Questions on Law of Torts for CLAT, AILET - Part-1
Posted on: 2019-01-04 Posted by: CLAT Gurukul Category: Legal Aptitude
1) "Principle: Damage without the violation of a legal right is not actionable in a court of law. If the interference with the lights of another person is not unlawful or unauthorised, but a necessary consequence of the exercise defendant's own lawful rights, no action should lie.
Facts: There was an established school ('ES') in a particular locality. Subsequently, a new school ('NS') was set up in the same locality, which charged lower fees, on account of which people started patronoising the new school. Because of the Competition 'ES' had to reduce its fees. 'ES' filed a case against 'NS' saying that 'NS' had caused it ('ES') financial loss and thus, claimed compensation.
Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?"
1. Since no legal right of 'ES' had ben violated, therefore, as such, no compensation could be granted.
2. Since damge is caused to 'ES' therefore, it should be awarded compensation.
3. ES' should be awarded compensation, as opening of school in competition is not good.
4. No compensation could be granted, as reduction in fees is good for the public.
2) "Principle: Whenever there is an invasion of a legal right, the person in whom the right is vested, is entitled to bring an action though he has suffered no actual loss or harm and may recover damgaes (compensation).
Facts: 'A' was a qualified voter for the Lok Sabha election. However, a returning officer wrongfully refused to take A's vote. Inspite of such wrongful refusal, the candidate, for whom 'A' wanted to vote, won the election. But, 'A' brought an action for damages.
1. Since, no legal right of 'A' had been violated, therefore, as such, no compensation could be granted.
2. Since legal right of 'A' had been violated, therefore, compensation should be granted.
3. No compensation could be granted, as 'A' had suffered no loss as his candidate won the election.
4. Since no fundamental right of 'A' had been violated, therefore, as such, no compensation could be granted.
3) "Principle: Damages are the money recompense, as far as money can do for the violation of a right.
Facts: A, an Indian citizen, having a right to vote, was not allowed to cast his vote on the polling booth, by the returning officer. Name of A was mentioned in the voters' list. A has also reported at the polling booth in time. However, the candidate in whose favour A would have cast his vote won the election. A filed a suit claiming damages."
1. A will be entitled to damages
2. A will not be entitled to damages
3. A will not be entitled to only nominal damages
4. A will be entitled to exemplary damages.
4) "Legal Principle: Injuria Sine Damnum i.e. Injury (violation of legal right) without damage.
Facts: X, who was returning offier at a polling booth in Amethi, wrongly refused to register a duly tendered vote of Y in the recent UP elections, even though Y was an eligible voter. The candidate in whose favour Y wanted to vote, was declared elected. Give the appropriate answer."
1. Y can sue X on the ground that he was denied the right to cast vote, which is a fundamental right.
2. Y can sue X on the ground that he was denied the right to cast vote, which is a legal right.
3. Y cannot sue X because there is not injury or damage caused to Y.
4. Y cannot sue X because the candidate in whose favour he wanted to vote was declared eleceted.
5) "Principle: Contractual liability is completely irrelevant to the existance of liability in tort (civil wrong).
Facts: X purchased a bottle of ginger-beer from a retailer. As she consumed more than 3/4 of the contents of the bottle, she found a decomposed remains of a snail in the bottle. After seeing the remains of a snail, she fell sick on the thought of what she consumed. She sued the manufacturer of the beer for negligence, though there is no contractual duty on the part of the manufacturer."
1. X cannot sue the manufacturer for negligence in the absence of a contract.
2. X cannot sue the retailer.
3. X can sue the manufacturer as he had duty to take care to see that bottles did not contain any other substance than the beer and hence liable to have broken that duty.
4. None of the above
Answers & Explanation:
1. A. Here the school ES is not having a monopoly right to run the school and that no one should open an institution in that locality.
2. B. Since, right to vote is a recognised legal right.
3. A. Simple case of injuria sine damnum.
4. B.Case of Injury without damage. As, a legal right has been infringement.
5. C. Since, even though the contract is not between the manufacturer and the consumer, there is a duty of manufacturer towards he consumer as the action of the former may affect the later.