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: Pragya had been worked for a businessman 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 offer up her flat as a financial security against an overdraft facility for the business. In July of that year, the bank's 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.Irrespective of your answer, assume it is a case of undue influence. Decide whether the bank has done enough to allay concerns of undue influence?

Q. 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

R s . 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.
Whether the consent to offer the flat as financial security obtained through undue influence?

Q. 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

R s . 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: The acceptance must be absolute and unqualified, leaving no ground for doubt or uncertainty. If the acceptance is conditional, no valid contract is formed, and the offer can be withdrawn at any moment till the absolute acceptance has taken place within reasonable time of such offer.
Factual Situation: Delhi Government conducted an auction for the sale of license of wine shop. X offered the highest bid which was provisionally accepted "... subject to the confirmation of Chief Commissioner who may reject any bid without assigning any reasons." Since X failed to deposit the required amount, Chief Commissioner rejected the bid. The government held X liable for the difference between the bid offered by him and the highest bid accepted in reauction, and commenced proceedings for the recovery of the sum. It was contended on behalf of the government of Delhi that X was under a legal obligation to pay the difference as it was due to his default that a resale of the excise shop was ordered and hence X was liable for the deficiency in price and all expenses of such resale which was caused by his default.
Decide, giving reason, whether X is liable to make payment to the Delhi Government.

Q. 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

R s . 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: An unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it is a nuisance in tort. The fact that the plaintiff "came to the nuisance" by knowingly acquiring property in the vicinity of the defendant's premises is not a defense to nuisance. However, an act cannot be a nuisance if it is imperatively demanded by public convenience. Thus, when the public welfare requires it, a nuisance may be permitted for special purposes.
Factual Situation: D owned and occupied an estate about two miles from RAF Wittering, an operational and training base for Harrier Jump Jets. D claimed that they suffered severe noise disturbance every time the Harrier pilots carried out training circuits: an average of

70

times a day. D alleged that the noise nuisance constituted a very serious interference with their enjoyment of their land. D instituted judicial proceedings against the defendants, the Ministry of Defence (MoD), damages amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000$. The MoD denied liability and raised defence that the Harrier training was undertaken for the public benefit and that they had prescriptive right over the land as D had bought their property at a time when RAF Wittering was already established so he cannot claim compensation as he already knew about existence of RAF Wittering near his property.

Q. 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

R s . 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

Q. 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

R s . 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.

Negligence is the absence of care on the part of one party which results in some damage to the other Party.

2.

Generally, a person is under no duty to control another to prevent his doing damage to a third Party.

3.

The foreseeability test basically asks whether the person causing the injury should have reasonably foreseen the general consequences that would result because of his or her conduct.

4.

Statutory authority implies that an act is done by a person to fulfil his duty imposed by the State. Statutory authority is a valid defence under the law of torts.
Factual Situation: Ten borstal trainees were working on an island in a harbour in the custody and under the control of three officers. During the night, seven of them escaped. It was claimed that at the time of the escape the officers lady retired to bed. The seven got on board a yacht, moored off the island and set it in motion. They collided with another yacht, the property of X and damaged it. X sued the Home office for the amount of the damage. Decide whether on the facts pleaded in the statement of claim the Home Office, its servants or agents owed any duty of care to X capable of giving rise to a liability in damages with respect to the detention of persons undergoing sentences of borstal traning or with respect to the manner in which such persons were treated, employed, disciplined, controlled or supervised whilst undergoing such sentences.