LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A person is responsible for that which he could have reasonably foreseen or prevented.

FACTUAL SITUATION: A chemist sold a hair conditioner to Jyoti. The conditioner was locally manufactured and the contents, harmful chemicals, were listed on the bottle. The chemist, however, represented to Jyoti that the chemicals used were harmless and beneficial for the hair. On using it. Jyoti's hair got badly damaged and she had to get a hair treatment done for the same. Jyoti filed a complaint against the chemist.
Will the chemist be liable?

DECIDE.

Yes, as he should have informed Jyoti that the ingredients are not known.

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Yes, as he was aware of the side effects of the ingredients.

Right on! Give the BNAT exam to get a 100% scholarship for BYJUS courses

Not liable because it was the buyer's duty to be aware about the product she is buying.

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Not liable as it is a natural tendency of shopkeepers to exaggerate the virtues of the product they are selling.

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Open in App

Solution

The correct option is D Yes, as he was aware of the side effects of the ingredients.
In the above situation the chemist induced Jyoti to buy the hair conditioner even after knowing about the harmful ingredients (which were already listed on the bottle) and its side effects.Therefore he is liable.

Suggest Corrections

Similar questions

FACTUAL SITUATION: Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) manufactured methyl isocyanate, an extremely toxic gas. Due to a storm, the gas that was being stored in sealed containers got released. Before much could happen, the local municipal authorities managed to contain the disaster. The authorities filed a suit against UCIL for the costs that were incurred in decontamination. However, later it was realized that the clean-up by the authorities could have been done without spending as much resources and the damage was not that significant. UCIL argued that it would pay only part of the amount demanded by the authorities.

DECIDE.

Q. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Whoever stores a substance which could cause damage on escape shall be absolutely liable (i.e. liable even when he has exercised necessary care) for any damage caused by the escape of the substance.
FACTUAL SITUATION : Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) manufactured methyl isocyanate, an extremely toxic gas. Due to storm, the gas that was being stored in sealed containers got released. Before much could happen, the local municipal authorities managed to contain the disaster. The authorities filed a suit against UCIL for the costs that were incurred in decontamination. However, later it was realized that the clean-up by the authorities could have been done without spending as much resources and the damage was not significant. UCIL argued that it would pay only part of the amount demanded by the authorities, which could have dealt with the contamination.
DECISION:

Q. Given below are Legal Principles followed by a Factual Situation. Apply the principles followed by a factual Situation. Apply the principle to it and select the most appropriate answer for question among the four choices given.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A master shall be liable for the fraudulent acts of his servant committed in the course of employment. Whether the act is committed in the course of employment has to be interpreted in the context of each case. Both the maser and third parties must exercise reasonable care in this regard.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Rani was an illiterate widow and she opened Saving Bank Account with ICICI Bank with help of villager who was an Accountant in the Bank. He used to deposit the cash of Rani every month and entries were made in the Pass Book and in computer system. After two to three years the villager who was accountant in said ICICI Bank was removed from job of accountant. Being not aware of such removal Rani used to give cash every month to villager to deposit into the Bank in her Saving Account. But the villager used such cash as its own. Rani found one day that such villager died of road accident and Rani thereby claimed all of her cash with interest from Bank.
FEASIBLE DECISIONS:
(A) ICICI Bank is liable to compensate to Rani.
(B) ICICI Bank is not liable to compensate Rani.
(C) Rani cannot blame others of her own wrong.
FEASIBLE REASONS:
(1) Rani was not aware that accountant was removed from the bank.
(2) ICICI Bank was not aware of the transaction between Rani and her villager.
(3) It is the duty of ICICI Bank to take care of such type of customers.
(4) Rani should have checked about villager in her own interest.
Your Decision with Appropriate Reasons:

Q. PRINCIPLE: A person is liable for all direct consequences of his act, which he could have reasonably foreseen as naturally flowing from his act.

FACTS: Charu while driving her car at a high speed, knocked down Seema, a middle-aged woman who was walking on the road. Seema got her leg fractured as a result of this accident. As Seema was suffering from diabetes, her leg had to be amputated. Seema filed a suit against Charu for damages for the loss of her leg.

Join BYJU'S Learning Program

The correct option is D Yes, as he was aware of the side effects of the ingredients.In the above situation the chemist induced Jyoti to buy the hair conditioner even after knowing about the harmful ingredients (which were already listed on the bottle) and its side effects.Therefore he is liable.

The correct option is D Yes, as he was aware of the side effects of the ingredients.
In the above situation the chemist induced Jyoti to buy the hair conditioner even after knowing about the harmful ingredients (which were already listed on the bottle) and its side effects.Therefore he is liable.