| GyanCentral - The hub for engineering and law students - IIT-JEE, AIEEE, BITSAT, CLAT, AILET - 2012: LEGAL APTITUDE for CLAT 2013 Oct 11th 2012, 07:51 | GyanCentral - The hub for engineering and law students - IIT-JEE, AIEEE, BITSAT, CLAT, AILET - 2012 | | The source for all engineering and legal education news in India | | | LEGAL APTITUDE for CLAT 2013 Oct 11th 2012, 07:10 Legal reasoning questions in the law entrance exams are of utmost importance.....the carry a heavy weightage...and in most of the exams they act as tie breakers...so hold on to the legal principles you already know and learn more ... here are a few questions to help you with the legal aptitude questions!!! LEGAL PRINCIPLE: a minor's agreement is absolutely void. FACTUAL SITUATION: cuckoo aged 16 is a stamp collector. He is particularly anxious to get a rare stamp belonging to manoj who agrees in writing to sell this to cuckoo for 1100 rs. But subsequently refuses to deliever it to cuckoo even when he pays rs. 1100. Cuckoo now wants t sue manoj. Will he succeed? DECISION: 1) Cuckoo cannot succeed as manoj is not liable 2) Cuckoo can succeed as he has paid rs. 1100 for the stamp 3) Cuckoo can succeed as manoj agreed in writing to sell the stamp 4) None of these LEGAL RINCIPLE: A contract is an agreement enforceable by law. FACTUAL SITUATION: amita invited renu to her house for dinner. Renu accepted the invitation but later did not go. On renu's failure to attend, amita filed a suit against beena for the price of non consumed food. Can this agreement be enforced by law? DECISION: 1) This agreement cannot be enforced as this is just a social agreement 2) This agreement can be enforced as amita can recover the price of non consumed food 3) This agreement cannot be enforced as renu did not accept the offer in writing 4) None of these LEGAL PRINCIPAL : a careless person becomes liable for his negligence when he owns a duty of care to others. FACTUAL SITUATION: while the bus was leaving the platform, ramesh rushed and boarded the bus keeping the door open. Kalu who was standing at the edge of the platform, was hit by the door of the moving bus and injured. Kalu claims compensation from ramesh. DECISION: 1) Rajesh is liable to kalu for not having taken care to close the door of the moving bus 2) Ramesh is not liable to kalu as it was the duty of the conductor of the bus to close the door 3) Ramesh is not liable, as it was the duty of the latter to take care while standing on the platform, as to not expose onself to such accidental harm 4) None of these A contracts with B for delievering shares worth rs. 5000 at mumbai so that they could be sold by B's broker in the stock exchange. The promised date of delievery is 31st DEC, 2008. A breaks the contract and delievers on 10th jan,2009. The market crashes on 9th jan 2009 and the shares are now sold only for rs. 500. Had the shares been sold on 31st december, 2008 they would have fetched rs. 6000. B is 1) Entitled to damages 2) Not entitled to damages 3) Entitled to rs. 5500 as damages 4) Entitled to rs. 500 as damages HAPPY REALIZATIONS !!:D::D::D: |  | | |  |  |
No comments:
Post a Comment