CLAT legal reasoning
Image source - http://bit.ly/2k1VzJa

Question 1.

Principle 1: If a person has voluntarily consented to infliction of some harm upon him, he has no remedy for that in tort.

Principle 2: Such consent may be implied from the conduct of the parties.

Facts:

In a 20-20 cricket match between two cricket teams, Calcutta Lions and Mumbai Dazzlers, Vinod Tendulkar, a batsman of Mumbai Dazzlers hit a cricket ball into the crowd, scoring 6 runs as a result of the cricket shot. Mr. Amol, who was sitting in the crowd got hit by the cricket ball and was consequently injured. He sued Vinod Tendulkar, claiming damages. 

Will Mr. Amol succeed in his action?

Outcome:

  1. Yes, he will. 
  2. No, he will not.

Reasoning:

  1. Because Mr. Vinod Tendulkar had displayed recklessness for Mr. Amol’s safety by hitting the cricket ball into the crowd whereas he could have got the same result by hitting the ball merely past the ropes.
  2. Because there was an implied consent on the part of Mr.Amol to infliction of harm upon him when he sat in the crowd as a spectator.
  3. Because Vinod Tendulkar had no duty of care towards Mr. Amol.
  4. Because he had consented to watching cricket match and not to getting hit by the Cricket ball.

Solutions:

  1. A, 4 
  2. A, 1 
  3. B, 2 
  4. B, 3

Question 2. 

Principle 1: If a person has freely consented to infliction of some harm upon himself, he has no remedy for that in tort. 

Principle 2: The act causing harm must not go beyond the limits of what was consented to.

Facts:

Mr. Verma, an accountant by profession, get on a bus plying on route no. 65 to get to his office, The bus driver, in a bid to overtake another bus, which also was on the same route, drove the bus very fast and in a rash manner and rammed it into a footpath. Consequently, Mr. Verma who was perilously standing on the footboard got severely injured. He sued the owner of the bus, claiming damages.

Will Mr. Verma succeed?

Outcome:

  1. No, he will not. 
  2. Yes, he will.

Reasoning:

  1. Because he had consented to only those harms which could occur after the driver has exercised due care and caution and not these harms that are caused by recklessness.
  2. Because by getting on to the bus, he had consented to infliction of harm upon himself as would arise from the acts of the bus driver.
  3. Because rash and negligent driving is punishable under Section 279, Indian Penal code.
  4. Because Mr. Verma himself had been negligent by getting upon such a bus,

Solutions:

  1. A, 4 
  2. A, 2 
  3. B, 3 
  4. B, 1

Question 3.

Principle: Damage, however substantial, caused to a person without there being any violation of the legal right of the victim, is not actionable in law.

Facts:

Mohandas, a teacher of Mathematics in a reputed school, offered private tuitions in the subjects of Mathematics and Physics to students of the subjects in a particular locality. Karamchand, a teacher of Physics, in another reputed school started offering tuitions in Physics in the same locality. Some of the students of Mohandas switched over, now preferring to take tuitions in Physics from Karamchand. As a result, Mohandas suffered decrease in his income from the tuitions, Mohandas sued Karamchand, claiming damages on account of some students preferring to take tuitions from Karamchand in Physics, due to which he had to face decrease in his income.

Will Mohandas succeed in enforcing his claim?

Outcome:

  1. Yes, Mohandas will succeed. 
  2. No, Mohandas will not succeed.

Reasoning:

  1. Because Mohandas did not teach Physics in school, he was not qualified to teach the subject.  
  2. Because though the loss was suffered by Mohandas, there was no violation of any legal right of Mohandas.  
  3. Because by offering his services in the same locality, Mohandas Was violating Mohandas’s legal right to livelihood. 
  4. Because by offering his services in the same locality, Karamchand Was intentionally trying to cause damage to Mohandas.

Solutions:

  1. A, 4 
  2. B, 2 
  3. B, 1 
  4. A, 3

Question 4

Principle 1: Every person has a right to protect his property,

Principle 2: However, this right does not permit him to do acts which are injurious to his neighbour. 

Facts:

Seeing an extra-ordinary flood coming upon the land, Mr. Varshney, in order to save his land, fenced up his land, However, due to this fencing, Mr. Kothari suffered losses to his land, Mr. Kothari thereafter sued Mr. Varshney, claiming damages, incurred by him, will Mr. Kothari succeed?

Outcome:

  1. No, he will not. 
  2. Yes, he will.

Reasoning:

  1. Because Mr. Varshney was doing whatever he could to protect his property and he had not done any express acts to cause injury to Mr. Kothari.
  2. Because due to the extraordinary floods, Mr. Varshney could do whatever he wanted to protect his property, even if it meant destruction of Mr. Kothari’s property.
  3. Because Mr. Varshney had fenced up his land which was an express act to injure Mr. Kothari’s land. 
  4. Because Mr. Varshney did not have the right to fence his land Without any permission from Mr. Kothari, even in the face of extra-ordinary flood.

Solutions:

  1. B, 4 
  2. A, 1 
  3. B, 3 
  4. A, 2

Question 5.

Principle: Where the absolute private right of a person is infringed without any actual loss or damage, the person whose right is infringed has a cause of action.

Facts:

Amar, a music buff, Wanted to attend a concert by Mrs. Nisha Ghonsle, a renowned singer, He purchased tickets for the same and came to attend the concert. The police officer, manning the entrance of the concert hall, lived in the same neighbourhood as Amar and harboured feelings of hatred towards Amar. He did not allow Amar to enter the concert hall, acting as a passive obstruction on the ground that the ticket he possessed was counterfeit. However, Mrs. Nisha Ghonsle, due to ill-health did not give his performance at all on that day and the concert was cancelled. Amar sued the police officer. Does Amar have a cause of action?

Outcome:

  1. Yes, he has. 
  2. No, he does not have.

Reasoning: 

  1. Because the police officer hated Amar.
  2. Because the police officer had merely passively obstructed him from attending the concert and he should have used reasonable counter-force himself.
  3. Because even though the concert was not held, his legal right of attending the concert was infringed upon.
  4. Because even if he had entered the concert hall, he would not have enjoyed the performance of Mrs. Nisha Ghonsle, who had failed to perform on that day,

Solutions:

  1. A, 1 
  2. A, 3 
  3. B, 4 
  4. B, 2
https://lawsikho.com/course/certificate-criminal-litigation-trial-advocacy
                Click Above

Question 6.

Principle: If from the experience of mankind, a particular category of animals is dangerous, though individuals may tame them, a person who keeps one of such category is liable for any damage which that animal does.

Facts:

Dharamculla, a famous actor of yesteryears Pollywood, owned a house in Punjab, There, he kept a tiger, naming it. Shero Shayari. The sons of Dharamculla, Bunnyculla and Robbyculla, also lived at the same house. They were never harmed by Shero Shayari, Even then, the animal was often kept tightly bound in a leash. One day, Sonal, a girl who lived in the neighbourhood was passing by, Shero Shayari broke its chains and attacked the girl, wounding her seriously, Sonal thereafter sued Dharamculla, the owner of Shero Shayari. 

Will Sonal succeed?

Outcome:

  1. Yes, she will. 
  2. No, she will not.

Reasoning:

  1. Because prior experience showed that the tiger was harmless, as it had never harmed Bunnyculla and Robbyculla.Therefore, human experience showed that such a conduct was quite contrary to the usually good nature of the animal and was entirely unforeseeable.
  2. Because tiger is an animal, which has been proved, from the experience of mankind to be dangerous.
  3. Because she had not provoked Shero Shayari into attacking her.
  4. Because adequate steps had been taken to keep Shero Shayari in chains, but the might of the animal rendered such chains useless.

Solutions: 

  1. A, 2 
  2. А, 3 
  3. B, 1
  4. B, 4

Question 7.

Principle 1: Courts do not take into account small and unimportant matters. 

Principle 2: An exception to the above principle is when there is an injury to legal right.

Facts:

A entered orchard of B, without the permission of B and climbed a mango tree situated there, but did not pluck any mangoes. He then went back to his home, B sued A, claiming damages.

Will B succeed?

Outcome:

  1. Yes, he will. 
  2. No, he will not.

Reasoning:

  1. Because there being no loss caused to B, the courts would be unable to grant any damages. 
  2. Because the actions of B showed intent to commit a theft.
  3. Because it was a trifling matter, of which the court will not take any account.
  4. Because there was an injury to the legal right of B as there was a trespass by A into his orchard.

Solutions: 

  1. A, 2 
  2. B, 1 
  3. A, 4 
  4. B, 3

Question 8.

Principle 1: If a person has voluntarily consented, expressly or impliedly, to infliction of some harm upon himself, he has no remedy for that in tort. 

Principle 2: Here knowledge does not imply consent.

Facts:

Rahul, a workman was working in a mine in Madhya Pradesh wherein metal scraps were being transported from one side to another side by use of crane. The crane passed over Rahul’s head each time it was engaged in an operation. In one such movement, some heavy metal scraps fell upon the head of Rahul, by which he received severe injuries. The employer had not warned him at the moment the injury took place, but Rahul was aware of the fact that the operation of transporting metal scraps took place in the mine. Rahul sued the employer.

Will A succeed?

Outcome:

  1. Yes, he will. 
  2. No, he will not.

Reasoning:

  1. Because he impliedly consented to infliction of such harm. 
  2. Because he merely had the knowledge of the risk, without any assumption of it.
  3. Because it was only an accident and the crane Was Working properly, and the employer was not liable as he only had control over the crane.
  4. Because the employer should have made the operations as little as dangerous as possible. 

Solutions:

  1. A, 4 
  2. B, 3 
  3. B, 1 
  4. A, 2

Question 9.

Principle: Mistake of fact is of no defence to an action in tort.

Facts:

Parel visited a shop, where mobile phones are sold as well as repaired, to get his mobile phone repaired, He kept the phone on a table, where he saw another phone of the same model was kept. Paresh, the owner of the shop, was attending to Parel’s problem and was also selling the other phone to a customer. However, by mistake, he gave Parel’s phone to the customer. Later that evening, Parel, who was waiting for a call for a business deal, could not receive any call. As a result, the parties contacted some other businessman and entered into a contract with him, Parel suffered huge losses, as a result. He sued Paresh. 

Will Parel be successful?

Outcome:

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

Reasoning:

  1. Because even if Paresh had mistaken the facts, he was liable for injury caused to Parel.
  2. Because Paresh did not owe a duty of care to Parel, who had visited the shop on its own and Paresh had not invited him.
  3. Because Paresh was liable for whatever wrongs that were committed in the shop, which belonged to him.
  4. Because Parel seeing that another phone of same model was placed at the table, should have been intelligent enough not to place the phone there.

Solutions:

  1. A, 1 
  2. B, 2 
  3. A, 3 
  4. A, 4

Question 10.

Principle: If a person uses reasonable force to protect one’s person, he will not be liable for harm caused thereby.

Facts: Anup, who had serious differences with Raju and who wanted to settle those differences by force, came to beat Raju, armed with a knife. However, Raju, being a much stronger man, disarmed Anup and hit him on his chin, when the latter tried to come again to beat Raju, Anup sued Raju, claiming damages.

Will Anup succeed in his claim?

Outcome:

  1. Yes, he will.
  2.  No, he will not.

Reasoning:

  1. Because Raju used excessive force, which was not reasonable.
  2. Because whatever the provocation, Raju should not have hit him.
  3. Because once he had come there with ill intentions, he should have been ready to accept any damage done to him in the course of the fight.
  4. Because Raju had used reasonable force in self defence, which had caused damage to Anup.

Solutions:

  1. A, 2 
  2. A, 1 
  3. B, 3 
  4. B, 4

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here