Law Entrance - Legal Reasoning & Aptitude

Substantive Law, Legal Principles & Maxims question bank (Constitutional Law, Torts & Criminal Jurisprudence)

Practice 659 free Law Entrance - Legal Reasoning & Aptitude Constitutional Law, Torts & Criminal Jurisprudence - Substantive Law, Legal Principles & Maxims questions with answers and step-by-step solutions.

Q1.

Criminal Law (BNS / IPC): In 'Law of Torts: Negligence, Duty of Care, Volenti Non Fit Injuria and Strict/Absolute Liability':
Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence, provided the harm inflicted is not disproportionate to the apprehension caused.
Facts: An unarmed thief snatches a purse and runs away. The owner draws a licensed firearm and shoots the thief in the back from 40 yards, causing death. Can the owner claim the right of private defence of property?

(A)

No, because shooting a fleeing thief in the back exceeds the legitimate scope of private defence and uses disproportionate lethal force (Law of Torts: Negligence, Duty of Care, Volenti Non Fit Injuria and Strict/Absolute Liability)

(B)

Yes, because private defence of property extends to killing any thief

(C)

Yes, because the firearm was legally licensed

(D)

No, because private defence does not apply to theft at all

Show answer & solution
Verified Answer & Solution Locked
Sign in to your free student account to reveal verified answers, instant hints, and detailed explanations.
Sign in to view
Q2.

Law of Contracts: In 'Law of Torts: Negligence, Duty of Care, Volenti Non Fit Injuria and Strict/Absolute Liability':
Principle: An agreement without consideration is void, unless it is expressed in writing and registered, made on account of natural love and affection between parties standing in near relation to each other.
Facts: An uncle verbally promises his nephew Rs. 5,00,000 if he passes CLAT in the top 100 ranks. The nephew succeeds, but the uncle refuses to pay. Can the nephew enforce the verbal promise in court?

(A)

No, because the verbal promise lacks valid consideration and was not registered in writing as required for gifts (Law of Torts: Negligence, Duty of Care, Volenti Non Fit Injuria and Strict/Absolute Liability)

(B)

Yes, because clearing CLAT constitutes adequate valuable consideration

(C)

Yes, because verbal agreements between relatives are unconditionally binding

(D)

No, because academic entrance agreements are illegal contracts

Show answer & solution
Verified Answer & Solution Locked
Sign in to your free student account to reveal verified answers, instant hints, and detailed explanations.
Sign in to view
Protected Questions

Unlock All 274 Questions in Substantive Law, Legal Principles & Maxims

Log in or sign up free to access every question with complete solutions, create chapter practice tests, and track your performance.

Sign up free to access all 274 questions

Unlock every Substantive Law, Legal Principles & Maxims question, generate papers, and practice at your own pace.