Tort (AILET Legal-Aptitude): Questions 17 - 18 of 29
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: 17
Appeared in Year: 2015
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Any direct physical interference with goods in somebody’s possession without lawful justification is called trespass of goods.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Z purchased a car from a person who had no title to it and sent it to a garage for repair. X believing wrongly that the car was his, removed it from the garage. Has X committed any offence?
X can be held responsible for trespass of goods.
Z has no right over the car as he purchased it from a person who had no title over it.
X cannot be held responsible for trespass of goods as he was under a wrong belief.
|d.||Question does not provide sufficient data or is vague|
Question number: 18
Appeared in Year: 2014
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A person is responsible for that which he could have reasonably foreseen or prevented.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A chemist sold a hair conditioner to Jyoti. The conditioner was locally manufactured and the contents, harmful chemicals, were listed on the bottle. The chemist, however, represented to Jyoti that the chemicals used were harmless and beneficial for the hair. On using it, Jyoti’s hair was badly damaged and she had to get hair treatment done for the same. Jyoti filed a complaint against the chemist. Will the chemist be liable?
Not liable as it is a natural tendency of shopkeepers to extol the virtues of the product they are selling.
Not liable because it was the buyer’s duty to be aware about the product she is buying.
Yes, as he should have informed Jyoti that the ingredients are not known.
Liable because he was aware of the side effects of the ingredients.