CLAT 2008

A moot question to be considered is whether democratic form of government is a boon or bane, no matter what Lincoln might or might not have said. Rather his most (in?) famous adage, Try the people, for the people and of the people' misses the most pertinent question; which attitude works behind when a person declares that he is a (or the right?) candidate to serve the people, and does not hesitate to contest and fight tooth and nail the election, an euphemism for battle with or without bullets. Admittedly, the covert attitude is different
from overt attitude. Hardly anyone contests the election unwillingly. A contestant is not persuaded by any one, but driven by his own passions and dubious motives. Contrast this picture with Socrates' version; no honest man willingly takes up the job of ruler. If at all he accepts, he does so for fear of being ruled by one made up of inferior mettle. It is beyond even the wildest imagination, to expect an honest person to contest the election. Assuming that every statement is true, identify from among the given alternatives the one which strictly follows from the passage.

According to the above passage, which one of the following correctly differentiates Lincoln's and Socrates' analyses?

Many environmentalists either adopt double standard or do not know what they are talking about. A protagonist of environment, for obvious reasons, ought not to bat for any type of progress because progress without meddling with nature is a myth. But none can live without scientific and technological advance which has singularly made progress possible. Furthermore, environment includes not just forest wealth and hills, but animal wealth also. An honest environmentalist is obliged to address the following questions. First, should man in the interest of hygiene, kill any living being be it an insect purported to be harmful or stray dogs? After all, this world does not belong to man alone. Which one of the following runs counter to the spirit of the passage?

Does our society need reservation in job? Before we defend reservation, we must consider some issues. Why do we need reservation? Obviously, reservation is required to lift the downtrodden and thereby achieve equality, how do you achieve this? Every individual, without exception, has a right to receive quality education. It is more so in the case of downtrodden people. Only a good-natured meritorious teacher can impart quality education. Suppose that a person who is neither good natured nor meritorious becomes a teacher thanks to reservation system then generations of students suffer. Suppose that there is some merit in this argument. Then which of the following aptly describes the fall-out of this argument?

Under the same fact situation as above, which one of the following helps you to circumvent the situation?

PRINCIPLES:
(1) On the death of husband, the widow shall inherit the property of her deceased husband along with children equally.
(2) A widow cannot claim the property of the deceased if on the date when the question of succession opens, she has re-married.
(3) A female acquiring property in any way has the absolute title to the property.

FACTS: When Sudhir died, he had 1/3rd share of the family property, which the three brothers Rudhir, Sudhir and Yasu inherited from their father, B. Sudhir died on September 23rd, 2006 without having any issue. The widow of Sudhir, Ms. Win re-married on January 1, 2007. Rudhir and Yasu refused 'Win' the share from Sudhir's portion when Win claimed the entire property
belonging to Sudhir on January 30, Select your decision from the possible decisions given in list I and the appropriate reason from the indicated reasons given in list II given below:
List I - Decisions:
(a) Win cannot inherit the property of Sudhir.
(b) Win can inherit the property of Sudhir.
List II - Reasons:
i. Win does not belong to the family.
ii. Win was re-married.
iii. Her claim was on the date of sudhir’s death.
iv. Her claim was submitted after she was re-married.
Your decision and reason
Shade the right decision with reason from the following

PRINCIPLES:
(1) If a person commits an act by which death is caused to another person and the act is done with the intention of causing death, that person is liable for murder.
(2) A person has a right of self defence to the extent of causing death to another provided he apprehends death by the act of the latter.

FACTS: Shuva went to a hardware shop owned by Anup. Bargaining on some item led to altercation between the two and Shuva picked up a sharp object and hit at Anup. When Anup started bleeding, his wife Mridula intervened and she was also hit by Shuva and she became unconscious. Finding himself totally cornered, Anup delivered a severe blow to Shuva with a sharp object, Shuva died instantly.

Possible Decisions
(a) Anup murdered Shuva.
(b) Anup killed Shuva with the intention of killing to save himself and his wife.
(c) Anup killed Shuva without any intention to do so just to save himself and his wife.
Probable Reasons for the decision
(i) If a person kills another instantly on the spot, the intention to kill is obvious.
(ii) Anup used force apprehending death of himself and his wife.
(iii) Anup used disproportionate force.
(iv) There was nothing to show that Shuva wanted to kill Anup or his wife.
Your decision with the reason

PRINCIPLES:
(1) Consumable goods which are not fit for consumption are not marketable.
(2) A consumer shall not suffer on account of unmarketable goods.
(3) A seller is liable for knowingly selling unmarketable goods.
(4) A manufacturer shall be liable for the quality of his products.

FACTS: Ram bought a Coca Cola bottle from Shama's shop. Back at home, the server opened the bottle and poured the drink into the glasses of Ram and his friend Tom. As Tom started drinking, he felt irritation in his throat. Immediately, Ram and Tom took the sample to test and found nitric acid in the content. Ram filed a suit against Shama, Coca Cola Company and the bottler, Kishen and Co.

Suggested Decisions
(a) Ram cannot get compensation.
(b) Tom can get compensation.
(c) Both Ram and Tom can get compensation.
Suggested Reasons
(i) Shama did not know the contents of sealed bottle.
(ii) Ram did not actually suffer though he bought the bottle.
(iii) Tom did not buy the bottle.
(iv) Coca Cola Company is responsible since it supplied the concentrate.
(v) Kishen & Co, is responsible since it added water, sugar, etc., and sealed the bottle.
(vi) Shama is responsible for selling the defective product.
Your decision with the reason

PRINCIPLES:
(1) If A is asked to do something by B, B is responsible for the act, not A.
(2) If A, while acting for B commits a wrong, A is responsible for the wrong, not B.
(3) If A is authorised to do something for B, but in the name of A without disclosing B's presence, both A and B may be held liable.

FACTS: Somu contracted with Amar where under Amar would buy a pump set to be used in Somu's farm. Such a pump set was in short supply in the market. Gulab, a dealer, had such a pump set and he refused to sell it to Amar. Amar threatened Gulab of serious consequences if he fails to part with the pump set. Gulab filed a complaint against Amar.

Proposed Decisions
(a) Amar alone is liable for the wrong though he acted for Somu.
(b) Amar is not liable for the wrong, though he is bound by the contract with
Somu.
(c) Somu is bound by the contract and liable for the wrong.
(d) Both Somu and Amar are liable for the wrong.
Suggested Reasons
(i) Amar committed the wrong while acting for the benefit of Somu.
(ii) Amar cannot do while acting for Somu something which he cannot do while acting for himself.
(iii) Both Amar and Somu are liable since they are bound by the contract.
(iv) Somu has to be responsible for the act of Amar committed for Somu's benefit.
Your decision with the reason

PRINCIPLES:
(1) The owner of a land has absolute interest on the property including the contents over and under the property.
(2) Water flowing below your land is not yours though you can use it.
(3) Any construction on your land belongs to you.
(4) All mineral resources below the land belong to the State.

FACTS: There is a subterranean water flow under Suresh's land surface. Suresh constructed a huge reservoir and drew all subterranean water to the reservoir. As a result, the wells of all adjacent property owners have gone dry. They demanded that either Suresh must demolish the reservoir or share the reservoir water with them.

Proposed Decisions
(a) Suresh need not demolish the reservoir.
(b) Suresh has to demolish the reservoir.
(c) Suresh has to share the water with his neighbours.
(d) The Government can take over the reservoir.
Possible Reasons
(i) Water cannot be captured by one person for his personal use.
(ii) The Government must ensure equitable distribution of water.
(iii) Whatever is under Suresh's land may be used by him.
(iv) Suresh has to respect the rights of others regarding water.
Your decision with the reason