CBSE Questions for Class 11 Commerce Legal Studies Classification Of Law Quiz 3 - MCQExams.com

'No fault liability' means ______________.
  • liability for damage caused through negligence
  • liability for damage caused through fault
  • absolute liability even without any negligence or fault
  • freedom from liability
'Acquisition' means _____________.
  • permanent transfer of the title of the property
  • supervision of property
  • taking control of property temporarily
  • taking possession permanently
All contracts are agreements. All agreements are accepted offers. Which of the following derivation is correct?
  • All accepted offers are contracts.
  • All agreements are contracts.
  • All contracts are accepted offers.
  • None of the above.
"lgnorantia juris non exusat " means ________.
  • Ignorance of the law is no excuse
  • Ignorance of the judge is the misfortune of the innocent
  • Ignorance of fact is no excuse in law
  • To be ignorant of law is gross neglect of it
All motor vehicles are required to have third party insurance. Any vehicle not using mechanical device is not a motor vehicle.
Which of the following is correct derivation from the above?
  • All Third Party Insurance relate to motor vehicles.
  • Vehicles not using mechanical device need not have Third Party Insurance.
  • All vehicles must have Third Party Insurance.
  • None of the above.
This section consists of fifty $$(50)$$ questions. Each question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principles') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principles may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principles except the principles that are given here in below for every question. Further you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the "most reasonable conclusion" arrived at may be unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the objective of this section to test your knowledge of law.
Principle: Mere silence as unfairly, hurts B, A commits no offence decision of a person to enter into a contract does not amount of fraud, unless his silence is in itself equivalent to speech.
Facts: A sells to B a horse which A knows to be of unsound mind. B says to A that if A does not say anything about the state of mind of horse, then B shells presume that the horse is of sound mind. A says nothing to B about the mental condition of horse.
  • A has committed fraud
  • A has committed misrepresentation
  • There cannot be a fraud because A says nothing about the mental condition of the horse
  • There cannot be a fraud because B did not ask A whether the horse is of sound mind
Legal Principle: A minor is not competent to enter into a contract and the law will assume that the contract never happened and everything will be restored to its original position.

Factual Situation: A minor fraudulently misrepresenting her age enters into a contract with another for the purchase of a piano. After the piano has been delivered, she refused to pay the price for the same contending non-existence of a legally binding contract.
  • The contract is valid and binding against the minor as the minor has misrepresented her age knowingly.
  • The contract is voidable at the option of the other party and thus the minor is liable to pay if the other party wants to carry out the obligation.
  • The contract is void ab initio and the court can direct the minor to restore the piano to the other party.
  • The contract is valid and the guardian of the minor will be liable to pay for the piano.
Which of the following is NOT a condition for becoming a citizen of India?
  • Citizenship by birth.
  • Citizenship by descent.
  • Citizenship by acquiring property.
  • Citizenship by naturalization.
Principle : A person, who is usually of unsound mind, but occasionally normal, may make a contract when he is not of unsound mind.
Facts : 'A' generally remains in the state of unsound mind and rarely becomes capable of understanding the things.
  • 'A' can make contract at any time whenever he pleases.
  • 'A' can make contract only for his own benefit.
  • 'A' can make contract when normal.
  • 'A' can never make a contract.
Legal Principle:
i) Joint tort-feasors means joint wrong doers. People can be joint feasors in case of common action, in fact or in law.
ii) Joint tort-feasors are jointly and severally liable.

Factual Situations: Two dogs belonging to two different owners acting in concert attacked a flock of sheep and injured several sheeps. In an action  for damages brought against the owners of the dogs, if one of them puts a defence claiming that he was liable for one half only of the damage, then which one of the following statements is legally sustainable in the above case?
  • Neither of the owners is liable for damages done by his dog.
  • Each owner was responsible for one half of the damage.
  • The owners themselves are not joint tort-feasors.
  • None of the above.
Legal Principle: Master / Principal is vicariously liable for the tort committed by an servant / agent, in the performance of his duties as an servant / agent.

Factual Situation: The Plaintiff, a bullion merchant was arrested by the police on a charge of purchasing stolen goods. Some of the gold and silver ornaments were seized from the plaintiff and were kept in the police station custody. They duty constable appropriated the gold ornaments and escaped to a foreign country. The plaintiff after being acquitted brought an action against the State for the compensation. In this case, compensation is ________________.
  • payable as there is misappropriation by the servants of the state
  • payable due to the fact that police constable has escaped to a foreign country
  • payable by the police constable himself and not by the State
  • not payable as the act was committed in discharge of duties
Consists of legal proposition(s) principle(s) (herein after referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principle may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this Section. In other words, in answering these questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles those are given herein below for every question.
Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to testy your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the objective of this section to test your knowledge of law.
Therefore, to answer a question, principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option.
Principle: A violation of a legal right of someone, whether results in a legal injury or not, gives rise to an action in tort for compensation. At the same time, an action by someone, which results in some loss or damage to somebody else is not actionable, if there is no violation of a right of that somebody.
Facts: $$AB$$ Coaching Centre was a popular CLAT coaching academy with several good trainers. A lot of aspirants used to attend its coaching classes from all over and was making good profit. This was going on for the past several years. During a session, T, one of the very good and popular trainer of $$ABCC$$, has some difference of opinion with the owner of $$ABCC$$ and left the coaching centre. In August $$2016$$, T started another Entrance Coaching Centre closer to $$ABCC$$ which resulted in a substantial drop in its students and huge financial loss. The owner of $$ABCC$$ wants to file a case against T for the loss sustained by $$ABCC$$. What do you think is the right legal position?
  • T will be liable to compensate the loss to $$ABCC$$
  • T has not violated any of $$ABCC's$$ legal right though they sustained some financial loss, and not legally bound to compensate $$ABCC$$
  • 'T' should have consulted $$ABCC$$ before starting his coaching centre
  • T started the new coaching centre near $$ABCC$$ intentionally, and shall be liable to compensate the loss of $$ABCC$$
Rule A: A person is an employee of another if the mode and the manner in which he or she carries out his work is subject to control and supervision of the latter.
Rule B: An employer is required to provide compensation to his or her employees for any injury caused by an accident arising in the course of employment. The words ' in the course of employment' means in the course of the work which the employee is contracted to do and which is incidental to it.
Case: Messrs Zafar Abidi & Co. manufactures bidis with the help of persons known as 'pattadars'. The pattadars are supplied tobacco and leaves by the company and they are required toroll them into bidis and bring the bidis back to the company. The pattadars are free to roll the bidis either in the factory or anywhere else they prefer. They are not bound to attend the factory for any fixed hours of work or for nay fixed number of days. Neither are they required to roll up any fixed number of bidis. The company verifies whether the bidis adhere to the specified instructions or not and pays the pattadars on the basis of the number of bidis that are found to be the right quality. Aashish Mathew is one of the pattadars of the company. He was hit by a car just outside the precinct of the factory while he was heading to have lunch in a nearby food stall. Aashish Mathew has applied for compensation from the company.

Question: Which of the following statements can most plausibly be inferred from the application of the rules to the given facts?
  • Aashish Mathew is an employee of the company because the latter exercises control over the manner in which Aashish Mathew carries out his work.
  • Aashish Mathew is not an employee but an independent contractor as he does not have a fixed salary.
  • Aashish Mathew is an employee because company exercises control over the final quality of the bidis.
  • Verification of the quality of bidis amounts to control over the product and not control over the mode and method of work and therefore, Aashish Mathew is not an employee of the company.
Principle: A contract procured by coercion is bad under Indian Contract Act. Coercion is defined as committing or threatening to commit any act forbidden by Indian Penal Code. Attempt to commit suicide is an offence under Indian Penal Code.

Facts:  A wanted his wife B to part away with some property given to her by her father. B resisted fearing that her husband would squander it way. A threatened her that if she does not sign the deed transferring the property to him(i.e., A) he would commit suicide. B signed the deed. Subsequently, she challenged the deed on the ground that the deed was bad under law.
  • The deed is valid under the law.
  • The transfer of property is complete once the deed is entered between the owner of the property and the buyer.
  • The deed is not valid as it was signed under the threat of suicide by her husband which amounts to coercion and vitiates the contract.
  • Husband has a right over the property of the wife that was voluntarily transferred to the buyer.
Judges for the International Court of Jutice is elected for _________years.
  • 5
  • 10
  • 9
  • 6
A person dying intestate means he __________________.
  • died without legal heirs
  • died without making a will
  • died without any property
  • died without a son
A formal instrument by which one person empowers another to represent him is known as ________________.
  • affidavit
  • power of attorney
  • will
  • declaration
Which of the following is a sanction in international law?
  • Sanctions by states.
  • Collective sanctions by international organizations.
  • Public opinion.
  • All of the above
No action for defamation lies in case of _________________.
  • absolute privileges
  • qualified privileges
  • both (a) and (b)
  • neither (a) nor (b)
A friend has posted certain defamatory remarks about you on Facebook. You can sue the friend for ______________.
  • libel
  • slander
  • innuendo
  • you cannot sue
Legal Principle: Any direct physical interference with goods in somebody's possession without lawful justification is called trespass of goods.

Facts: 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.
  • X can be held responsible for trespass of goods.
  • X cannot be held responsible.
  • X has not committed anything wrong.
  • None of the above
Vicarious liability does not mean ___________________.
  • master is liable for the wrongs of the servant
  • master is not liable for the acts of the servant.
  • master is liable only for the lawful acts of the servant
  • master is liable for the acts of the servant in this course of his employment
The right of party to initiate an action and be heard before a court of law is called _______________.
  • right in rem
  • right in personam
  • fundamental right
  • locus standi
A man's reputation is his property, and if possible, more valuable, than other property. It was so observed in ___________________.
  • Monson vs. Tunsands Ltd.
  • Dixon vs. Holden
  • Youssoupoff vs. M. G. M. Pictures Ltd.
  • Austic vs. Dowling
Legal Principle: A man would be responsible for all direct consequences of his act, in so far as he could reasonably foresee them as arising from his act.

Factual Situation: A ship carrying petroleum was moving on the high sea. On a short halt in a port, the master of the ship engaged some stevedores to load some metallic planks onto the ship. While loading the planks, a plank slipped from the hands of a stevedore and the spark, emitted thereby, ignited petroleum vapour and caused considerable damage to the goods. The owner of the goods filed a suit against the master of the ship.

Choose the correct option.
  • The master of the ship is not liable, because he was not responsible for the act of the stevedore.
  • The master of this ship is liable, because he is responsible for the acts of the stevedore since he engaged them.
  • The master is liable, because he should have foreseen the consequences of the stevedore's act.
  • None of the above.
A.Discharge of contract1.The termination of contractual of obligation
B.Duress2.Pressure/undue influence
C.Embargo3.The detention of ships in a port a type of reprisal
  • A-3, B-2, C-1
  • A-1, B-2, C-3
  • A-3, B-1, C-2
  • A-2, B-1, C-3
A.Embezzlement
 1.Criminal misappropriation of public property
B.Ex gratia
 2.Done as a matter of favour
C.Ex officio
 3.By virtue of holding an office
  • A-3, B-2, C-1
  • A-2, B-1, C-3
  • A-1, B-2, C-3
  • A-2, B-3, C-1
A.Bigamy1.Second marriage when, first marriage is still subsisting
B.Capacity to contract2.Competence to enter into a legal contract
C.Capital punishment3.Death punishment
  • A-3, B-2, C-1
  • A-1, B-2, C-3
  • A-3, B-1, C-2
  • A-1, B-3, C-2
A.Genocide       1.Massive killing
B.Hijacking2.Seizing an aircraft
C.Homicide3.Killing of human beings
  • A-3, B-2, C-1
  • A-1, B-2, C-3
  • A-3, B-1, C-2
  • A-2, B-1, C-3
What makes a contract void?
  • Consideration
  • Offer
  • Mistake
  • Contract with a minor
0:0:1


Answered Not Answered Not Visited Correct : 0 Incorrect : 0

Practice Class 11 Commerce Legal Studies Quiz Questions and Answers