Time Allowed: 3 hours
Maximum marks:150
All questions carry equal marks
Answer six questions, taking three from each Part
PART-I
(Law of Contracts)
Q.1."An offer cannot be accepted unless and until it has been brought to the person to whom it is made." What is and offer? When is the communication of an offer completed? Illustrate with judicial decisions. Distinguish between offer and invitation to treat.
Q.2. The two fundamental propositions of English law are 'privity of consideration' and 'pritity' of contract' Elaborate the two principles and their acceptability in India.
Q.3. The question whether the contract is void or voidable presupposes the existence of a contract within the meaning of the Act, and cannot arise in the case of an infant. In this context, explain the nature of a minor's agreement and its effectiveness. Can a minor be allowed to enforce a contract which is of some benefit to him? Explain.
Q.4. "An agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void." Referring this statement, explain the 'doctrine of frustration' and the specific grounds of frustration.
Q.5. Every party injured by the breach of a contract may bring an action for damages and every action for damages raises certain problems. Discuss the problem raised in every action for damages.
PART-I
(Law of Tort)
Q.6.The rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher is interpreted in the light of the constitutional provisions by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India[(1987)1 SC 395] Explain the rule laid down in Rylands vs. Fletcher. In reference to the said rule, elaborate the corresponding development in India with reference to the aforementioned statement.
Q.7. Sir Barnes Peacok, Chief Justice of the former Supreme Court of Calcutta, in P&O Steam Navihation Company vs. Secretary of State for the Indian Council, held the Government liable for damages for injury due to negligence of some of its servants, as far back as in 1861. Subsequently, this decision was overruled in Kasturilal and Ralia Ram and the theory of sovereign immunity was upheld. In regard to this,discuss the concept of sovereign immunity and its development till date, with the help of judicial decision.
Q.8. "In an action for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff has to prove, first, that he was innocent, and, second, that there was want of reasonable and probable cause." What is malicious prosecution? Explain the essentials to be proved in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution.
Q.9. "The duty to take care arises out of various relations which it may be not be possible to enumerate exhaustively and the courts recognize 'new duties' when they think that to be just."
In reference to the 'new duties' in the above statement, elaborate the concept of duty of care with reference to duty of care in medical profession.
Q.10. The maximum 'res ipsa loquiturh' is not a rule of law. It is a rule of evidence benefiting the plaintiff by not requiring him to prove negligence.
Prove the above statement by explaining the maxim with reference to judicial decisions.
0 comments: