Blog
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF CLAT 2017 LEGAL QUESTIONS
No Comments
Please note – Zero errors in the legal section.
| Q. No. | Answer
|
Explanation
|
| (1) | B | This was an extremely straightforward question. The only people who might have possibly got the question wrong are the people who refused to read the principle and read only the word “assault” and drew their own conclusions. The principle clearly states that assault is actual causing “bodily injury” to another, which has absolutely not happened here. [Remember how many times your faculty told you to “READ THE PRINCIPLE”?]
|
| (2) | B | Once again, this was a pretty direct application of the principle provided. There is clear illegal use of public funds and further this amounts to embezzlement under the given principle because the property was lawfully entrusted to X as well.
|
| (3) | B | Now, this was a question where it was probably safest to go for the elimination method. Option A is simply meaningless because it talks of what “should” have been done. There is no guardian appointed, therefore, option C is out of play. Option D is also rejected because the principle clearly states that the knowledge of minority is irrelevant. The only reasonable option therefore, is option B. Option B is also on the lines of the last line of the principle where the minor can anyway bind the other party.
|
| (4) | B | A serious ailment was obviously a fact that is essential for the procurement of consent of a life insurance contract. This fact was concealed actively knowing it to be true. Therefore, all the conditions set out in the principle for fraud are satisfied. Therefore, clearly option B. We hope you did not get this wrong!
|
| (5) | C | The principle clearly states that the act must be “any act done in contemplation or in furtherance of a trade dispute”. The loan by Solomon was clearly for personal use since it was for the education of his daughter. Therefore, the bank can recover the money. Easy question!!
|
| (6) | C | Now, we hope that nobody read “undue influence” and therefore presumed that the facts look like coercion and hence there is no liability. That would exactly be the wrong conclusion. The facts clearly indicate a threat of use of force and actual use of force as well. This indicates that undue influence was being exercised.
|
| (7) | A | There is a clear lack of clarity on what “contemporary style” would mean to either party. The term “present style” as referred to in option A is obviously missing from the facts, but it means pretty much the same as “contemporary style” anyway and hence A is the best option.
|
| (8) | A | The principle clearly refers to the fact that there must be specific consent for the act that has been performed. In this case, there is no consent for the removal of the gall bladder, hence liability exists.
|
| (9) | C | Since the dog had already stopped barking and had started walking with the owner, there was no question of any imminent threat in this case. Therefore, there was no right of private defence as well.
|
| (10) | A | Statement 1 – This is not a contract since there is no acceptance.
Statement 2 – This is not a contract since there is neither offer nor acceptance. Statement 3 – This is not a contract since there is no acceptance. Statement 4 – This is valid contract since all conditions are satisfied.
|
| (11) | A | Direct application of the principle of damnun sine injuria. This is directly based on the rule laid down in the Gloucester Grammar School Case.
|
| (12) | A | Extremely tricky question! The last phrase of the question clearly states that the act described is “NO OFFENCE”. If the candidate missed reading the last line and assumed that this is basically the principle for kidnapping then the answer would go horribly wrong! [Once again! Remember how many times your faculty told you to “READ THE PRINCIPLE”?]
|
| (13) | D | The principle clearly states that “The finder of the goods legally can sell the goods found by him under certain circumstances including the situation that the owner refuses to pay the lawful charges of the finder.” Here P was merely asking for exactly asking for such charges that have been incurred and therefore, P is absolutely justified.
|
| (14) | D | The acceptance was a modified acceptance from B since there was a change in the price. The acceptance was therefore not absolute and unqualified. Therefore, B will not get any damages.
|
| (15) | D | Slightly tricky question. Doctors are generally presumed to be in a position to dominate the will of the patient. However, in this case this was a treatment for mere “fever” and not even pneumonia! Therefore, the doctor in this particular case cannot be presumed to be in a dominant position.
|
| (16) | B | This is essentially in furtherance of the idea of audi alterem partem. The dismissal purely on the ground of the complaint meant that there was no opportunity given to the male employee to be heard. This is directly in violation of the principle of natural justice.
|
| (17) | C | This is essentially the idea of why “State” has been defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 1950. AB Chemical Company is obviously not state for the purpose of Article 12 and hence the writ petition shall not survive in the High Court.
|
| (18) | C | This is difficult once again! What candidates had to keep in mind is that “transfer” does not necessarily mean physical movement of property. If the car was merely in the “care” of A that in fact means that the transfer is already complete and B has kept the car in the care of A. Basically “legal transfer” is complete even if “physical transfer” is not complete.
|
| (19) | A | This is directly trespass since there was an interference with the possession of property without the prior consent of the person.
|
| (20) | D | Specific knowledge of the offer is neither referred to in the principle nor in any of the options. Therefore, we hope that none of you applied your own mind a little too much and screwed up the answer. Option D is directly on point.
|
| (21) | B | Arbitration is directly covered by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This is also a legally recognised means for legal proceedings in an arbitral “tribunal”.
|
| (22) | A | The additions were made in the handwriting of the author implying that there was no intention to deceive.
|
| (23) | A | There was common intention to commit burglary, however, there was no common intention to commit rape and therefore, Sanju will be liable.
|
| (24) | D | The promise under the contract was for the repair of the car engine. Therefore, the bursting of the tyre cannot be treated as a breach of the contract.
|
| (25) | A | Intention to defraud cannot be established since B has not actually withdrawn any money but has simply procured the information in relation to the total balance.
|
| (26) | A | For the purpose of establishing that there is loss of reputation in the estimation of other people, the defamatory statement must be published. There has been no publication in this case since the letter has been sent in a sealed envelope to B.
|
| (27) | B | Carnal intercourse with an “animal” is not covered under the principle and therefore, there is no liability for rape.
|
| (28) | B | This is obviously a clear case for negligence since the doctor has a duty of care not to leave cotton swabs inside the body of the patient!
|
| (29) | C | The right to private defence exists even against insane persons. There is no limitation as such as long as there continues to be a threat.
|
| (30) | B | At the first stage the Company is directly liable for the fraudulent activity since it was done in the course of employment. Further, even after the dismissal, the Company is liable since this is a direct application of the principle of Ostensible Authority. This basically implies that it was the duty of the Company to inform the relevant consumers about the dismissal.
|
| (31) | B | Returning from a specified task to the office is also within the course of employment. Please read the concept of “notional extension”, which is directly applicable in this case.
|
| (32) | B | The grant of half day leave is a dispute in relation to the “terms of the employment” and therefore, it shall be directly covered under Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
|
| (33) | B | An employment in public service obviously cannot be legitimately procured for the consideration of money. This payment would essentially entail bribery which is directly against the public policy of India as well as illegal.
|
| (34) | D | The provision for safe storage of smuggled goods is directly illegal and therefore, P’s stand is valid.
|
| (35) | D | The addition of the signature meant that there was a clear case for forgery.
|
| (36) | C | Pari Passu is a Latin phrase meaning “equal footing” that describes situations where two or more assets, securities, creditors or obligations are equally managed without any display of preference. This is also a popular term used in moot court problems in law schools since there is usually a hypothetical country and then the laws are made pari passu to India so that students can research.
|
| (37) | B | Another latin phrase which is on the lines of “malafide” and “malicious”.
|
| (38) | C | “Jus” essentially means “Law”. “Gentium:” is derived from Roman origins and basically Jus Gentium means International Law or Law among nations.
|
| (39) | C | Lex means Law. “Lex Loci” or “Lex Fori” are both used for describing the law of the place or forum. Generally used in the context of determining the applicable law in arbitral proceedings.
|
| (40) | C | “Turpis” means “Corrupt” and “Arbiter” may include “Judge”.
|
| (41) | A | “Punctum” means any point in time. “Temporis” means “Time”.
|
| (42) | B | Where the title of the goods is basically vacant. i.e. without owner.
|
| (43) | A | Very popular term which is used to signify that a matter is sub judice. Generally, during the pendency of a suit, there shall not be any interference from other agencies.
|
| (44) | A | Where the court has generally passed an order without applying either (a) the applicable binding precedent; or (b) the applicable binding legislation.
|
| (45) | D | “Derilicto” is the original word for the dereliction of duty. “Pari” as discussed above as well is basically in relation to equality. Therefore, In Pari Derilicto means where both parties are equally at fault.
|
| (46) | A | The opposite is Caveat Emptor where the buyer is supposed to be aware. This was a pretty guessable answer since venditor would basically imply “vendor”.
|
| (47) | A | Faux Pas was by far the easiest of the entire legal knowledge section. The very popular term which refers to a careless mistake generally and hence option A seems like the best option.
|
| (48) | B | “Animus” means “intention”. “Possidendi” means “Possesssion”. Therefore, the confluence seems absolutely derivable.
|
| (49) | A | The key here was to know the first word “Autrefois”. Admittedly one of the tough ones.
|
| (50) | A | Sine Die is a very popular term used in these days of so many student movements in universities. Basically there is complete suspension of all activities until further notification.
|
