CLAT-2019 Legal Aptitude Section Answer key And Explanations
- June 4, 2019
- Posted by: admin
- Category: Exam Analysis
The legal aptitude section of CLAT 2019 was undeniably the easiest as compared to the previous year questions since it ruled out venturing out into uncharted waters. The questions asked were from already tried and tested areas of law. However, the principles were mind-bendingly worded to test one’s comprehending ability. A good grip over the concepts, and some patience were needed to score 100% in the section.
CLAT 2019 LEGAL APTITUDE ANSWERS WITH EXPLANATION-SET A
- Answer-B. As per the principle the acceptance of the proposal shall be the lateral inversion (mirror image) of the proposal. Here, B’s modification in the price of chair can be construed as the distortion of the proposal. Hence, there is no acceptance.
- Answer-D. Principle makes an agreement with a minor boy unenforceable. Now we can’t conclusively draw any inference whether or not there is a difference between the contractual standing of a minor boy and that of a minor girl.
- Answer-B. Principle says dealing in prohibited item is unenforceable. Therefore, no legal action is possible.
- Answer- D. Communication of proposal is complete only when it is brought to the cognizance of the person to whom it is made. Therefore, communication of proposal is complete when B reads the letter.
- Answer-A. Through conduct the intention of entering into the contract can be made out.
- Answer-A. Sale means transfer of legal rights attached to the property, it does not necessarily involve the transfer of possession.
- Answer-A. Although A rarely becomes mentally sound but whenever he is he can contract.
- Answer-A. Here the consent of B was extracted so he has discretion to get the contract enforced.
- Answer-B. Though a doc-patient relationship is a fiduciary one but every such instance does not smack of undue influence unless it is shown the patient’s decision has been dominated. Here, the patient could have gone elsewhere for the treatment if the treatment cost was not agreeable to him.
- Answer-B. Quitting smoking and drinking is of value in the eyes of law.
- Answer-B. Impossibility of performance rendered the agreement unenforceable.
- Answer-D. The contract for repair of engine does not include assessing and inspection of the entire car.
- Answer-B. B doesn’t qualify to be called as movable thing.
- Answer-A. The imminent threat emanating from C could have risked the life of both the rescuer and the one who was being rescued.
- Answer-C. Denying food amounted to an act of omission, and confinement amounted to an act of commission, and the acts together resulted in death.
- Answer- D. Right to private defense is a valid plea against the charge of murder.
- Answer- A. As per the principle A can be straightaway held guilty of the consequences of his act.
- Answer-B. Since the principle given here is the truncated version of Section 17 of ICA (which deals with ‘Silence amounting to Fraud’) therefore, in strict compliance with the given principle it is not a case of fraud.
- Answer-B. Obtaining Rs. 500 by fraud amounts to commission of cheating.
- Answer-A. Here the circulation of the pamphlet (publication) targeting S has lowered her reputation held in eyes of third person.
- Answer-A. As per the principle employer is liable for an injury caused to an employee in the course of the employment.
- Answer-B. In the given facts A has incurred no loss that is mandatory requirement as per the principle given.
- Answer-A. As per the principle in case a party to a contract has refused to perform, or disabled himself from performing his promise in its entirety, the other party shall not put an end to the contract. Therefore, when A retracted from his promise under the contract B should not have accepted the appointment under C.
- Answer- A. In this question as per the principle given legatee shall take the advantage of his wrongful act.
- Answer-C. An unborn child is different from a living person in eyes of law.
- Answer-A. The condition covenanted became impossible to perform.
- Answer-A. The condition covenanted was supposed to be complied with after the event.
- Answer-B. The condition covenanted was not complied with.
- Answer- A. A’s citizenship is an irrelevant fact.
- Answer- B. Mere presence at the scene of crime is not enough to prove culpability.
- Answer- A. since the judgment was obtained from US court by producing fake documents it was inconclusive, and therefore, a new suit can be filed in India on the same facts.
- Answer-B. The court that adjudicated lacked jurisdiction.
- Answer- C. Because the defendant B carried on business in Mumbai, and the cause of action arose in Gurgaon because the contract was concluded in Gurgaon.
- Answer- D. Because the defendant A carried on business at Haryana, and the cause of action arose in New Delhi because the contract was concluded in New Delhi.
- Answer- D. Because the court that gave the decision can transfer the matter to that court which has the territorial jurisdiction over the person or property.
- Answer- B. The act done by B was in good faith.
- Answer – A. Here the intoxication was bot without knowledge or against the will of the person.
- Answer – D. Here Y did have the recourse to protection of public authorities.
- Answer-A. There was an inducement as spelt out in the given principle.
- Answer – C. Burning crop residue on large farmlands adjoining a densely inhabited residential area amount to public nuisance as it causes common injury, danger or annoyance to public.
- Answer-C. Though road was lonely but was a public one.
- Answer- B. Electrified fencing is rash and negligent act.
153 Answer-A. Here the act of X was not without pre-meditation in a heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.
154-Answer-D. X should have known that his act would cause or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the person against who force is used.
155-Answer- D. Because X incited the dog to chase and run after his neighbour Y and thereby intentionally causing fear of injury or annoyance to Y which amounts to use of criminal force.
- Answer- C. Because only communication between the spouses without the consent of other can’t be placed as evidence in any court.
- Answer-B. Statement of X amounts to hearsay.
- Answer-A. The receipt of the contract does not fall within the ambit of terms of the contract.
- Answer- A. A delegation of duty involves employer-employee relationship. Also, here the delegation was independent of the contract for catering.
- Answer-A. For any liability arising out of an act committed by Y in the course of his employment with X, X being the employer can’t absolve his liability for the same.