CLAT Legal Reasoning & Aptitude 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A shopkeeper displays a watch with a price tag of $500. A customer says 'I accept your offer and will buy it.' The shopkeeper refuses to sell. Which legal principle applies?
- The shopkeeper has breached a valid contract
- A price display is an invitation to treat, not an offer (Correct answer)
- The customer's acceptance creates a binding contract
- The shopkeeper committed fraud by displaying the price
Correct answer: A price display is an invitation to treat, not an offer
Under contract law, a price display is an invitation to treat (Fisher v Bell), meaning the customer makes the offer which the seller may accept or reject.
Question 2: Principle: A person is not liable for an act done in good faith for another's benefit without their consent if the situation was an emergency. Fact: Dr. Ray performs surgery on an unconscious accident victim without consent. The patient later sues. What is the legal outcome?
- Dr. Ray is liable because he lacked consent
- Dr. Ray is not liable as the emergency exception applies (Correct answer)
- Dr. Ray is liable for battery regardless of motive
- Dr. Ray is not liable only if the patient survives
Correct answer: Dr. Ray is not liable as the emergency exception applies
The principle of necessity in emergency medical treatment protects Dr. Ray from liability when acting in good faith to save a life.
Question 3: Which of the following best describes the doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitur'?
- The thing speaks for itself, allowing negligence to be inferred from the event itself (Correct answer)
- A Latin maxim meaning a person is innocent until proven guilty
- The rule that prior bad acts may be used as evidence
- A doctrine holding employers strictly liable for employee torts
Correct answer: The thing speaks for itself, allowing negligence to be inferred from the event itself
Res ipsa loquitur ('the thing speaks for itself') allows negligence to be inferred when the event could not ordinarily occur without negligence.
Question 4: Principle: Ignorance of law is no excuse. Fact: Meena, a tribal woman, collects minor forest produce under a traditional practice, unaware that a new statute prohibits it. She is prosecuted. What is the legal position?
- Meena is excused because she genuinely did not know the law
- Meena can be prosecuted even though she was unaware of the statute (Correct answer)
- Meena is excused because tribal customs override statutes
- Meena is excused if she can prove she had no access to the gazette
Correct answer: Meena can be prosecuted even though she was unaware of the statute
Ignorantia juris non excusat — ignorance of the law is not a defense, so Meena remains liable despite her unawareness.
Question 5: A testator's will leaves all property to 'my eldest surviving son.' At the time of death, two sons are alive. How should this ambiguity be resolved under Indian Succession Act principles?
- The gift fails entirely due to ambiguity
- Extrinsic evidence may be admitted to identify the intended beneficiary (Correct answer)
- Both sons inherit equally by default
- The court selects the younger son as default beneficiary
Correct answer: Extrinsic evidence may be admitted to identify the intended beneficiary
Patent ambiguity in a will may be resolved by admitting extrinsic evidence to ascertain the testator's true intention.
Question 6: Principle: Every person has a right to defend themselves and their property against unlawful aggression, using proportionate force. Fact: Ramesh's hut is being attacked by thieves. He fires a warning shot which accidentally kills a bystander. Is Ramesh liable?
- Not liable, as private defense covers all consequences of defending property
- Liable, because the force used exceeded what was proportionate to protect property (Correct answer)
- Not liable, because the death was accidental
- Liable only if the bystander was not involved in the theft
Correct answer: Liable, because the force used exceeded what was proportionate to protect property
Deadly force is generally disproportionate when defending property alone; Ramesh's use of a firearm to protect a hut exceeds the proportionality requirement.
Question 7: Which of the following scenarios best illustrates the legal concept of 'promissory estoppel'?
- A creditor promises to accept half the debt and later sues for the full amount; the debtor relies on the promise to his detriment (Correct answer)
- A seller refuses to honor a displayed price after the customer tenders payment
- A party fulfills a pre-existing contractual duty and claims additional payment
- A minor enters a contract for necessaries which is enforced against him
Correct answer: A creditor promises to accept half the debt and later sues for the full amount; the debtor relies on the promise to his detriment
Promissory estoppel prevents a promisor from retracting a promise when the promisee has relied on it to their detriment.
CLAT Legal Reasoning & Aptitude 2
A shopkeeper displays a watch with a price tag of $500.
A customer says 'I accept your offer and will buy it.' The shopkeeper refuses to sell.
Which legal principle applies?