Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principle: Contract is an agreement freely entered into between the parties. But when consent to an agreement is obtained to undue influence, the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.
Factual Situation: The pragya had been worked for a business man Anurag since the age of 18, working for a range of Anurag's businesses. In 2000, (aged 21) Pragya purchased a flat. In 2005, Mr. Anurag's business was facing financial difficulties, and he asked Pragya to offe up her flat as financial security against an overdraft facility for the business. In July of that year, the banks solicitors wrote to Pragya, advising that she should take Independent legal advice before putting her property up as a security for the debt. The bank also notified Pragya that the guarantee was unlimited in both time and financial amount. Having discussed the arrangement with Anurag, Pragya was unaware of the extent of the borrowing, but was assured that her mortgage would not be called upon, and that his own properties which were also used as security would be looked at first. A charge was executed over the Pragya's property in August 2005. In 2009, Mr.s Anurag's business went into liquidation and the bank formally demanded Rs.60,24,912 from Pragya. Pragya raised the defence of undue influence - stating that Mr. Anurag had induced her to enter into the agreement, and the bank had full knowledge/ notice of this undue influence which should set aside the banks right to enforce the debt recovery against Pragya. Bank is contending that there is no undue influence.
Legal Principle:
1. Battery is the intentional causation of harmful or offensive contact with another's person without that person's consent.
2. When lawfully exercising power of arrest or some other statutory power of police officer had greater rights than an ordinary citizen to restrain another.
Factual Situation: Two police officers on duty in a police car observed two women in the street who appeared to be soliciting for the purpose of prostitution. One of the women was known to the police as a prostitute but the other, X, was not a known prostitute. When the police officers requested X to get into the car for questioning she refused to do so and instead walked away from the car. One of the officers, a policewoman, got out of the car and followed X in order to question her regarding her identity and conduct and to caution her, if she was suspected of being a prostitute, in accordance with the approved police procedure for administering cautions for suspicious behaviour before charging a woman with being a prostitute. X refused to speak to the policewoman and walked away, where upon the policewoman took hold of X's arm to detain her. X then swore at the policewoman and scratched the officer's arm with her fingernails. X was convicted of assaulting a police officer in the execution of her duty. She appealed against the conviction, contending that when the assault occurred the officer beyond the scope of her duty in detaining X by taking hold of her arm. The police contended that the officer was acting in the execution of her duty when the assault occurred because the officer had good cause to detain X for the purpose of questioning her to see whether a caution for suspicious behaviour should be administered. Decide whether the police officer is liable for battery.
Decision
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principle: Contract is an agreement freely entered into between the parties. But when consent to an agreement is obtained to undue influence, the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.
Factual Situation: The pragya had been worked for a business man Anurag since the age of 18, working for a range of Anurag's businesses. In 2000, (aged 21) Pragya purchased a flat. In 2005, Mr. Anurag's business was facing financial difficulties, and he asked Pragya to offe up her flat as financial security against an overdraft facility for the business. In July of that year, the banks solicitors wrote to Pragya, advising that she should take Independent legal advice before putting her property up as a security for the debt. The bank also notified Pragya that the guarantee was unlimited in both time and financial amount. Having discussed the arrangement with Anurag, Pragya was unaware of the extent of the borrowing, but was assured that her mortgage would not be called upon, and that his own properties which were also used as security would be looked at first. A charge was executed over the Pragya's property in August 2005. In 2009, Mr.s Anurag's business went into liquidation and the bank formally demanded Rs.60,24,912 from Pragya. Pragya raised the defence of undue influence - stating that Mr. Anurag had induced her to enter into the agreement, and the bank had full knowledge/ notice of this undue influence which should set aside the banks right to enforce the debt recovery against Pragya. Bank is contending that there is no undue influence.
Legal Principle:
1. Battery is the intentional causation of harmful or offensive contact with another's person without that person's consent.
2. When lawfully exercising power of arrest or some other statutory power of police officer had greater rights than an ordinary citizen to restrain another.
Factual Situation: Two police officers on duty in a police car observed two women in the street who appeared to be soliciting for the purpose of prostitution. One of the women was known to the police as a prostitute but the other, X, was not a known prostitute. When the police officers requested X to get into the car for questioning she refused to do so and instead walked away from the car. One of the officers, a policewoman, got out of the car and followed X in order to question her regarding her identity and conduct and to caution her, if she was suspected of being a prostitute, in accordance with the approved police procedure for administering cautions for suspicious behaviour before charging a woman with being a prostitute. X refused to speak to the policewoman and walked away, where upon the policewoman took hold of X's arm to detain her. X then swore at the policewoman and scratched the officer's arm with her fingernails. X was convicted of assaulting a police officer in the execution of her duty. She appealed against the conviction, contending that when the assault occurred the officer beyond the scope of her duty in detaining X by taking hold of her arm. The police contended that the officer was acting in the execution of her duty when the assault occurred because the officer had good cause to detain X for the purpose of questioning her to see whether a caution for suspicious behaviour should be administered. Decide whether the police officer is liable for battery.
Decision
The correct option is B The policewoman had not been exercising her power of arrest when she detained X, and since in taking hold of the appellant's arm to detain her the police woman's conduct went beyond acceptable lawful physical contact between two citizens, hence the officer's act constituted a battery on X and that she had not been acting in the execution of her duty when the assault occurred
The policewoman had not been exercising her power of arrest when she detained X, and since in taking hold of the appellant's arm to detain her the policewoman's conduct went beyond acceptable lawful physical contact between two citizens, hence the officer's act constituted a battery on X and that she had not been acting in the execution of her duty when the assault occurred.
The policeman trespassed into the comfortable, personal space of X by holding X's arm which is an unacceptable act between two citizens. The policewoman was not exercising her power of arrest and was acting beyond her duty.
The policewoman had not been exercising her power of arrest when she detained X, and since in taking hold of the appellant's arm to detain her the policewoman's conduct went beyond acceptable lawful physical contact between two citizens, hence the officer's act constituted a battery on X and that she had not been acting in the execution of her duty when the assault occurred.
The policeman trespassed into the comfortable, personal space of X by holding X's arm which is an unacceptable act between two citizens. The policewoman was not exercising her power of arrest and was acting beyond her duty.
