CLAT Legal Reasoning & Aptitude 5

Question 1

Principle: A contract of guarantee is a contract to perform the promise or discharge the liability of a third person in case of his default. Fact: Bank lends ₹5 lakh to Rohit; his friend Sunil guarantees the loan. Rohit defaults. The bank sues Sunil directly without first suing Rohit.

Accepted Answer

The bank can directly sue Sunil as surety for the full amount

Answer

Under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, the surety's liability is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor; the creditor may proceed against the surety directly.

Question 2

Which of the following best describes 'judicial review' in the Indian constitutional system?

Accepted Answer

The power of courts to examine executive and legislative acts for conformity with the Constitution

Answer

Judicial review is the power of Indian courts, especially the Supreme Court, to strike down laws and executive actions that violate the Constitution.

Question 3

Principle: Contributory negligence of the plaintiff reduces but does not bar recovery in India under the apportionment rule. Fact: Cyclist Meena rides without a helmet and is hit by a speeding car driven negligently by Deepak. Her head injuries are worse due to no helmet. The court finds Meena 30% contributorily negligent.

Accepted Answer

Meena recovers 70% of her damages after reduction for contributory negligence

Answer

Under the contributory negligence apportionment rule, damages are reduced proportionally to the plaintiff's share of fault, so Meena gets 70% of her total loss.

Question 4

A statute says 'no vehicle shall enter the park.' A man pushes his invalid wife in a wheelchair into the park. Has an offence been committed?

Accepted Answer

No, because the spirit of the law was to prevent noise and pollution, not exclude wheelchairs

Answer

Using purposive interpretation, courts examine legislative intent; a statute banning vehicles to ensure peace would not be intended to exclude a wheelchair used for disability.

Question 5

Principle: An act done by a person of unsound mind is not an offence. Fact: Akash, suffering from severe schizophrenia, stabs a neighbor during a psychotic episode in which he genuinely believes he is fighting a demon. Is Akash criminally liable?

Accepted Answer

No, because his mental illness negated his capacity to understand the nature of his act

Answer

Under Section 84 IPC, a person of unsound mind who, due to that unsoundness, does not know the nature of the act or that it is wrong, is not criminally liable.

(CLAT) Common Law Admission Test Practice Test

(CLAT) Common Law Admission Test Practice Test

CLAT Legal Reasoning & Aptitude 5