of care only towards B and not towards Bs dog.


3/36

3





c) No, the injury to Bs dog was too remote a consequence of As act.


Ans. (c)One might argue using the test of foreseeability that A could never have foreseen

that his act would result in injury to Bs dog, therefore, one might conclude that the injury

caused to Bs dog was a remote consequence of As negligence.

4. PRINCIPLE- Harm suffered voluntarily does not constitute a legal injury and is not

actionable.

FACTS: Kiren joined a swimming club close to his house. The terms of membershipcontained the follwing clauses:

(1) Swim at your own risk.

(2) The management would not be responsible for any accident or injury to the members.

While Kiren was attempting a dive, the diving board broke due to poor maintenance of the

pool and Kiren hurt himself badly.

Can Kiren sue the club for the injury suffered by him?

a) No, according to clause (1), Kiren had voluntarily consented to the risk involved.

b) Yes, clause (1) would not apply in case of negligence on the part of the management.

c) No, clause (2) gives blanket immunity to the management and would apply even in case of

negligence.



4/36

4





Ans. (b) The maxim of Volenti Non Fit Injuria does not apply to cases of negligence

because volenti non fit injuriameans that the plaintiff agreed to the risk of harm and not to

the harm itself.

5. PRINCIPLE(S) - (I) Any gesture calculated to excite in the party threatened a reasonable

apprehension that the party threatening intends immediately to offer violence constitutes an

assault; there must, in all cases, be the means of carrying the threat into effect.

(II) A battery is the intentional and direct application of any physical force to the person of

another.

FACTS: B entered As room while A was asleep. B moved stealthily towards A with an iron

rod in hand and struck A on the head. On feeling the blow, A woke up and cried out in pain.

Which of the following statements are true of the given situation?

a) There was only assault

b) There was only battery

c) There was both assault and battery

d) There was neither assault nor battery

Ans. (b) Assault did not precede battery in this case- while B was advancing towards A with

the iron rod in his hand, A was sleeping and there was no apprehension on the part of A that

B would use force. It was only when B actually struck him that A woke up to realize that he

had been hit.


5/36

5





6. PRINCIPLE- A master is vicariously liable for the acts of his servants acting in the course

of employment.

FACTS: A is Bs driver. B told A to take his car to the servicing station. After getting the car

serviced, A took his girlfriend for a long drive in the car, without telling B; A drove

recklessly and rammed the car into Cs scooter. C suffered injury and claims damages.

Advise C.

a) C can claim damages from B on the principle of vicarious liability.

b) C cannot claim damages from B because A was not acting in the course of

employment.

c) C cannot claim damages from B because there is no master-servant relationship that exists

between A & B.


Ans. (b) A master-servant relationship exists between a driver and his employer. It is

evident that A was doing an unauthorized act, i.e., he was acting outside the course of

employment. Therefore, B cannot be held vicariously liable.

7. PRINCIPLE- Every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass.

FACTS: A was visiting his friend C. A entered Bs house (B is Cs neighbour) by mistake.

As soon as he realized his mistake, A began to leave but B was furious and wanted to sue him

for trespass.

a) A entered Bs premises by mistake; therefore, this does not constitute trespass.


6/36

6





b) There was no sign on Bs premises stating that Trespassers would be prosecuted.

Therefore, B cannot sue A for trespass.

c) B can sue A for trespass.

d) B cannot sue A for trespass because there was no actual damage.

Ans. (c)To constitute the wrong of trespass neither force, nor unlawful intention, nor actual

damage, nor the breaking of an enclosure is necessary.

8. PRINCIPLE- If a contract is entered into fraudulently or through wilful misrepresentation,

the contract is voidable at the option of the innocent party to the contract.

FACTS: A contracts to sell his holiday house to B. A enters into the contract unaware that his

house, which was situated close to the beach, had been wiped out in the tsunami a few

months before the entering into contract between A & B. When B discovers that the house

that A purported to sell is non-existent, he sues A in court claiming that the contract is

voidable. Decide the status of the contract.

a) The contract is voidable because A purported to sell a non-existent property to B.

b) The contract is valid because it was entered into with mutual consent.

c) The agreement is not voidable because of mistake as to the subjectmatter of the

contract on the part of A.


Ans. (c): Misrepresentation renders a contract voidable (section 19 of Indian Contract Act,

1872), whereas, an agreement is void where both parties are under mistake as to fact (section

20 of Indian Contract Act, 1872).


7/36

7





9. PRINCIPLE(S)(I) Attempt to murder is punishable under S.307 IPC but preparation is

not an offence.

(II) Attempt is understood to be when a man does an intentional act with a view to attain a

certain end and fails in his object through some circumstances independent of his own will-

in such cases, that man has attempted to effect the object at which he aimed.

FACTS: A, who is Bs neighbour, dislikes B intensely. B, unaware of As hatred towards

him, visits A one day. A seizes this opportunity and mixes some poison in the drink which he

plans to offer B. Before A could offer the glass to B, As dog knocks over the tray containing

the poisoned pitcher. Is A guilty of attempt to murder?

a) No, As act amounts merely to preparation because he had not yet offered the glass to B.

b) No, As act amounts to murder because he had the requisite mens rea and he had taken all

steps to carry out his intention.

c) Yes, As act amounts to attempt to murder.


Ans. (c) In this case, A would surely have offered the poisoned drink to B if not for the

dogs intervention; the intervention by the dog is a circumstance independent of the will of B.

10. PRINCIPLE- "Nobody shall unlawfully interfere with a person's use or enjoyment of

land, or some right over, or in connection with it. The use or enjoyment, envisaged herein,

should be normal and reasonable taking into account surrounding situation."


8/36

8





FACTS: A and B live adjacent to each other in Chowk (famous in Lucknow for non-

vegetarian food). A holds a barbeque party in his garden every weekend, where he cooks

chicken. B is a vegetarian and being averse to non-vegetarian food he often ends up feeling

nauseated at the smell of chicken. B files a suit against A.

a) B will succeed because it is not reasonable for A to hold the barbeque party every

weekend.

b) B will not succeed because the right to enjoyment of ones property also includes the right

to hold parties in its premises.

c) B will not succeed because nobody else in the locality is complaining.


Ans. Applying the given principle to the above factual situation, one can argue that A & B

live in a locality which is famous in Lucknow for non-vegetarian food; this means that taking

into account the surrounding situation, it is normal that non-vegetarian food is cooked in the

area where they reside. Therefore, B will not succeed; however, the reasoning given in

options (b) and (c) are incorrect to the extent that they do not explain why B will not succeed.

11. PRINCIPLE(S) (I) Where a party, without expressing his final willingness, proposes

certain terms on which he is willing to negotiate, he does not make an offer, but only invites

the other party to make an offer on those terms.

(II) An offer when accepted becomes a legally binding agreement.

FACTS: Upon hearing of the clearance sale in Landmark, Biddy rushed to the bookstore to

buy some of the books on her wish-list. When she was done choosing the books that she

wanted to buy, she went to the shopkeeper and said, I want to buy these books. The

shopkeeper replied, I am sorry I cannot let you have that book; itis the only copy I have got

and I have already promised it to another customer.

Which of the following are true of the given factual situation?


9/36

9





a) The shopkeeper is liable for breach of contract because he did not make any offer to

sell the books.

b) The shopkeeper is not liable for breach of contract because it is understood that the

contract is always subject to terms & conditions.

c) The shopkeeper is liable for breach of contract because he made an offer to sell and that

was accepted by Biddy when she agreed to purchase the books.


Ans. (a) - A shopkeepers catalogue of prices is not an offer; it is only an invitation to the

intending customers to offer to buy at the indicated prices.

12. PRINCIPLE- Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person,

or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any

property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a

valuable security, commits "extortion".

FACTS: A and B are colleagues; B discovers that A had been swindling the accounts of the

company where they work. B threatens to report the matter to As boss unless A writes him a

blank cheque. A yields to Bs demand.

a) B is not guilty of extortion because he did not put A in fear of any physical injury.

b) B is guilty of theft and not extortion.

c) B is guilty of theft and extortion.

d) B is guilty of extortion.

Ans. (d)In the definition of extortion, the fear must be of such a nature and extent as to

unsettle the mind of the person on whom it operates, and takes away from his acts that

element of free voluntary action while alone constitutes theft.


10/36

10





Extortion is distinguished from theft on the ground that extortion is committed by the

wrongful obtaining of consent. In theft the offender takes without the owners consent.

13. PRINCIPLE- (I) The consequences of a persons act are too remote if a reasonable man

would not have foreseen them.

(II) A person is held responsible in law only for consequences which are not remote.

(III) But an intentional wrongdoers liability will cover all consequences, whether foreseeable

or not, which result from his wrongful act.

FACTS: A grows certain prohibited psychotropic substances on his farm; there is also a

board displayed on As farm which says Trespassers would be prosecuted. Additionally, A

employs two guards to keep away anyone who might trespass into the field. On a particular

day when the guards were off duty, B trespassed onto As land while grazing his horse. Bs

horse ate a few leaves of the psychotropic plan and started attacking B. B was badly injured

and sued A.

a) A is not liable because he had taken all reasonable precautions to ensure that nobody

would enter his premises.

b) A is not liable because B is a trespasser and he had no business to be on As property.

c) A is liable because he is growing psychotropic substances on his land illegally.


Ans. (c) According to the given principles, a man is responsible for all consequences

arising out of his act if he could have reasonably foreseen them. However, an exception is

provided by way of Principle (III) whereby a man would also be responsible for the

unforeseen consequences of his act if he is an intentional wrongdoer. He was illegally dealing

in psychotropic substances; this makes him an intentional wrongdoer.


11/36

11





14. PRINCIPLE- If a libel applies to a class of persons, an individual can only bring an action

if he can show that it applies to himself.

FACTS: A man published a blog in which he stated, All doctors are thieves.B, a doctor, is

the first person to read the blog and gets infuriated.

B threatens to sue A against defamation. Can B succeed in his suit against A?

a) Yes, B is a doctor and therefore, he can sue for defamation.

b) No, B cannot sue for defamation because he is the first person to read the blog and

therefore, there is no publication before a third party.

c) No, B cannot sue for defamation because he cannot show that he was specially

referred to.


Ans.(c) The reason why a libel published of a large or indeterminate number of persons

described by some general name generally fails to be actionable is the difficulty of

establishing that the plaintiff was, in fact, included in the defamatory statement, for the words

are occasionally understood to be a facetious exaggeration.

15. PRINCIPLE- For an action in negligence to succeed, the plaintiff must show that the

defendant owed towards the plaintiff a duty of care.

FACTS: A is Bs family doctor. C is a chemist at a shop near As clinic. On a particular day

when B visits As clinic, he finds that the doctor had to leave urgent ly for some business. B


12/36

12





goes to Cs shop and asks him to give some medicine for cold. B on eating the medicine

suffers from severe diarrhoea. He sues C for negligence.

a) B will not succeed because C did not owe towards him any duty of care.

b) B will succeed because C was not a doctor and therefore, should not have prescribed a

medicine to B.

c) B will succeed because it is common for chemists to prescribe medicines on behalf of the

doctor and the chemist was negligent in prescribing a medicine to B.

d) B will not succeed because B had voluntarily submitted to the risk of harm when he asked

C to give him a medicine.

Ans. (a)According to the principle stated above, C must be shown to have a duty of care

towards B. It is the doctor A and not the chemist who owes a duty of care towards B.

16. PRINCIPLE- In an action for tort, it is not necessary to show that there was any harm

caused to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff must be able to prove that the defendant

violated the legal right of the plaintiff.

FACTS: A has a lemon tree growing in his garden. The tree is quite big and reaches over to

Bs house; also, the branches growing in Bs house bear more lemons than those in As

house. A met B one day and told him that he is planning to open a pickle shop where he

would sell pickles made from the lemons growing in his garden. The next day, B cuts the

branches which are growing in his house and keeps the lemons for himself. A is furious and

files a suit against B.

a) The suit will be successful because A is entitled to all the lemons growing in his garden.


13/36

13





b) The suit will be successful because As pickle businesswould suffer if B is allowed to

keep the lemons.

c) The suit will not succeed because no legal right of A was infringed.


17. PRINCIPLE(S) - (I) A man cannot complain of harm to the chances of which he has

exposed himself with knowledge and of his free will.

(II) The above maxim does not apply to the tort of negligence.

FACTS: A had to catch a flight to Mumbai. He was already late to the airport. He hailed a

taxi on the road and asked the taxi-driver B to hurry to the airport at the maximum speed

possible. B, who was smelling strongly of liquor, started driving rashly. On the way to the

airport, the taxi collided with a truck on the highway and A was severely injured. He sued B

for negligence.

a) A would be successful because B was driving recklessly.

b) A would not be successful because it was A who asked B to drive fast and therefore, he

voluntarily agreed to the risk.

c) A would not be successful because he knew that B was drunk and therefore, he knew that

the chances of accident were thereby increased.

d) Both b and c

And. (a) The defence of volenti non fit injuria cannot be raised in cases of negligence.

The leading case on the point of travelling in motor-car knowing that driver is drunk is

Dann v. Hamilton(1939).


14/36

14





18. PRINCIPLE(S)(I) Words are prima faciedefamatory when their natural, obvious and

primary sense is defamatory.

(II) Wordsprima facieinnocent are not actionable unless their secondary or latent meaning is

proved by the plaintiff. In this case, the words would amount to innuendo.

FACTS: A is a socialite who is regularly photographed on Page 3. A was photographed at

one of the parties with a man and the caption below the photograph read Mr. A is happy and

gay?The picture was published in one of the leading newspapers.

a) The newspaper can be sued for defamation.

b) The newspaper can be sued for innuendo.

c) The newspaper can be sued for both defamation and innuendo.


Ans. (b) The words in the caption are not prima facie defamatory. It is their latent meaning

which make it an innuendo.

19. PRINCIPLE(S) - (I) Trespass is essentially a wrong to the actual possessor and therefore

cannot be committed by a person in possession.

(II) Conversion, on the other hand, is a wrong to a person entitled to immediate possession.

FACTS: A person snatches my gold ring with a view to steal it.

a) The act amounts to trespass.


15/36

15





b) The act amounts to conversion.

c) The act amounts to both trespass and conversion.

d) The act amounts to neither trespass nor conversion.

Ans. (c) In this case, the person commits trespass to goods when he snatches my gold

ring. He also commits conversion by taking.

20. PRINCIPLE(S) - (I) Trespass is essentially a wrong to the actual possessor and therefore

cannot be committed by a person in possession.

(II) Conversion, on the other hand, is a wrong to a person entitled to immediate possession.

FACTS: A person borrows my ring for his use and later on sells it.

a) The act amounts to trespass.

b) The act amounts to conversion.

c) The act amounts to both trespass and conversion.

d) The act amounts to neither trespass nor conversion.

Ans. (b)In this case, the person commits conversion. This is because in borrowing my ring,

he did not disturb my possession of the goods unlawfully and therefore, no trespass was

committed. He would, however, be liable for the tort of conversion by sale because

wrongful sale of goods is conversion.


16/36


17/36

17





a) The suit will be successful because the employers were negligent and they cannot

plead that A would have not died had he not been suffering from haemophilia.

b) The suit will be unsuccessful because As death is too remote a consequence of the

employers negligence.

c) The suit will be unsuccessful because A should have disclosed that he was haemophilic at

the time of employment.


Ans. (a)The principle given above is the eggshell skull rule which is an exception to the

defence of remoteness of damage. This means that the defendants will not be able to escape

liability on the ground that A would not have died had he not been suffering from

haemophilia.

23. PRINCIPLE- The gist of the offence of criminal conspiracy is agreement between two

or more persons to break the law, whether any act be done in pursuance thereof by the

conspirators or not.

FACTS: A group of friends went to a club for fun and frolic. One of them suddenly fired at

the bar mate for her refusal to serve drinks. The others were unaware that the accused was

carrying a loaded pistol. They had stayed at the club for about 2 hours.

a) All of them are guilty of murder.

b) Only A is guilty of murder.

c) A is guilty of murder and the others are guilty of criminal conspiracy.

d) All of them are guilty of criminal conspiracy.


18/36

18





Ans. In this case, only A would be guilty of murder because there was no agreement

between A and his friends that they would shoot at the bar mate. Hence, they cannot be held

guilty of criminal conspiracy.

24. PRINCIPLE(S)- (I) The gist of the offence of criminal conspiracy is agreement between

two or more persons to break the law, whether any act be done in pursuance thereof by the

conspirators or not.

(II) When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention

of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him

alone.

FACTS: 5 years ago, D had borrowed some money from B which he never returned. B goes

to his friends A and C and asks them to help B recover his money by intimidating D. A, B

and C set off towards Ds house with hockey sticks in their hands. As D sees them

approaching, he starts running away. B chases D and beats him mercilessly with his stick.

Seeing this, A & C get scared and run away. D dies.

a) A, B and C are guilty of criminal conspiracy to murder D.

b) A, B and C are guilty of criminal intimidation.

c) A, B and C are guilty of murder.

d) Only B is guilty of criminal intimidation and murder.

Ans. (b)There was no agreement between A, B and C to murder D and therefore, there was

no criminal conspiracy to murder D. A & C ran away when they saw B beating D; it is clear

from the conduct of A & C that they never intended to murder D. A, B and C agreed to

intimidate D and in pursuance of this common intention (to intimidate D), they proceeded


19/36

19





towards D with hockey sticks in their hands. This makes all of them liable for criminal

intimidation.

25. PRINCIPLE(S) - Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with

intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such

property is said to commit criminal trespass.

FACTS: Some boys play cricket every day in a field adjacent to As house. Quite often, the

ball falls into As house; this greatly annoys A who chases them away whenever they go to

recover the ball from As house. While the boys were playing one day, the cricket ball fell

into As house; this time, the boys scaled the wall thinking that A was away. A caught them

and filed a case against them for criminal trespass.

a) The boys are guilty of criminal trespass because upon entering As property, they caused

annoyance to A.

b) The boys are guilty of criminal trespass because they entered the property of A illegally.

c) The boys are not guilty of criminal trespass because they did not intend to annoy A.

d) Both a and b

Ans. (c)The key ingredient of criminal trespass is that there must be intention to annoy

the person who is in possession of the property; the boys never intended to annoy A and the

facts mention that they believed A was away when they scaled his wall to recover their

cricket ball. At the most, the boys would be liable for trespass under torts.


20/36

20





26. PRINCIPLE(S)- (I) Whoever having lawfully entered into or upon property in possession

of another, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any

such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit criminal trespass.

(II) Under IPC, it is not essential to the offence of mischief that the offender should intend to

cause loss or damage to the owner of the property injured or destroyed. It is sufficient if he

intends to cause, or knows that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to any person

by injuring any property.

FACTS: A is a courier guy working at Flipkart. He goes to Bs house to deliver an order from

Flipkart. After delivering the order, instead of leaving A decides to smoke a cigarette in Bs

garden. A suddenly spots a ferocious looking dog in As garden. A who is immensely scared

of dogs starts running and in the process, he knocks about and breaks some of the flower pots

in Bs garden. B files a case against A for criminal trespass and mischief.

a) A is guilty of criminal trespass.

b) A is guilty of mischief.

c) A is guilty of criminal trespass and mischief.

d) A is guilty of neither criminal trespass nor mischief.

Ans. In my opinion, A cannot be held guilty of criminal trespass; this is because when he

stayed on to smoke a cigarette in Bs garden, he remained illegally on As premises, however,

there was no intent to cause insult, annoy or intimidate B.

A can also not be held liable for mischief because he did not intend to break the flower pots

in Bs garden and therefore, there was no intention on his part to do an act which causes/is

likely to cause damage to Bs property.


21/36

21





27. PRINCIPLE - Under IPC, it is not essential to the offence of mischief that the offender

should intend to cause loss or damage to the owner of the property injured or destroyed. It is

sufficient if he intends to cause, or knows that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage

to any person by injuring any property.

FACTS: A and B are sworn enemies. On hearing that B is away, A breaks into Bs house one

day and paints graffiti on the walls of the house. Later, it is discovered that the house which

A broke into had been sold to C a week before by B. C files a case against A for mischief.

a) A is guilty of mischief because he intended to cause damage to the property.

b) A is not guilty of mischief because he did not intend to cause loss to C.

c) A is not guilty of mischief because nobody was in actual possession of the house when A

had broken into the house.


Ans. (a)It is no defence for A that he did not intend to cause damage to the owner of the

house (i.e. C) when he broke-in. For the offence of mischief, it is sufficient that A intended

to cause wrongful loss or damage to any person by injuring any property. Whether

somebody was in actual possession of the house or not is not a relevant fact.

28. PRINCIPLE(S)(I) Theft is robbery if, in order to the commit theft, the offender for

that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful

restraint.

(II) Extortion is robbery if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the

presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of

instant death, or instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person, or to some other


22/36

22





person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver

up the thing extorted.

FACTS: A has been planning to break into Bs house to steal. With the help of his

accomplice, A calls B one day and tells her that Bs husband has met with an accident and

that she should immediately rush to the hospital. B panics and leaves her house hurriedly. A

then breaks into Bs house and steals jewellery and some cash.

a) A is guilty of theft.

b) A is guilty of extortion.

c) A is guilty of robbery.

d) A is guilty of theft and extortion.

Ans. (a) A cannot be guilty of extortion because he was not in the presence of B from

whom he stole the valuables. Further, the act of A would not amount to robbery because he

did not cause or attempt to cause to B death, hurt or wrongful restraint.

29. PRINCIPLE- Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the

possession of any person without that persons consent, moves that property in order to such

taking, is said to commit theft.

FACTS: A and B are room-mates. A has been gifted a P.G. Wodehouse novel by his cousin

which B wants to read. He asks A for the book but A refuses flatly. One night, when A is fast

asleep B takes the book from As table and starts reading it inside the room; B intends to

return the book to A in the morning. A wakes up and finding B with the book, accuses B of

theft.


23/36

23





a) B is not guilty of theft because he did not take the book out of the room and therefore, did

not move the book out of As possession.

b) B is not guilty of theft because he did not take the book from A with any dishonest

intention, since he had intended to return the book to A next morning.

c) B is guilty of theft.

d) B is not guilty of theft because he had not moved the property.

Ans. (c) In order to commit the offence of theft, the key ingredient is moving of the

property with an intention to dishonestly take the property out of the possession of any

person and without his consent. It is immaterial that the book was not moved out of the

room or that B was intending to return the book to A the next morning.




FACTS: A & B are room-mates in law school. A & B are also highly competitive and always

try to outdo each other in academics. One day before their law of tort exam, A hides the book

that B is studying from so that B is not able to prepare for his exam. A hides the book under

Bs bed. After hours of searching frantically for the book, B finds it under his bed. Realizing

what had happened, B accuses A of theft.

a) A is guilty of theft.

b) A is not guilty of theft because A had merely hidden the book from B and there was no

wrongful gain to A.


24/36

24





c) A is not guilty of theft because A had hid the book under Bs bed and A had not kept the

book with himself.

d) A is not guilty of theft because never intended to commit theft. In a competitive

environment such as that of a law school, it is very common for students to hide

books/research material.

Ans. (a) It is sufficient for B to establish that A had moved the property without Bs

consent. It is immaterial that A did not keep the book with himself or that he had merely

hidden it from B; it is not necessary in theft that the taking must cause wrongful gain to the

taker, it will suffice if it causes wrongful loss to the owner. In order to establish mens rea for

theft, the complainant needs to establish that the property was taken dishonestly out of his

possession and without his consent. The motive for theft is immaterial.




FACTS: A had lent B his Parker pen; B forgot to return the pen to A. One day when A is inBs hostel room, he spots a Parker pen kept on Bs table. Assuming that it is As pen, A takes

the pen and leaves Bs room. A later discovers that this was a different Parker pen, one that

belonged to C and A immediately returns the pen to Bs table. B files a case against A for

theft.

a) A is guilty of theft because he had intentionally moved the pen out of the possession of B

and without Bs consent.

b) A is not guilty of theft because he had returned the pen to B as soon as he realized his

mistake.


25/36

25





c) A is not guilty of theft because B is not the rightful owner of the pen.

d) A is not guilty of theft because A had taken the pen with the bona fide belief that it

was his own.

Ans. (d)In theft, it is immaterial that the complainant was not the true owner of the pen; it

is the taking of property out of possession of the complainant which is taken into account.

Therefore, the reasoning given in option (c) is incorrect. It is also immaterial that the accused

restored the property to the complainants possession after taking it out of his possession,

when determining if theft has been committed. Therefore, the reasoning in option (b) is also

incorrect. One of the key ingredients in theft is dishonest intention on the part of the

accused. In the given case, A had not moved the pen out of Bs possession with any dishonest

intention and therefore, he did not possess the requisite mens rea for theft.




FACTS: Antonio owes money to Shylock, who is a cruel money-lender; Shylock is known tocharge an insanely high rate of interest on the money that he loans. As security for the money

that he lends to Antonio, Shylock asks Antonio to pledge the golden casket gifted to Antonio

by Portia. Being heavily indebted, Antonio reluctantly agrees. One day, when Antonio is

passing by Shylocks house, Antonio decides to stop by to talk to Shylocks sister. Suddenly,

Antonio catches sight of his golden casket in Shylocks house.Antonio picks up the casket

and runs away. Shylock accuses Antonio of theft.

a) Antonio is guilty of theft.

b) Antonio is not guilty of theft because he cannot be held guilty of stealing his own property.


26/36

26





c) Antonio is not guilty of theft because he had not gone to Shylocks house with the

intention of stealing the casket.


Ans. (a)A person can be convicted of stealing his own property if he takes it dishonestly

from another; Shylock had a legal right to possess Antonios casket because it was a security

for the loan he had given to Antonio. Further, even if Antonio had not gone to Shylocks

house to steal the casket, he had taken the casket away from Shylocks house with a dishonest

intention to take it out of the possession of Shylock.

33. PRINCIPLE- (I) Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of

the possession of any person without that persons consent, moves that property in order to

such taking, is said to commit theft.

(II) Whoever attempts to commit an offence under the Indian Penal Code and does any act

towards the commission of the offence shall be punished with imprisonment.

FACTS: A is a homeless vagabond. One cold winter evening, he is starving to death and

decides to steal some food from the neighbourhood in which he is residing for the night. He

breaks into Bs house and proceeds towards the kitchen. He opens the refrigerator and takes

out a can of milk from it. He puts the milk in his bag. As A begins to leave, B arrives on the

scene. Upon seeing B, A hurriedly drops his bag and makes a run for the door.

a) A is only guilty of attempt to commit theft.

b) A is guilty of theft.

c) A is neither guilty of theft nor attempt to commit theft.


27/36


28/36

28





b) B is guilty of robbery, use of criminal force and assault.

c) B is guilty of assault and robbery.

d) B is guilty of assault and theft.

Ans. (d) For committing the offence of robbery, the accused must voluntary cause or

attempt to cause to any person hurt; B did not voluntary cause or attempt to hurt A, in fact he

had stabbed A accidentally. Therefore, B is not guilty of robbery. B did not intentionally use

any force to hurt A and it was only a result of an accident that A fractured his hand.

Therefore, B cannot be held guilty of using criminal force. The ingredients of theft are made

out in the present case. Also, B had used the knife to threaten A, thereby causing an

apprehension in A that B might use criminal force. Therefore, Bs act amounts to theft and

assault.

35. PRINCIPLE(S) - (I) Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or

knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to

apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that

person, is said to commit an assault.

(II) Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, in order to the committing of any

offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it likely that by the use of

such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is

said to use criminal force to that other.

FACTS: A is a serial killer on the loose. Some kids are playing hide and seek in a park where

the seeker B is blind-folded. A advances towards the park with an iron rod in his hand and

blood-shot eyes. Seeing A, the other children get scared and start screaming, Run!B, who


29/36


30/36

30





there to kill Caesar; the three of them meet as per plan at Brutus house the next morning.

They set off towards Caesars house with daggers in their hands. On the way to Caesars

house, they are caught by two policemen who had got to know of their plan to murder Caesar.

a) Brutus, Cassius and Casca are guilty of criminal conspiracy.

b) The three accused are guilty of attempt to murder.

c) Both a and b


Ans. (a)There is agreement between Brutus, Cassius and Casca to carry out the murder of

Caesar; as soon as the three agree to murder Caesar, they become guilty of the offence ofcriminal conspiracy. Attempt to murder would denote that the accused has done an act which

would have resulted in murder, had it not been for circumstances independent of the will of

the accused. Going to Caesars house would not in itself constitute an attempt to murder and

would be more in the nature of preparation to commit the offence. When determining the

attempt to commit an offence, the act complained of must be the penultimate act of

committing the offence.

37. The legal test for insanity defense was first recognized in:

a) McNaughtons case

b) Ahluwalias case

c) Jack the Rippers case



31/36


32/36

32





a) Jus tertii

b) Damnum sine injuria

c) Injuria sine damno


Ans. (a)

41. Mischief with fire is known as .

a) Pyrophilia

b) Pyromania

c) Arson


Ans. (c)

42. A plea by the defendant that he has been previously acquitted of the same offence and

that he or she therefore cannot be tried for it again is known as:

a) Autrefois acquit

b) Autrefois convict

c) Res judicata

d) Malicious prosecution


33/36

33





Ans. (a)

43. Under tort law, the principle that deals with the damage done by an animal

directly to a human.

a) Strict Liability

b) Absolute Liability

c) Scienter

d) Animals mansuetae naturae

Ans. (c)

44. Since employers usually have more money to pay for negligence, they would be in a

better position to pay the victims. This principle finds its roots in:

a) Compassionate employment theory

b) Common employment theory

c) Compulsory employment theory

d) Deep pocket theory

Ans. (d)

45. The Latin phrase amicus curiaetranslates to:


34/36

34





a) An irrelevant fact

b) A relevant fact

c) A friend of the court

d) An interested party

Ans. (c)

46. A relationship where one person reposes complete trust in another in regard to a particular

transaction or one's general affairs or business is known as:

a) Promissory estoppel

b) Implied agency

c) Consensus ad idem

d) Fiduciary relationship

Ans. (d)

47. A situation whereby a person performs an act as a result of violence, threat or other

pressure against the person is known as

a) cartel

b) incarceration

c) duress


35/36

35






Ans. (c)

48. An abettor is also known as

a) Principal

b) Co-conspirator

c) accessory

d) agent

Ans. (c)

49. Damages which are unascertained are known as:

a) Unliquidated damages

b) Liquidated damages

c) Special damages

d) Exemplary damages

Ans. (a)

50. Between a master and a servant, there exists .


36/36

36




a) Contract of service

b) Contract for service

c) A novation contract


Ans. (a) Between an employer and employee, there exists a contract of service, whereas, the

contract between an independent contractor and the person who avails the services of the

independent contractor, there exists a contract for service.

Documents

510legal_section_test_1.pdf