CLAT Legal Reasoning & Aptitude 4 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Principle: An agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void. Fact: Arun agrees to pay Bina ₹1 lakh if she can fly without any mechanical aid within a week. Bina trains hard and fails. Can she sue Arun?
- Yes, because she performed her part by trying
- No, because the agreement was void for physical impossibility (Correct answer)
- Yes, because the promise was made voluntarily by Arun
- No, because there was no consideration from Bina's side
Correct answer: No, because the agreement was void for physical impossibility
An agreement whose subject matter is physically impossible at formation is void under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, so Bina has no enforceable claim.
Question 2: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability when:
- A defendant negligently allows a dangerous thing to escape and cause harm
- A defendant brings onto land a non-natural thing likely to do mischief if it escapes, and it escapes (Correct answer)
- A defendant intentionally releases a substance that harms neighbors
- An employer fails to maintain safe working conditions
Correct answer: A defendant brings onto land a non-natural thing likely to do mischief if it escapes, and it escapes
Rylands v Fletcher established strict liability for non-natural use of land where a dangerous thing escapes and causes foreseeable damage, regardless of negligence.
Question 3: Principle: A minor's agreement is void ab initio. Fact: 15-year-old Priya represents herself as an adult and obtains a laptop on credit from a shopkeeper who reasonably believed her. The shopkeeper sues for payment.
- Priya must pay because she misrepresented her age
- The shopkeeper cannot recover payment as a minor's contract is void (Correct answer)
- Priya's parents are liable for the debt
- Priya must return the laptop but owes no money
Correct answer: The shopkeeper cannot recover payment as a minor's contract is void
Since a minor's contract is void ab initio in India, the shopkeeper cannot enforce it for payment even when the minor misrepresented her age (Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose).
Question 4: Which of the following scenarios involves the tort of 'conversion'?
- A neighbor enters your land without permission to retrieve a ball
- A borrower sells a friend's car that was lent to them for a week (Correct answer)
- A factory emits fumes that spoil a neighbor's crops
- A landlord enters a tenant's flat without notice
Correct answer: A borrower sells a friend's car that was lent to them for a week
Conversion is an intentional dealing with another's chattel inconsistent with their right, such as selling property one does not own.
Question 5: Under the Indian Evidence Act, a 'dying declaration' is admissible because:
- The declarant has no motive to lie when facing imminent death (Correct answer)
- It is corroborated by the police report filed at the scene
- The accused had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant
- It is recorded by a magistrate and attested by two witnesses
Correct answer: The declarant has no motive to lie when facing imminent death
The admissibility of dying declarations rests on the presumption that a person facing death has no reason to make a false statement.
Question 6: Principle: Every person has the right to sue for trespass to his person, even without proof of actual damage. Fact: Security guard Vikram intentionally pushes journalist Leena to prevent her from entering a public building. Leena suffers no physical injury. Can she sue?
- No, because she suffered no physical harm
- Yes, because battery is actionable per se without proof of damage (Correct answer)
- No, because Vikram was performing his security duties
- Yes, but only for nominal damages equal to one rupee
Correct answer: Yes, because battery is actionable per se without proof of damage
Trespass to person (battery) is actionable per se — the intentional, unlawful contact itself gives rise to a cause of action regardless of injury.
Question 7: The principle of 'audi alteram partem' (hear the other side) is a rule of:
- Natural justice requiring that a party be given a fair hearing before an adverse decision (Correct answer)
- Statutory interpretation requiring courts to read both sides of a provision
- Criminal procedure requiring the accused to make a confessional statement
- Evidence law requiring each witness to testify twice
Correct answer: Natural justice requiring that a party be given a fair hearing before an adverse decision
Audi alteram partem is a foundational principle of natural justice ensuring no one is condemned unheard before an adverse order.
CLAT Legal Reasoning & Aptitude 4
Principle: An agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void.
Fact: Arun agrees to pay Bina ₹1 lakh if she can fly without any mechanical aid within a week.
Bina trains hard and fails.
Can she sue Arun?