Legal Aptitude || Principal & Facts Quiz || 22.06.2020 for CLAT UG Exams

Question 1

Directions: The following question consists of legal principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as ‘principle‘) and facts. Such proposition 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. Principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e., (A), (B), (C), or (D) is the most reasonable conclusion. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that 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 test your ability in legal aptitude, 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.

Principle 1: Act of God is a complete defence in tort law.

Principle 2: Absolute liability has no defence.

Facts: XYZ ltd. is the most successful company in the flourishing Chemical Industry in India. It had always fulfilled all its corporate responsibilities and had organized various Environmental protection Programs, like tree plantation week, Save Water campaign etc. On the fateful night of 2nd December, 1984 a slight Earthquake came due to which a vast container present in the factory of XYZ ltd. that contained toxic chemical substances broke down and those chemicals submerged into the water of nearby River. Resultantly, the River Water and all the underground water became poisonous and hundreds of people lost their life. The Supreme Court of India took suo Motu Cognizance and sued the directors of XYZ ltd. for the payment of exemplary damages to the victim’s and their families.

The lawyer of the Company contended that the accident was beyond Human Control and was a result of the Earthquake which was an act of God, and no negligence on part of the company was present.

Decide:

Question 2

Directions: The following question consists of legal principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as ‘principle‘) and facts. Such proposition 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. Principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e., (A), (B), (C), or (D) is the most reasonable conclusion. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that 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 test your ability in legal aptitude, 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.

Principle 1: If the wife commits a tort, there would be an action against both husband and wife because the wife could not be sued alone. A husband is thus liable for the torts of his wife committed during the subsistence of their lawful marriage.

Principle 2: If a man marries again during the subsistence of his first lawful marriage, the second marriage is not a lawful marriage.

Facts: X, a man marries Y, a woman. Even after many years of their Marriage, when Y couldn't give him a 'male' child he felt disgusted and desired to marry again. He married Z. After their marriage, Z becomes pregnant and X expected a 'male' child. During her pregnancy while cleaning the grills in the Balcony she negligently dropped flower pots which fall on a passerby’s head and injured him. Later on Z gave birth to a baby 'girl'. The passerby sued X for recovery of damages, for the injury inflicted to him by Z’s negligence. Later, when Y got to know that her husband has a second marriage, with another woman, she in a sudden heat of passion killed Z’s new born girl child.

Decide.

Question 3

Directions: The following question consists of legal principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as ‘principle‘) and facts. Such proposition 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. Principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e., (A), (B), (C), or (D) is the most reasonable conclusion. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that 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 test your ability in legal aptitude, 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.

Principle: An easement cannot be transferred apart from the dominant heritage.

Facts: A has a Right of path over B’s land, due to A’s ownership on his land. ‘A’ decided to transfer the right to ‘C’.

Will A succeed?

Question 4

Directions: The following question consists of legal principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as ‘principle‘) and facts. Such proposition 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. Principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e., (A), (B), (C), or (D) is the most reasonable conclusion. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that 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 test your ability in legal aptitude, 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.

Principle: The state can’t prosecute a foreigner until his act is Proximate to its jurisdiction.

Facts: An Englishman and a German murdered a French National in Paris.

Which of the following conclusion is correct?

Question 5

Directions: The following question consists of legal principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as ‘principle‘) and facts. Such proposition 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. Principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e., (A), (B), (C), or (D) is the most reasonable conclusion. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that 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 test your ability in legal aptitude, 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.

Principle 1: Crimes against humanity are subject of international law.

Principle 2: Genocide is a crime against humanity.

Facts: Saddam Hussain was an autocratic leader of his country. He came to power by successfully leading a military coup against the constitutionally established democratic government. He overthrew the constitution of the country and executed the Prime Minister, President and all the Council of Ministers, and declared himself as the Dictator. During his rule, he conducted several acts of genocide across the county, leading to death toll of around 1 lakh people. The victims included not only the Iraqi citizens, but also many European and U.S nationals who went there for work trips.

Later, a youth, named Maximillian led a big revolt against Saddam’s inhumane and brutal ruleand restored the constitution and democratic government in the country. The country’s law courts came into force again, and Saddam was prosecuted of several charges in the Supreme Court of Iraq under the Iraqi Penal Code. The charges against him included Sedition, Murder and Genocide. The supreme court of Iraq awarded him death sentence. In consequence, Saddam went to the International Court of justice and pleaded that his prosecution under the National laws was in violation of International law.

Decide: