होम › Legal Reasoning and Legal Aptitude › Legal Reasoning and Legal Aptitude - Principle-Fact Reasoning

Legal Reasoning and Legal Aptitude - Principle-Fact Reasoning — Legal Reasoning and Legal Aptitude Questions & Practice

13 Legal Reasoning and Legal Aptitude - Principle-Fact Reasoning questions from Legal Reasoning and Legal Aptitude for competitive exams such as UPSC, Banking, SSC and Railway. Read the worked questions below, check every answer with an explanation, and track what you get wrong. का अभ्यास करें

इस टॉपिक का अभ्यास करें

13 questions · 0 quizzes · free to start

Legal Reasoning and Legal Aptitude - Principle-Fact Reasoning पर अभ्यास प्रश्न — उत्तर सहित

Try each question first, then open the answer. Explanations are included.

1. Which set of facts and the applicable principle leads to the following conclusion: 'The organizers are not liable, as the spectator voluntarily accepted the inherent risk of attending the match'?

APrinciple: An invitation to treat is not itself an offer but an indication of willingness to negotiate. Facts: A shopkeeper displays goods in a shop window with price tags attached.
BPrinciple: Volenti non fit injuria means a person who voluntarily consents to a risk cannot claim damages for injury resulting from that risk. Facts: A spectator at a cricket match is injured by a ball hit into the stands and sues the organizers for damages.
CPrinciple: Consideration must move from the promisee for a contract to be enforceable, but it need not necessarily move to the promisor. Facts: A promises to pay B's tailor on behalf of B, in return for B agreeing to render some service to A.
DPrinciple: A person cannot claim self-defence if they were the initial aggressor in an altercation, unless they clearly withdrew from the conflict. Facts: A initiates a physical fight with B, and when B fights back, A claims he acted in self-defence.

उत्तर दिखाएँ

उत्तर: B

This corresponds to 'Principle: Volenti non fit injuria means a person who voluntarily consents to a risk cannot claim damages for injury resulting from that risk. Facts: A spectator at a cricket match is injured by a ball hit into the stands and sues the organizers for damages.'.

2. Which set of facts and the applicable principle leads to the following conclusion: 'This does not constitute theft, since the wallet was not taken out of anyone's possession'?

APrinciple: A person is entitled to use reasonable force in private defence, but the force used must be proportionate to the threat. Facts: A, seeing a child playfully trying to pluck a flower from his garden, seriously assaults the child.
BPrinciple: A contract entered into by a minor is void ab initio. Facts: A 16-year-old boy sells his bicycle to a shopkeeper and receives payment, but later refuses to deliver the bicycle.
CPrinciple: A person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly take movable property out of the possession of another without consent. Facts: A finds a wallet lying on the road and decides to keep it instead of trying to locate the owner.
DPrinciple: A person who makes a statement recklessly, without caring whether it is true or false, can be held liable for fraud if it induces another to act to their detriment. Facts: A, without checking any facts, recklessly tells B that a piece of land is free from any legal disputes, inducing B to purchase it, though the land is actually under litigation.

उत्तर दिखाएँ

उत्तर: C

This corresponds to 'Principle: A person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly take movable property out of the possession of another without consent. Facts: A finds a wallet lying on the road and decides to keep it instead of trying to locate the owner.'.

3. Which set of facts and the applicable principle leads to the following conclusion: 'A has committed the tort of assault, as B was made to fear immediate unlawful force'?

APrinciple: A person who publishes defamatory content on social media can be held liable for defamation, similar to traditional print media. Facts: A posts a false and damaging statement about B on a social media platform, which is viewed by thousands of people.
BPrinciple: A person who intentionally causes another to fear immediate unlawful force commits the tort of assault. Facts: A raises his fist at B in a threatening manner during an argument but does not actually strike him.
CPrinciple: A contract entered into by a minor is void ab initio. Facts: A 16-year-old boy sells his bicycle to a shopkeeper and receives payment, but later refuses to deliver the bicycle.
DPrinciple: Consideration must move from the promisee for a contract to be enforceable, but it need not necessarily move to the promisor. Facts: A promises to pay B's tailor on behalf of B, in return for B agreeing to render some service to A.

उत्तर दिखाएँ

उत्तर: B

This corresponds to 'Principle: A person who intentionally causes another to fear immediate unlawful force commits the tort of assault. Facts: A raises his fist at B in a threatening manner during an argument but does not actually strike him.'.

4. Principle: Res ipsa loquitur allows negligence to be inferred when the cause of an accident is within the exclusive control of the defendant and would not normally occur without negligence. Facts: A barrel of flour falls from the upper window of a warehouse and injures a passerby, with no direct evidence of how it fell. What is the most appropriate conclusion?

AThe agreement is void, as its object is unlawful
BThis is valid consideration since something of value was exchanged, even though it moved to a third party
CA cannot use voluntary intoxication as a defence, as the assault only requires general intent
DNegligence can be inferred against the warehouse owner under res ipsa loquitur

उत्तर दिखाएँ

उत्तर: D

'Principle: Res ipsa loquitur allows negligence to be inferred when the cause of an accident is within the exclusive control of the defendant and would not normally occur without negligence. Facts: A barrel of flour falls from the upper window of a warehouse and injures a passerby, with no direct evidence of how it fell.' relates to: Negligence can be inferred against the warehouse owner under res ipsa loquitur

5. Principle: Res ipsa loquitur allows negligence to be inferred when the cause of an accident is within the exclusive control of the defendant and would not normally occur without negligence. Facts: A barrel of flour falls from the upper window of a warehouse and injures a passerby, with no direct evidence of how it fell. Based on the principle and facts given, which of the following is correct?

AA can be held liable for defamation, as the principle applies equally to statements published on social media
BNegligence can be inferred against the warehouse owner under res ipsa loquitur
CA cannot use voluntary intoxication as a defence, as the assault only requires general intent
DThis does not constitute theft, since the wallet was not taken out of anyone's possession

उत्तर दिखाएँ

उत्तर: B

Legal Reasoning and Legal Aptitude - Principle-Fact Reasoning और प्रश्न हल करें

और Legal Reasoning and Legal Aptitude टॉपिक