AILET Legal-Aptitude: Questions 5 - 7 of 152
Get 1 year subscription: Access detailed explanations (illustrated with images and videos) to 152 questions. Access all new questions we will add tracking exam-pattern and syllabus changes. View Sample Explanation or View Features.
Rs. 150.00 or
Question number: 5
Appeared in Year: 2013
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: When at the desire of the promisor, the promisee has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or abstain something, such an act or abstinence or promise is called consideration for the promise.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A daughter promise to give maintenance to her uncle in consideration of her mother making a gift of certain properties to her. The daughter pleads lack of consideration when the uncle seeks to enforce the contract. She says that the uncle is a stranger to the consideration and so he cannot enforce the contract. The daughter
Cannot succeed because consideration might move from any person
Will succeed because uncle being a stranger to the consideration cannot enforce it
Will not succeed because uncle is a near relative and in such cases consideration is not necessary
|d.||All of the above|
Question number: 6
Appeared in Year: 2014
Which of the following is not a constitutional body?
State Public Service Commissions
Question number: 7
Appeared in Year: 2012
PRINCIPLE: In case of a breach of contract, compensation can be awarded for the personal inconvenience suffered by a party by reason of the breach, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it.
FACTS: Sunita and Sushmita bought bus tickets for a journey from Adyar to Mandaveli. The bus was to go to St. Thomas Mount via Mandaveli. However, the driver mistakenly took a wrong direction and the two girls were dropped at a distance of 2½ miles from Mandaveli on the highway. With no other transportation in sight nor a place to stay, the two had to walk 2½ miles at midnight. Later they filed a case against the bus company and claimed Rs. 5000 as damages for inconvenience caused in having to walk and Rs. 6500 for Sushmita having fallen ill by catching cold during the night.
the amounts are liable to be paid because Sunita and Sushmita suffered loss for no fault of theirs.
The bus company is not liable to pay any amount, because it was the driver’s fault
The compensation for inconvenience suffered by being forced to walk at night is liable to be paid by the bus company. However, no compensation for Sushmita’s illness because this was not expected on account of breach of contract.
The bus company is liable to pay both the amounts claimed because the loss was suffered on account of the fault of the bus company and the inconvenience suffered and illness arose was in the normal course of things from breach of contract.