CLAT UG question bank

Legal Reasoning MCQs for CLAT UG, Page 6

CLAT UG Legal Reasoning questions 120-143 of 310, with answer keys and explanations covering self-contained legal principles, factual application, changes in outcome, rights, duties, liability, and remedies.

310 questions61 topics120-143 on this page
Start adaptive practiceBrowse CLAT UG

Coverage

Topics in this subject

Practice passage-based CLAT UG questions with answers for English, current affairs, legal reasoning, logical reasoning, and quantitative techniques.

  • Agency and Authority10
  • Agreements in Restraint of Trade5
  • Anticipatory Breach of Contract5
  • Appropriation of Payments5
  • Assault and Battery5
  • Assignment of Contractual Rights5
  • Authority of an Agent and Ratification5
  • Bailment and Duty of Care5
  • Breach of Condition and Warranty5
  • Caveat Emptor and Quality of Goods5
  • Coercion in Contracts5
  • Communication and Revocation of Proposals5
  • Contingent Contracts5
  • Contract of Guarantee and Surety5
  • Contract of Indemnity5
  • Contractual Misrepresentation5
  • Contributory Negligence and Apportionment5
  • Defamation and Defences5
  • Defamation and Responsible Publication5
  • Doctrine of Election in Property Transfers5
  • Doctrine of Part Performance5
  • False Imprisonment5
  • Fraud and Contractual Consent5
  • Frustration of Contract5
  • Fundamental Rights and Proportionality5
  • Guarantee Obtained by Misrepresentation5
  • Informed Consent to Medical Treatment5
  • Intervening Acts and Causation5
  • Joint Promisors and Contribution5
  • Malicious Prosecution5
  • Mistake and Restitution5
  • Necessaries Supplied to an Incapable Person5
  • Negligence and Standard of Care5
  • Non-Gratuitous Acts and Restitution5
  • Novation and Alteration of Contract5
  • Occupier Liability to Visitors5
  • Offer, Acceptance, and Revocation5
  • Pledge and Rights of the Pawnee5
  • Preparation and Criminal Attempt5
  • Private Defence of the Person5
  • Private Necessity and Property Damage5
  • Privity and Third-Party Rights5
  • Promissory Estoppel and Public Interest5
  • Public Nuisance and Special Damage5
  • Remission and Waiver of Contractual Performance5
  • Remoteness of Contractual Damages5
  • Res Ipsa Loquitur5
  • Right of Private Defence5
  • Rights and Duties of a Finder of Goods5
  • Rights of an Unpaid Seller5
  • Sale and Agreement to Sell5
  • Sale by a Non-Owner5
  • Sale by Sample and Description5
  • Stipulated Damages and Reasonable Compensation5
  • Strict Liability and Escape5
  • Time as the Essence of Contract5
  • Trespass to Goods and Conversion5
  • Trespass to Land and Necessity5
  • Undue Influence in Contracts5
  • Unlawful Object and Severability5
  • Vicarious Liability5
Passage or principleOriginal legal principle and fact scenarios

A claimant alleging malicious prosecution must prove that the defendant initiated or continued a prosecution, that it ended in the claimant's favour, that there was no reasonable and probable cause, that the defendant acted with malice, and that the claimant suffered legally recognised damage. Malice means an improper purpose other than honestly bringing an offender to justice. Lack of reasonable cause and malice are distinct requirements. Carelessness alone does not necessarily prove either. A person who merely gives truthful information to the police, leaving the decision entirely to them, does not ordinarily initiate the prosecution. A person who knowingly supplies false material and actively procures prosecution may do so. Apply only these principles.

Question 120MediumMalicious Prosecution

D truthfully reports facts and leaves the decision entirely to police. Is D ordinarily treated as initiating prosecution?

  1. A

    Yes, every report amounts to initiation.

  2. B

    Yes, if police investigate.

  3. C

    No, truthful information alone with an independent police decision is insufficient.

  4. D

    No, because truthful reports cannot cause damage.

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: C. No, truthful information alone with an independent police decision is insufficient.

C follows from the final paragraph.

Source note: Original LexMentor CLAT UG Batch 12, prepared in the official passage-based format.

Passage or principleOriginal legal principle and fact scenarios

A competent adult must ordinarily consent before medical treatment. Valid consent requires sufficient information about the nature and purpose of the treatment, material risks, and reasonable alternatives. Consent obtained through fraud about the nature of the procedure is invalid. A doctor may act without prior consent in a genuine emergency when the patient cannot decide and immediate treatment is reasonably necessary to prevent serious harm. The emergency exception does not justify non-urgent treatment that can safely wait. Consent to one procedure does not automatically authorise a substantially different procedure unless it is immediately necessary during treatment to address an unforeseen emergency. Apply only these principles.

Question 121MediumInformed Consent to Medical Treatment

A doctor obtains P's agreement without disclosing a serious material risk or reasonable alternative. Is the consent necessarily informed?

  1. A

    Yes, a signature always proves informed consent.

  2. B

    No, material risks and reasonable alternatives form part of sufficient information.

  3. C

    Yes, if the doctor prefers the treatment.

  4. D

    No, because consent can never be written.

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. No, material risks and reasonable alternatives form part of sufficient information.

B applies the information requirement.

Source note: Original LexMentor CLAT UG Batch 13, prepared in the official passage-based format.

Question 122HardInformed Consent to Medical Treatment

Unconscious P requires immediate treatment to prevent death, and no decision-maker is available. May the doctor act?

  1. A

    No, treatment must always wait for P to wake.

  2. B

    No, emergency treatment is never lawful.

  3. C

    Yes, but only for a procedure unrelated to the danger.

  4. D

    Yes, immediate necessary treatment may proceed under the emergency exception.

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: D. Yes, immediate necessary treatment may proceed under the emergency exception.

D applies the genuine-emergency rule.

Source note: Original LexMentor CLAT UG Batch 13, prepared in the official passage-based format.

Question 123MediumInformed Consent to Medical Treatment

P is unconscious, but a proposed procedure can safely wait until P can decide. Does the emergency exception authorise it?

  1. A

    No, the exception does not cover non-urgent treatment that can safely wait.

  2. B

    Yes, unconsciousness authorises every procedure.

  3. C

    Yes, if the hospital has an empty theatre.

  4. D

    No, but only if the procedure is inexpensive.

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: A. No, the exception does not cover non-urgent treatment that can safely wait.

A follows from the limit stated in the second paragraph.

Source note: Original LexMentor CLAT UG Batch 13, prepared in the official passage-based format.

Question 124HardInformed Consent to Medical Treatment

P consents to removal of a minor skin growth. During the procedure, the doctor performs a substantially different non-urgent operation. Was it authorised?

  1. A

    Yes, consent to any procedure authorises all treatment.

  2. B

    Yes, if the doctor saves time.

  3. C

    No, consent to one procedure does not cover a substantially different non-urgent procedure.

  4. D

    No, because minor procedures require no consent.

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: C. No, consent to one procedure does not cover a substantially different non-urgent procedure.

C applies the rule on the scope of consent.

Source note: Original LexMentor CLAT UG Batch 13, prepared in the official passage-based format.

Question 125MediumInformed Consent to Medical Treatment

D obtains P's agreement by falsely describing a surgical procedure as a diagnostic scan. Is the consent valid?

  1. A

    Yes, because P entered the hospital.

  2. B

    Yes, if the procedure succeeds.

  3. C

    No, but only if physical harm occurs.

  4. D

    No, fraud about the nature of the procedure invalidates consent.

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: D. No, fraud about the nature of the procedure invalidates consent.

D follows directly from the first paragraph.

Source note: Original LexMentor CLAT UG Batch 13, prepared in the official passage-based format.

Passage or principleOriginal legal principle and fact scenarios

An occupier must take reasonable care to keep lawful visitors reasonably safe for the purposes for which they are invited or permitted to be present. The occupier is not an insurer against every accident. What is reasonable depends on the danger and the visitor. Children may be less careful than adults. A warning can discharge the duty only if it makes the visitor reasonably safe, not merely because a warning sign exists. An occupier may reasonably expect a skilled professional to guard against risks ordinarily connected with that professional's expertise. This does not excuse hidden dangers outside the professional task that the occupier knew or should have known about. Apply only these principles.

Question 126MediumOccupier Liability to Visitors

A shop knows of a concealed hole in a customer walkway but takes no precaution. A customer falls. What is the best conclusion?

  1. A

    The shop is never liable for accidents.

  2. B

    The customer entered at personal risk.

  3. C

    The shop may have failed to take reasonable care for a lawful visitor.

  4. D

    Liability exists only if the shop intended injury.

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: C. The shop may have failed to take reasonable care for a lawful visitor.

C applies the duty concerning known hidden danger.

Source note: Original LexMentor CLAT UG Batch 13, prepared in the official passage-based format.

Question 127HardOccupier Liability to Visitors

Why may reasonable care require more precautions for child visitors?

  1. A

    Children may be less able than adults to recognise or avoid danger.

  2. B

    Children are insurers of premises.

  3. C

    Every object is dangerous to a child.

  4. D

    Children are never lawful visitors.

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: A. Children may be less able than adults to recognise or avoid danger.

A follows from the visitor-specific standard.

Source note: Original LexMentor CLAT UG Batch 13, prepared in the official passage-based format.

Question 128MediumOccupier Liability to Visitors

Does any warning sign automatically discharge the occupier's duty?

  1. A

    Yes, wording is irrelevant.

  2. B

    Yes, even if the visitor cannot see it.

  3. C

    No, but warnings never matter.

  4. D

    No, the warning must be sufficient to make the visitor reasonably safe.

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: D. No, the warning must be sufficient to make the visitor reasonably safe.

D states the warning rule.

Source note: Original LexMentor CLAT UG Batch 13, prepared in the official passage-based format.

Question 129HardOccupier Liability to Visitors

An electrician is injured by an obvious ordinary electrical risk within the repair task. What may the occupier reasonably expect?

  1. A

    That expertise has no relevance

  2. B

    That the electrician will guard against ordinary risks of the profession

  3. C

    That every professional accepts hidden structural dangers

  4. D

    That no duty is ever owed to professionals

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. That the electrician will guard against ordinary risks of the profession

B applies the skilled-visitor principle.

Source note: Original LexMentor CLAT UG Batch 13, prepared in the official passage-based format.

Question 130MediumOccupier Liability to Visitors

A plumber is injured by a concealed unstable ceiling unrelated to the plumbing task, known to the occupier. Does professional skill automatically excuse the occupier?

  1. A

    Yes, professionals assume every premises risk.

  2. B

    Yes, because the danger was hidden.

  3. C

    No, the danger was outside the professional task and known to the occupier.

  4. D

    No, but only if the plumber is a child.

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: C. No, the danger was outside the professional task and known to the occupier.

C applies the exception concerning unrelated hidden dangers.

Source note: Original LexMentor CLAT UG Batch 13, prepared in the official passage-based format.

Passage or principleOriginal legal principle and fact scenarios

A person who finds goods belonging to another and takes them into custody has duties similar to those of a bailee. The finder must take reasonable care, must not use the goods without authority, and must make reasonable efforts to locate the true owner. The finder does not become owner merely by finding the goods. The finder may retain them against everyone except the true owner and, in limited circumstances, may retain them until lawful expenses or an announced reward are paid. If the goods are perishable or lawful charges reach a substantial proportion of their value, a sale may be permitted after reasonable efforts to find the owner. Apply only these principles.

Question 131MediumRights and Duties of a Finder of Goods

F finds P's camera, takes custody, and leaves it unprotected in heavy rain. Has F complied with the passage?

  1. A

    Yes, a finder owes no duty.

  2. B

    No, F failed to take reasonable care of the goods.

  3. C

    Yes, because P was absent.

  4. D

    No, because finding automatically transfers ownership.

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. No, F failed to take reasonable care of the goods.

B applies the finder's duty of reasonable care.

Source note: Original LexMentor CLAT UG Batch 14, prepared in the official passage-based format.

Question 132HardRights and Duties of a Finder of Goods

F finds a bicycle and uses it daily without authority while searching for the owner. Is this permitted?

  1. A

    Yes, custody includes unlimited use.

  2. B

    Yes, if F enjoys cycling.

  3. C

    No, but only if the bicycle is damaged.

  4. D

    No, the finder must not use the goods without authority.

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: D. No, the finder must not use the goods without authority.

D follows directly from the first paragraph.

Source note: Original LexMentor CLAT UG Batch 14, prepared in the official passage-based format.

Question 133MediumRights and Duties of a Finder of Goods

Does F become owner of a watch merely by finding it?

  1. A

    No, finding alone does not transfer ownership.

  2. B

    Yes, if it was found in public.

  3. C

    Yes, after one day.

  4. D

    No, because nobody may possess found goods.

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: A. No, finding alone does not transfer ownership.

A states the ownership rule.

Source note: Original LexMentor CLAT UG Batch 14, prepared in the official passage-based format.

Question 134HardRights and Duties of a Finder of Goods

Against whom can the finder generally not retain the goods?

  1. A

    A stranger with no title

  2. B

    A later finder

  3. C

    The true owner

  4. D

    A person who merely likes the goods

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: C. The true owner

C follows from the finder's possessory right against everyone except the owner.

Source note: Original LexMentor CLAT UG Batch 14, prepared in the official passage-based format.

Question 135MediumRights and Duties of a Finder of Goods

F finds rapidly spoiling fruit, makes reasonable efforts to locate the owner, and cannot preserve it. May sale be permitted?

  1. A

    Never, found goods cannot be sold.

  2. B

    Only if F eats part first.

  3. C

    Only after ownership transfers automatically.

  4. D

    Yes, perishability may justify sale after reasonable efforts.

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: D. Yes, perishability may justify sale after reasonable efforts.

D applies the limited power of sale.

Source note: Original LexMentor CLAT UG Batch 14, prepared in the official passage-based format.

Passage or principleOriginal legal principle and fact scenarios

The principle of res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence when the kind of accident ordinarily does not occur without negligence, the cause was under the defendant's control, and the claimant did not materially contribute to the event. The principle concerns evidence. It does not create strict liability or guarantee that the claimant wins. It shifts an evidential burden to the defendant to provide a plausible explanation consistent with reasonable care. The inference is unavailable where the accident commonly occurs without negligence or where several equally probable causes include causes outside the defendant's control. Apply only these principles.

Question 136MediumRes Ipsa Loquitur

A sealed barrel falls from D's managed warehouse onto P on a public path, without explanation. What may the principle permit?

  1. A

    Automatic criminal conviction

  2. B

    Strict liability for every warehouse event

  3. C

    An inference of negligence if such a fall ordinarily requires negligence and D controlled the cause

  4. D

    No legal inquiry unless P saw the exact act.

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: C. An inference of negligence if such a fall ordinarily requires negligence and D controlled the cause

C applies the three stated conditions.

Source note: Original LexMentor CLAT UG Batch 14, prepared in the official passage-based format.

Question 137HardRes Ipsa Loquitur

P deliberately shakes an unstable structure immediately before it falls. Which requirement is weakened?

  1. A

    The requirement that the claimant did not materially contribute

  2. B

    The requirement of a defendant

  3. C

    The possibility of damage

  4. D

    The existence of an accident

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: A. The requirement that the claimant did not materially contribute

A identifies the claimant-contribution condition.

Source note: Original LexMentor CLAT UG Batch 14, prepared in the official passage-based format.

Question 138MediumRes Ipsa Loquitur

Does res ipsa loquitur guarantee judgment for the claimant?

  1. A

    Yes, it creates absolute liability.

  2. B

    Yes, explanations are irrelevant.

  3. C

    No, but only if no damage occurred.

  4. D

    No, it permits an inference and gives the defendant an opportunity to explain.

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: D. No, it permits an inference and gives the defendant an opportunity to explain.

D correctly states the evidential effect.

Source note: Original LexMentor CLAT UG Batch 14, prepared in the official passage-based format.

Question 139HardRes Ipsa Loquitur

Several equally probable causes exist, many outside D's control. Is the inference readily available?

  1. A

    Yes, control is unnecessary.

  2. B

    No, the control requirement is not satisfied on these facts.

  3. C

    Yes, because every accident proves negligence.

  4. D

    No, because inferences are prohibited in civil cases.

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. No, the control requirement is not satisfied on these facts.

B applies the final paragraph.

Source note: Original LexMentor CLAT UG Batch 14, prepared in the official passage-based format.

Question 140MediumRes Ipsa Loquitur

An accident commonly occurs even when reasonable care is used. Can its occurrence alone support the principle?

  1. A

    Yes, every unusual event is negligent.

  2. B

    Yes, if P alleges negligence.

  3. C

    No, the accident must ordinarily not occur without negligence.

  4. D

    No, because evidence cannot be circumstantial.

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: C. No, the accident must ordinarily not occur without negligence.

C follows from the first and final paragraphs.

Source note: Original LexMentor CLAT UG Batch 14, prepared in the official passage-based format.

Passage or principleOriginal legal principle and fact scenarios

Assault is an intentional act causing another person reasonably to apprehend imminent unlawful physical contact. Physical contact is unnecessary. Words, gestures, and surrounding circumstances must be considered together. Battery is intentional and direct unlawful physical contact with another person. The contact need not cause injury, but ordinary contact impliedly accepted in daily life is not unlawful. A threat of harm at a distant future time is not assault because the threatened contact is not imminent. Consent or lawful justification may defeat liability for contact. Apply only these principles.

Question 141MediumAssault and Battery

D raises a fist at close range and intentionally causes P reasonably to fear an immediate blow. Is assault established?

  1. A

    No, because contact never occurred.

  2. B

    Yes, reasonable apprehension of imminent unlawful contact may suffice.

  3. C

    No, gestures cannot amount to assault.

  4. D

    Yes, but only if P is injured.

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Yes, reasonable apprehension of imminent unlawful contact may suffice.

B applies the definition of assault.

Source note: Original LexMentor CLAT UG Batch 15, prepared in the official passage-based format.

Question 142HardAssault and Battery

D says, "I will strike you next month," with no present ability or attempt to act. Is this assault under the passage?

  1. A

    Yes, every threat is imminent.

  2. B

    Yes, if P remembers it.

  3. C

    No, but only because the threat was spoken.

  4. D

    No, the threatened contact is not imminent.

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: D. No, the threatened contact is not imminent.

D applies the imminence requirement.

Source note: Original LexMentor CLAT UG Batch 15, prepared in the official passage-based format.

Question 143MediumAssault and Battery

D intentionally pushes P without consent or justification but causes no injury. Is battery possible?

  1. A

    Yes, unlawful direct contact need not cause injury.

  2. B

    No, physical injury is essential.

  3. C

    No, pushing is never contact.

  4. D

    Yes, but only if P first feared the push.

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: A. Yes, unlawful direct contact need not cause injury.

A follows from the definition of battery.

Source note: Original LexMentor CLAT UG Batch 15, prepared in the official passage-based format.

Continue revision

English Language310 questions with explanationsCurrent Affairs including General Knowledge310 questions with explanationsLogical Reasoning310 questions with explanationsQuantitative Techniques310 questions with explanations