Tort (CLAT Legal-Aptitude): Questions 34 - 36 of 82

Get 1 year subscription: Access detailed explanations (illustrated with images and videos) to 1064 questions. Access all new questions we will add tracking exam-pattern and syllabus changes. View Sample Explanation or View Features.

Rs. 450.00 or

Question number: 34

» Tort

Appeared in Year: 2009

MCQ▾

Question

The act of unlawfully entering into another’s property constitutes

Choices

Choice (4) Response

a.

Restraint

b.

Encroachment

c.

Trespass

d.

Appropriation

Question number: 35

» Tort

Appeared in Year: 2015

MCQ▾

Question

PRINCIPLE: Any direct physical interference with the goods in somebody’s possession without lawful justification is called trespass to goods. FACT: A purchased a car from a person who had no title to it and had sent it to a garage for repair. X, believing, wrongly, that the car was his, removed it from the garage.

Choices

Choice (4) Response

a.

X can be held responsible for trespass to goods

b.

X cannot be held responsible for trespass to good as he was under a wrong belif

c.

X has not committed any wrong

d.

None of the above

Question number: 36

» Tort

Appeared in Year: 2008

MCQ▾

Question

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 the context of the case.

3. Both master and third parties must exercise reasonable care in this regard.

FACTS

Rama Bhai was an uneducated widow and she opened account with Syndicate Bank with the help of her nephew by name Keshav who was at that time working as a clerk in the Bank. ’Keshav used to deposit the money of Rama Bhai from time to time and get the entries -done in the passbook. After a year or so, Keshav was dismissed from the service by the Bank. Being unaware of this fact, Rama Bhai continued to hand over her savings to him and Keshav misappropriated them. Rama Bhai realized this only when Keshav disappeared from, the scene one day and she sought compensation from the Bank.

Possible Decisions

a) Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.

b) Syndicate 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 of the Bank when the fraud was committed.

ii) The Bank was not aware of the special arrangement between Rama Bhai and Keshav.

iii) It is the Bank’s duty to take care of vulnerable customers.

iv) Rama Bhai should have checked about Keshav in her own interest.

Choices

Choice (4) Response

a.

(a) (iii)

b.

(b) (ii)

c.

(b) (i)

d.

(c) (iv)

Sign In