CLAT 2021 || New Pattern Legal Reasoning Quiz || 16.02.2021
Attempt now to get your rank among 166 students!
Question 1
A sovereign state in international law is a political entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood that a sovereign state is neither dependent on nor subjected to any other power or state. The population of a state is divided into two categories: citizens and non-citizens. A citizen of a state enjoys all civil and political rights. A non-citizen, on the other hand, doesn’t enjoy all these rights.
Under the Indian Constitution, certain fundamental rights are available only to citizens, namely: Right against discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth (Article 15); right to equality of opportunity in matters of public employment (Article 16); freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence and profession (Article 19); cultural and educational rights (Articles 29 and 30); and the right to vote and become members of the union and state legislatures.
Several offices can also be occupied exclusively by citizens: president (Article 58(1)(a)), vice-president (Article 66(2)), judges of the Supreme Court (Article 124(3)) and high courts (Article 217(2)), governor of a state (Article 157), attorney general (Article 76(1)) and advocate general (Article 165).
Equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India (Article 14) and protection of life or personal liberty (Article 21) are applicable to non-citizens as well.
The Indian Constitution doesn’t prescribe a permanent provision relating to citizenship in India. It simply describes categories of persons who are deemed to be citizens of India on the day the Indian Constitution was promulgated on January 26, 1950, and leaves citizenship to be regulated by law made by Parliament. Article 11 of the Constitution confers power on Parliament to make laws regarding citizenship. The Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 was enacted in exercise of this provision. By the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2003, Section 3 of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 was amended to provide that persons born after December 3, 2004, would be deemed to be citizens of India if both their parents are Indian citizens, or one of their parents is a citizen of India and the other is not an illegal migrant, at the time of the person’s birth.
“Illegal migrant” under the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 means a foreigner who has entered India: without a valid passport or travel documents; or with a valid passport or travel documents but remained in the country beyond the permitted period of time. If the Central Government is of the opinion that an applicant is a person who has rendered distinguished service to the cause of science, philosophy, art, literature, world peace or human progress generally, it may, under Section 6, waive all or any conditions specified to attain Indian citizenship.
Source: The Wire, https://thewire.in/rights/india-citizenship-constitution.
The state passes a new law that prohibits foreigners visiting India from posting on their social media accounts for the duration of their stay in India. Davy Clark, a foreigner visiting India, challenges this law on the ground that it violates the fundamental rights of foreigners in India. Will Davy Clark’s challenge succeed in the court of law?
Question 2
A sovereign state in international law is a political entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood that a sovereign state is neither dependent on nor subjected to any other power or state. The population of a state is divided into two categories: citizens and non-citizens. A citizen of a state enjoys all civil and political rights. A non-citizen, on the other hand, doesn’t enjoy all these rights.
Under the Indian Constitution, certain fundamental rights are available only to citizens, namely: Right against discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth (Article 15); right to equality of opportunity in matters of public employment (Article 16); freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence and profession (Article 19); cultural and educational rights (Articles 29 and 30); and the right to vote and become members of the union and state legislatures.
Several offices can also be occupied exclusively by citizens: president (Article 58(1)(a)), vice-president (Article 66(2)), judges of the Supreme Court (Article 124(3)) and high courts (Article 217(2)), governor of a state (Article 157), attorney general (Article 76(1)) and advocate general (Article 165).
Equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India (Article 14) and protection of life or personal liberty (Article 21) are applicable to non-citizens as well.
The Indian Constitution doesn’t prescribe a permanent provision relating to citizenship in India. It simply describes categories of persons who are deemed to be citizens of India on the day the Indian Constitution was promulgated on January 26, 1950, and leaves citizenship to be regulated by law made by Parliament. Article 11 of the Constitution confers power on Parliament to make laws regarding citizenship. The Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 was enacted in exercise of this provision. By the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2003, Section 3 of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 was amended to provide that persons born after December 3, 2004, would be deemed to be citizens of India if both their parents are Indian citizens, or one of their parents is a citizen of India and the other is not an illegal migrant, at the time of the person’s birth.
“Illegal migrant” under the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 means a foreigner who has entered India: without a valid passport or travel documents; or with a valid passport or travel documents but remained in the country beyond the permitted period of time. If the Central Government is of the opinion that an applicant is a person who has rendered distinguished service to the cause of science, philosophy, art, literature, world peace or human progress generally, it may, under Section 6, waive all or any conditions specified to attain Indian citizenship.
Source: The Wire, https://thewire.in/rights/india-citizenship-constitution.
Question 3
A sovereign state in international law is a political entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood that a sovereign state is neither dependent on nor subjected to any other power or state. The population of a state is divided into two categories: citizens and non-citizens. A citizen of a state enjoys all civil and political rights. A non-citizen, on the other hand, doesn’t enjoy all these rights.
Under the Indian Constitution, certain fundamental rights are available only to citizens, namely: Right against discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth (Article 15); right to equality of opportunity in matters of public employment (Article 16); freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence and profession (Article 19); cultural and educational rights (Articles 29 and 30); and the right to vote and become members of the union and state legislatures.
Several offices can also be occupied exclusively by citizens: president (Article 58(1)(a)), vice-president (Article 66(2)), judges of the Supreme Court (Article 124(3)) and high courts (Article 217(2)), governor of a state (Article 157), attorney general (Article 76(1)) and advocate general (Article 165).
Equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India (Article 14) and protection of life or personal liberty (Article 21) are applicable to non-citizens as well.
The Indian Constitution doesn’t prescribe a permanent provision relating to citizenship in India. It simply describes categories of persons who are deemed to be citizens of India on the day the Indian Constitution was promulgated on January 26, 1950, and leaves citizenship to be regulated by law made by Parliament. Article 11 of the Constitution confers power on Parliament to make laws regarding citizenship. The Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 was enacted in exercise of this provision. By the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2003, Section 3 of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 was amended to provide that persons born after December 3, 2004, would be deemed to be citizens of India if both their parents are Indian citizens, or one of their parents is a citizen of India and the other is not an illegal migrant, at the time of the person’s birth.
“Illegal migrant” under the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 means a foreigner who has entered India: without a valid passport or travel documents; or with a valid passport or travel documents but remained in the country beyond the permitted period of time. If the Central Government is of the opinion that an applicant is a person who has rendered distinguished service to the cause of science, philosophy, art, literature, world peace or human progress generally, it may, under Section 6, waive all or any conditions specified to attain Indian citizenship.
Source: The Wire, https://thewire.in/rights/india-citizenship-constitution.
Question 4
A sovereign state in international law is a political entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood that a sovereign state is neither dependent on nor subjected to any other power or state. The population of a state is divided into two categories: citizens and non-citizens. A citizen of a state enjoys all civil and political rights. A non-citizen, on the other hand, doesn’t enjoy all these rights.
Under the Indian Constitution, certain fundamental rights are available only to citizens, namely: Right against discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth (Article 15); right to equality of opportunity in matters of public employment (Article 16); freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence and profession (Article 19); cultural and educational rights (Articles 29 and 30); and the right to vote and become members of the union and state legislatures.
Several offices can also be occupied exclusively by citizens: president (Article 58(1)(a)), vice-president (Article 66(2)), judges of the Supreme Court (Article 124(3)) and high courts (Article 217(2)), governor of a state (Article 157), attorney general (Article 76(1)) and advocate general (Article 165).
Equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India (Article 14) and protection of life or personal liberty (Article 21) are applicable to non-citizens as well.
The Indian Constitution doesn’t prescribe a permanent provision relating to citizenship in India. It simply describes categories of persons who are deemed to be citizens of India on the day the Indian Constitution was promulgated on January 26, 1950, and leaves citizenship to be regulated by law made by Parliament. Article 11 of the Constitution confers power on Parliament to make laws regarding citizenship. The Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 was enacted in exercise of this provision. By the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2003, Section 3 of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 was amended to provide that persons born after December 3, 2004, would be deemed to be citizens of India if both their parents are Indian citizens, or one of their parents is a citizen of India and the other is not an illegal migrant, at the time of the person’s birth.
“Illegal migrant” under the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 means a foreigner who has entered India: without a valid passport or travel documents; or with a valid passport or travel documents but remained in the country beyond the permitted period of time. If the Central Government is of the opinion that an applicant is a person who has rendered distinguished service to the cause of science, philosophy, art, literature, world peace or human progress generally, it may, under Section 6, waive all or any conditions specified to attain Indian citizenship.
Source: The Wire, https://thewire.in/rights/india-citizenship-constitution.
Question 5
A sovereign state in international law is a political entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood that a sovereign state is neither dependent on nor subjected to any other power or state. The population of a state is divided into two categories: citizens and non-citizens. A citizen of a state enjoys all civil and political rights. A non-citizen, on the other hand, doesn’t enjoy all these rights.
Under the Indian Constitution, certain fundamental rights are available only to citizens, namely: Right against discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth (Article 15); right to equality of opportunity in matters of public employment (Article 16); freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence and profession (Article 19); cultural and educational rights (Articles 29 and 30); and the right to vote and become members of the union and state legislatures.
Several offices can also be occupied exclusively by citizens: president (Article 58(1)(a)), vice-president (Article 66(2)), judges of the Supreme Court (Article 124(3)) and high courts (Article 217(2)), governor of a state (Article 157), attorney general (Article 76(1)) and advocate general (Article 165).
Equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India (Article 14) and protection of life or personal liberty (Article 21) are applicable to non-citizens as well.
The Indian Constitution doesn’t prescribe a permanent provision relating to citizenship in India. It simply describes categories of persons who are deemed to be citizens of India on the day the Indian Constitution was promulgated on January 26, 1950, and leaves citizenship to be regulated by law made by Parliament. Article 11 of the Constitution confers power on Parliament to make laws regarding citizenship. The Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 was enacted in exercise of this provision. By the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2003, Section 3 of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 was amended to provide that persons born after December 3, 2004, would be deemed to be citizens of India if both their parents are Indian citizens, or one of their parents is a citizen of India and the other is not an illegal migrant, at the time of the person’s birth.
“Illegal migrant” under the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 means a foreigner who has entered India: without a valid passport or travel documents; or with a valid passport or travel documents but remained in the country beyond the permitted period of time. If the Central Government is of the opinion that an applicant is a person who has rendered distinguished service to the cause of science, philosophy, art, literature, world peace or human progress generally, it may, under Section 6, waive all or any conditions specified to attain Indian citizenship.
Source: The Wire, https://thewire.in/rights/india-citizenship-constitution.
Question 6
Privity of contract occurs only between the parties to the contract, most commonly contract of sale of goods or services. Horizontal privity arises when the benefits from a contract are to be given to a third party. Vertical privity involves a contract between two parties, with an independent contract between one of the parties and another individual or company.
If a third party gets a benefit under a contract, it does not have the right to go against the parties to the contract beyond its entitlement to a benefit. An example of this occurs when a manufacturer sells a product to a distributor and the distributor sells the product to a retailer. The retailer then sells the product to a consumer. There is no privity of contract between the manufacturer and the consumer.
In the case of Hemlata v. Uzuki Car Company, the Supreme Court ruled that that Uzuki Car Company (“Uzukti”), a manufacturer of passenger automobiles, would be liable to someone
who had purchased a second-hand Uzuki car from someone in Guwahati, for damages produced by Uzukti’s incorporation into the car of a defective wheel manufactured by one of its suppliers, despite the lack of privity of contract between the purchaser and Uzukti. The doctrine of privity of contract is a principle of law, which provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations upon any person who is not a party to the contract.
Sometime later, the case of Gulaboo v. Halokistaan Drinks Company came before the Supreme Court. In that case, the consumer, Gulaboo, a patron at the Welcome Café in Mangalore, was with a companion who ordered a soft drink for her. Gulaboo drank about half a glass of the soft drink, and then the proprietor of the Café refilled her glass from the opaque bottle, at which time the remnants of a dead snail tumbled into Gulaboo’s glass. The sight and smell of the decomposed snail caused Gulaboo gastric distress and mental shock, and she sued the manufacturer (who was also the bottler) of the soft drink, the Halokistaan Drinks Company (“Halokistaan”).
Gulaboo’s lawyer argues that the Supreme Court was bound to follow the decision in the case of Hemlata v. Uzukti Car Company and should award compensation to Gulaboo for the harm she suffered, even though there was no contract between her and Halokistaan. The rule of precedent provides that a court must follow its own previous decisions in cases that are similar to the cases that resulted in such previous decisions, but not in cases that are different from the cases that resulted in such previous decisions. Halokistaan’s lawyer argues that the present case is very different from the Uzuki Car Company case, and so, the Supreme Court should not follow its decision in that case in the present matter.
Source: [Extracted, with edits, revisions, and with additions] ; from Thinking Like a Lawyer, Frederick Schauer, Harvard University Press, 2009.
Based on the information in the given passage, which of the following, if correct, would most strengthen Halokistaan’s case?
Question 7
Privity of contract occurs only between the parties to the contract, most commonly contract of sale of goods or services. Horizontal privity arises when the benefits from a contract are to be given to a third party. Vertical privity involves a contract between two parties, with an independent contract between one of the parties and another individual or company.
If a third party gets a benefit under a contract, it does not have the right to go against the parties to the contract beyond its entitlement to a benefit. An example of this occurs when a manufacturer sells a product to a distributor and the distributor sells the product to a retailer. The retailer then sells the product to a consumer. There is no privity of contract between the manufacturer and the consumer.
In the case of Hemlata v. Uzuki Car Company, the Supreme Court ruled that that Uzuki Car Company (“Uzukti”), a manufacturer of passenger automobiles, would be liable to someone
who had purchased a second-hand Uzuki car from someone in Guwahati, for damages produced by Uzukti’s incorporation into the car of a defective wheel manufactured by one of its suppliers, despite the lack of privity of contract between the purchaser and Uzukti. The doctrine of privity of contract is a principle of law, which provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations upon any person who is not a party to the contract.
Sometime later, the case of Gulaboo v. Halokistaan Drinks Company came before the Supreme Court. In that case, the consumer, Gulaboo, a patron at the Welcome Café in Mangalore, was with a companion who ordered a soft drink for her. Gulaboo drank about half a glass of the soft drink, and then the proprietor of the Café refilled her glass from the opaque bottle, at which time the remnants of a dead snail tumbled into Gulaboo’s glass. The sight and smell of the decomposed snail caused Gulaboo gastric distress and mental shock, and she sued the manufacturer (who was also the bottler) of the soft drink, the Halokistaan Drinks Company (“Halokistaan”).
Gulaboo’s lawyer argues that the Supreme Court was bound to follow the decision in the case of Hemlata v. Uzukti Car Company and should award compensation to Gulaboo for the harm she suffered, even though there was no contract between her and Halokistaan. The rule of precedent provides that a court must follow its own previous decisions in cases that are similar to the cases that resulted in such previous decisions, but not in cases that are different from the cases that resulted in such previous decisions. Halokistaan’s lawyer argues that the present case is very different from the Uzuki Car Company case, and so, the Supreme Court should not follow its decision in that case in the present matter.
Source: [Extracted, with edits, revisions, and with additions] ; from Thinking Like a Lawyer, Frederick Schauer, Harvard University Press, 2009.
Question 8
Privity of contract occurs only between the parties to the contract, most commonly contract of sale of goods or services. Horizontal privity arises when the benefits from a contract are to be given to a third party. Vertical privity involves a contract between two parties, with an independent contract between one of the parties and another individual or company.
If a third party gets a benefit under a contract, it does not have the right to go against the parties to the contract beyond its entitlement to a benefit. An example of this occurs when a manufacturer sells a product to a distributor and the distributor sells the product to a retailer. The retailer then sells the product to a consumer. There is no privity of contract between the manufacturer and the consumer.
In the case of Hemlata v. Uzuki Car Company, the Supreme Court ruled that that Uzuki Car Company (“Uzukti”), a manufacturer of passenger automobiles, would be liable to someone
who had purchased a second-hand Uzuki car from someone in Guwahati, for damages produced by Uzukti’s incorporation into the car of a defective wheel manufactured by one of its suppliers, despite the lack of privity of contract between the purchaser and Uzukti. The doctrine of privity of contract is a principle of law, which provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations upon any person who is not a party to the contract.
Sometime later, the case of Gulaboo v. Halokistaan Drinks Company came before the Supreme Court. In that case, the consumer, Gulaboo, a patron at the Welcome Café in Mangalore, was with a companion who ordered a soft drink for her. Gulaboo drank about half a glass of the soft drink, and then the proprietor of the Café refilled her glass from the opaque bottle, at which time the remnants of a dead snail tumbled into Gulaboo’s glass. The sight and smell of the decomposed snail caused Gulaboo gastric distress and mental shock, and she sued the manufacturer (who was also the bottler) of the soft drink, the Halokistaan Drinks Company (“Halokistaan”).
Gulaboo’s lawyer argues that the Supreme Court was bound to follow the decision in the case of Hemlata v. Uzukti Car Company and should award compensation to Gulaboo for the harm she suffered, even though there was no contract between her and Halokistaan. The rule of precedent provides that a court must follow its own previous decisions in cases that are similar to the cases that resulted in such previous decisions, but not in cases that are different from the cases that resulted in such previous decisions. Halokistaan’s lawyer argues that the present case is very different from the Uzuki Car Company case, and so, the Supreme Court should not follow its decision in that case in the present matter.
Source: [Extracted, with edits, revisions, and with additions] ; from Thinking Like a Lawyer, Frederick Schauer, Harvard University Press, 2009.
Question 9
Privity of contract occurs only between the parties to the contract, most commonly contract of sale of goods or services. Horizontal privity arises when the benefits from a contract are to be given to a third party. Vertical privity involves a contract between two parties, with an independent contract between one of the parties and another individual or company.
If a third party gets a benefit under a contract, it does not have the right to go against the parties to the contract beyond its entitlement to a benefit. An example of this occurs when a manufacturer sells a product to a distributor and the distributor sells the product to a retailer. The retailer then sells the product to a consumer. There is no privity of contract between the manufacturer and the consumer.
In the case of Hemlata v. Uzuki Car Company, the Supreme Court ruled that that Uzuki Car Company (“Uzukti”), a manufacturer of passenger automobiles, would be liable to someone
who had purchased a second-hand Uzuki car from someone in Guwahati, for damages produced by Uzukti’s incorporation into the car of a defective wheel manufactured by one of its suppliers, despite the lack of privity of contract between the purchaser and Uzukti. The doctrine of privity of contract is a principle of law, which provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations upon any person who is not a party to the contract.
Sometime later, the case of Gulaboo v. Halokistaan Drinks Company came before the Supreme Court. In that case, the consumer, Gulaboo, a patron at the Welcome Café in Mangalore, was with a companion who ordered a soft drink for her. Gulaboo drank about half a glass of the soft drink, and then the proprietor of the Café refilled her glass from the opaque bottle, at which time the remnants of a dead snail tumbled into Gulaboo’s glass. The sight and smell of the decomposed snail caused Gulaboo gastric distress and mental shock, and she sued the manufacturer (who was also the bottler) of the soft drink, the Halokistaan Drinks Company (“Halokistaan”).
Gulaboo’s lawyer argues that the Supreme Court was bound to follow the decision in the case of Hemlata v. Uzukti Car Company and should award compensation to Gulaboo for the harm she suffered, even though there was no contract between her and Halokistaan. The rule of precedent provides that a court must follow its own previous decisions in cases that are similar to the cases that resulted in such previous decisions, but not in cases that are different from the cases that resulted in such previous decisions. Halokistaan’s lawyer argues that the present case is very different from the Uzuki Car Company case, and so, the Supreme Court should not follow its decision in that case in the present matter.
Source: [Extracted, with edits, revisions, and with additions] ; from Thinking Like a Lawyer, Frederick Schauer, Harvard University Press, 2009.
Question 10
Privity of contract occurs only between the parties to the contract, most commonly contract of sale of goods or services. Horizontal privity arises when the benefits from a contract are to be given to a third party. Vertical privity involves a contract between two parties, with an independent contract between one of the parties and another individual or company.
If a third party gets a benefit under a contract, it does not have the right to go against the parties to the contract beyond its entitlement to a benefit. An example of this occurs when a manufacturer sells a product to a distributor and the distributor sells the product to a retailer. The retailer then sells the product to a consumer. There is no privity of contract between the manufacturer and the consumer.
In the case of Hemlata v. Uzuki Car Company, the Supreme Court ruled that that Uzuki Car Company (“Uzukti”), a manufacturer of passenger automobiles, would be liable to someone
who had purchased a second-hand Uzuki car from someone in Guwahati, for damages produced by Uzukti’s incorporation into the car of a defective wheel manufactured by one of its suppliers, despite the lack of privity of contract between the purchaser and Uzukti. The doctrine of privity of contract is a principle of law, which provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations upon any person who is not a party to the contract.
Sometime later, the case of Gulaboo v. Halokistaan Drinks Company came before the Supreme Court. In that case, the consumer, Gulaboo, a patron at the Welcome Café in Mangalore, was with a companion who ordered a soft drink for her. Gulaboo drank about half a glass of the soft drink, and then the proprietor of the Café refilled her glass from the opaque bottle, at which time the remnants of a dead snail tumbled into Gulaboo’s glass. The sight and smell of the decomposed snail caused Gulaboo gastric distress and mental shock, and she sued the manufacturer (who was also the bottler) of the soft drink, the Halokistaan Drinks Company (“Halokistaan”).
Gulaboo’s lawyer argues that the Supreme Court was bound to follow the decision in the case of Hemlata v. Uzukti Car Company and should award compensation to Gulaboo for the harm she suffered, even though there was no contract between her and Halokistaan. The rule of precedent provides that a court must follow its own previous decisions in cases that are similar to the cases that resulted in such previous decisions, but not in cases that are different from the cases that resulted in such previous decisions. Halokistaan’s lawyer argues that the present case is very different from the Uzuki Car Company case, and so, the Supreme Court should not follow its decision in that case in the present matter.
Source: [Extracted, with edits, revisions, and with additions] ; from Thinking Like a Lawyer, Frederick Schauer, Harvard University Press, 2009.
- 166 attempts
- 0 upvotes
- 3 comments
Tags :
CLAT UGLegal Reasoning