How Legal Reasoning Works — Practice

Question 1

Principle: A person who intentionally causes physical harm to another is liable for battery.
Facts: X, aiming to punch Y, swings, misses completely and hits no one.
Is X liable for battery?
(a) Yes, he intended to harm Y (b) No, no physical harm was actually caused (c) Yes, because Y was frightened (d) No, only because he missed on purpose

Accepted Answer

(b) No, no physical harm was caused.

The principle requires physical harm to be caused. Intention alone, with no contact or harm, does not satisfy the condition. (a) uses only intention; (c) adds an unstated fact (fright).

Question 2

Principle: A person commits theft if he dishonestly takes movable property out of another's possession without consent.
Facts: A finds a wallet lying on an empty road with no owner in sight and picks it up intending to hand it to the police.
Has A committed theft?
(a) Yes, he took the wallet (b) No — it was not in anyone's possession and he had no dishonest intent (c) Yes, a wallet is movable property (d) No, only because it was on a public road

Accepted Answer

(b) No.

Two required elements are missing: the wallet was not out of another's possession, and A had no dishonest intention. (a) and (c) satisfy only single, insufficient elements.

Question 3

Principle: A shopkeeper is liable for selling adulterated food only if he knew the food was adulterated.
Facts: S sells sealed packaged milk that, unknown to him, had been adulterated by the manufacturer. Later testing confirms the adulteration.
Is S liable?
(a) Yes, he sold adulterated food (b) No, he did not know it was adulterated (c) Yes, this is strict liability (d) No, because the manufacturer is always liable

Accepted Answer

(b) No.

'Only if he knew' conditions liability on knowledge. S lacked knowledge, so the condition fails and he is not liable under this principle. (c) invents strict liability the principle rejects.

Question 4

Principle: Whoever enters the land of another without lawful permission commits trespass. (The principle states no exceptions.)
Facts: A firefighter, F, breaks open the gate of a house without the owner's permission to rescue a child trapped inside during a fire.
Applying only the principle, is F a trespasser?
(a) No, he acted to save a life (b) Yes, he entered without permission (c) No, firefighters are exempt (d) No, emergencies are always exempt

Accepted Answer

(b) Yes.

The principle as given has no exception for good motive. Applied mechanically, F entered without permission and is a trespasser. Options (a), (c) and (d) add exceptions the principle does not contain.

Question 5

Principle 1: A person is liable for damage caused by his negligence.
Principle 2: However, a person is not liable if the victim voluntarily accepted the risk.
Facts: A spectator at a cricket match is hit by a six while sitting in the stands — an ordinary, well-known risk of watching live cricket.
Is the organiser liable?
(a) Yes, this is negligence (b) No, the spectator voluntarily accepted a known risk (c) Yes, because the spectator was injured (d) No, because cricket is inherently dangerous

Accepted Answer

(b) No.

Principle 2 is an exception that applies: voluntary acceptance of a known risk defeats liability. (d) reaches the same result but for the wrong reason — the operative fact is the spectator's acceptance of the risk.

Question 6

Principle: An offer becomes a binding contract only when it is accepted.
Facts: B offers to sell his cycle to C for ₹2,000. C replies, 'I'll think about it.' The next day, before C says anything more, B sells the cycle to D.
Is there a binding contract between B and C?
(a) Yes, B made a clear offer (b) No, C never accepted the offer (c) Yes, C intended to buy it (d) No, only because D bought it first

Accepted Answer

(b) No.

Acceptance is the condition for a binding contract; 'I'll think about it' is not acceptance. (d) points to the sale to D, but the decisive point is the absence of C's acceptance.

Question 7

Principle: A person commits cheating if he (i) deceives another AND (ii) thereby dishonestly induces that person to deliver property.
Facts: M lies about his academic qualifications to impress N socially. N is impressed but gives M nothing.
Has M committed cheating?
(a) Yes, M deceived N (b) No — the deception did not induce delivery of any property (c) Yes, M acted dishonestly (d) No, because lying about qualifications is not illegal

Accepted Answer

(b) No.

Both elements are required (AND). Element (i) deception is present, but element (ii) — inducing delivery of property — is absent, since N delivered nothing. So no cheating.

Question 8

Principle: A manufacturer is liable to a consumer for injury caused by a defect that existed in the product when it left the factory.
Facts: A consumer is injured by a blender. Investigation shows the defect arose only because the consumer's own repairman rewired it after purchase.
Is the manufacturer liable?
(a) Yes, the blender injured the consumer (b) No, the defect did not exist when the product left the factory (c) Yes, manufacturers are always liable for their products (d) No, only because the consumer used it carelessly

Accepted Answer

(b) No.

The principle ties liability to a defect present when the product left the factory. Here the defect was introduced later by the repairman, so the required condition is unmet.

Question 9

Principle: Consent given under a misconception of fact is not valid. But an act done in good faith for a person's benefit, by a surgeon, is protected even without the person's understanding.
Facts: A surgeon, in good faith and for the patient's benefit, performs an emergency operation on an unconscious accident victim who cannot consent.
Which statement is correct?
(a) The surgeon acts without valid consent and is liable (b) The act is protected because it was done in good faith for the patient's benefit (c) The surgeon is liable because the patient did not understand the operation (d) No surgery is ever lawful without express consent

Accepted Answer

(b) The act is protected.

The second principle (an exception) governs this situation: a good-faith surgical act for the patient's benefit is protected. (a) and (c) ignore that exception; (d) states an absolute the principle does not support.

Practice — How Legal Reasoning Works

Sign in to save attempts to your dashboard and track your accuracy over time

Find a verified tutor

Join a live course

Browse coaching centres

About

Categories

Support

Documentation

Get Study Tips & Updates

Download Our App

Download for iOS

Download for Android

Popular Cities