1. Principle: Use of criminal force intentionally knowing that it would cause or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the person against whom force is used, is an offence. Facts: X, a renowned social worker who had launched a movement for liberation of women, pulls up a Muslim women's veil in public in good faith without her consent causing annoyance to her. (CLAT 2019)

2. Legal Principle: Licence is an agreement whereby the owner of the copyright agrees to grant an interest in the copyright to the licencee, assignment is an agreement whereby the owner of the copyright transfers all the property rights to the assignee. Property right is a bundle of rights consisting of right to possess, right to use, right to alienate and the right to exclude others.
Factual Situation: A, an owner of copyright in a cinematographic film enters into an agreement with B, a film distributor, B agrees to distribute the film only in Mumbai. A also enters into many such agreements with other distributors for distribution of his film in other cities. (CLAT 2013)

3. Legal Principle: The master/principal is liable for all acts done by his duly appointed servant/agent for all acts done by him lawfully in the course of his employment.
Factual Situation: A, B, C and D carried on a business in partnership. While making a deal with another company, B bribed the clerk there. Is the partnership firm vicariously liable? (AILET 2015)
Decision:

4. Legal Principle: when a person unlawfully intervenes in the chattel of another personbywhichthel atterisdeprivedofitsuse,theformercommitsthetor tof conversion. And nobody shall enrich himself at other's cost.
Factual Situation: X, a patient suffering from fibroids in her uterus approached KLM Medical Institute. X was suggested to undergo surgery to remove the fibroids from her uterus. The operation was successfully performed and X was discharged after few days. one of the researchers of the KLM Institute discovered some rare and unique cells in the fibroids of X and using these cells, the laboratory of KLM developed some life-saving drugs and earned twenty crore from a leading International Pharma Company. When X came to know about it, she claimed five crore from the Institute. (AILET 2016)
Decision:

5. Principle: Nothing is an offence if it is done under intoxication and the person commiting the offence was incapable to understand the nature of the Act. Intoxication should be without knowledge or against the will of the person. Facts: A, B and C were having a party in Bar where A pursuaded B and C to take alcoholic drinks. On the persistent pursuation B and C also consumed alcohol along with A. B and C had never consumed alcohol before. After intoxiation, there was some argument between B and C where C pushed B with full force causing serious injury to B. (CLAT 2019)

6. Legal Principle: Existence of all the alleged facts is relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.
Factual Situation: 'A', a citizen of England, is accused of committing murder of 'B' in India by taking part in a conspiracy hatched in England. (CLAT 2016)

7. Legal Principle: In case of a breach of contract, compensation can be awarded for the personal inconvenience suffered by a party by reason of the breach, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it.
Factual Situation: Sunita and Sushmita bought bus tickets for a journey from Adyar to Mandaveli. The bus was to go to St. Thomas Mount via Mandaveli. However, the driver mistakenly took a wrong direction and the two girls were dropped at a distance of 2½ miles from Mandaveli on the highway. With no other transportation in sight nor a place to stay, the two had to walk 2½ miles at midnight. Later they filed a case against the bus company and claimed 5,000 as damages for inconvenience caused in having to walk and 6,500 for Sushmita having fallen ill by catching cold during the night. (AILET 2012)
Decision:

8. Legal Principle: The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made.
Factual Situation: 'A' sent a letter making a proposal to 'B' to purchase the house of 'B'. (CLAT 2016)

9. Legal Principles: 1. A person is liable for his negligence when he owed a duty of care to others and commits a breach of that duty causing injury thereby. 2. Volenti non fit injuria is defence to negligence.
Factual Situation: Anil and his wife, Reena, were in a shop as customers, where a skylight in the roof of the shop was broken, owing to the negligence of the contractors engaged in repairing the roof, and a portion of the glass fell and struck Anil causing him a severe shock. Reena, who was standing close to him, was not touched by the falling glass, but, reasonably believing her husband to be in danger, she instinctively clutched his arm, and tried to pull him from the spot. In doing this, she strained her leg in such a way as to bring about a recurrence of thrombosis. Anil and Reena are claiming compensation for their injuries which were caused due to the negligence of the shop owners. The shop owners are denying liability on the grounds of volenti non fit injuria. The defence of volenti non fit injuria (AILET 2018)

10. Principle: Where one of the parties to a contract was in position to dominate the decision of the other party, the contract is enforceable only at the option of the party who was in a position to dominate decision of the other party. Facts: A doctor asked his patient to make a payment of Rs. 10,00,000/-(Ten Lac Only) for treatment of his fever. The patient paid an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lac Only) and promised to pay the remaining amount after the treatment. After treatment the patient recovered from fever. The doctor demanded the remaining amount from the patient. The patient refused to pay. (CLAT 2019)

11. A, B and C jointly promised to repay ` 90,000 to D. Before performance of the contract, C dies. Here the contract: (SET LAW 2012)

12. Legal Principle: When the parties to an agreement agree on the same thing in the same sense, there arises legally binding obligations between them.
Factual Situation: Zaverilal's antique shop was a well-known shop of the locality. Taradevi, a socialite of the locality, went to the shop and she was attracted by an earthern jar on display. Zaverilal explained to her that the jar belonged to Hoysala period and despite its earthern composition, it was very strong and almost unbreakable. Taradevi replied to him that she was so captivated by the jar that it was immaterial to her as to which period it belonged. She bought the jar and came home. She placed the jar in a prominent place in her drawing room. One of her friends, an art critique, who happened to visit her, told her that the jar was not at all an antique, but Taradevi did not bother about it. One day, it accidentally fell down and broke into pieces. Taradevi took up the matter with Zaverilal that his both statements were wrong and, therefore, he should pay damages to her. (NLU DELHI 2011)

13. Legal Principle: When there is breach of contract, the resulting damages will have to be paid by the party breaching the contract to the aggrieved party. However, the parties are free to agree as to damages payable in advance in case there is a breach of contract.
Factual Situation: Mr Ramesh entered into a contract with Mr Ramakrishna for selling his green Alto Car for ` 3 lakhs. Mr Ramakrishna was to pay ` 3 lakhs on or before 25th April, 2005 and take possession of the car. The party failing to honour the contract has to pay ` 40,000 as damages to the other party. Mr Ramakrishna has not performed his part of the contract. Mr Ramesh is claiming '40,000. (NLU DELHI 2011)

14. Legal Principles: (AILET 2019) 1. Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it. 2. A person liable if he can reasonable foresee that his acts would be likely to injure his neighbour. 3. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a prerequisite of liability in actions of nuisance. Facts: Bharat Sugar Ltd. operated a sugar refinery on the bank of the river Ravi. They had a jetty from which raw sugar would be offloaded from barges and refined sugar would be taken. The sugar would be take by large vessels and then transferred to smaller barges to enable them to get through the shallow waters. As part of development Bharat Sugar Ltd. wished to construct a new jetty and dredge the water to accommodate the large vessels. At the same time the State was constructing new ferry terminals. The design of the ferry terminals was such that it caused siltation of the channels. After using the channels for a short while. Bharat Sugar's large vessels were no longer able use them. Further dredging at the cost of ` 7,50,000 was required to make the channel and usable by the vessels. Bharat Sugar Ltd. brought an action in nuisance to recover the cost of the extra dredging. Is the State liable?

15. Legal Principle: Justice should not only be done, but also seen to be done. Facts: L, an honest Lawyer had 200 shares in Company X. Later, L was elevated to the High Court as a Judge and had to deal with Company matters. A dispute between Company X and its creditors came before L for decision. Which among the following proposition is true? (CLAT 2018)

16. Legal Principle: Every agreement, of which the object or consideration is opposed to public policy, is void. An agreement which has the tendency to injure public interest or public welfare is one against public policy. What constitutes an injury to public interest or public welfare would depend upon the times and the circumstances.
Factual Situation: 'A' promises to obtain for 'B' an employment in the public service, and 'B' promises to pay ` 5,00,000 to 'A'. (CLAT 2017)

17. Principle: No court can execute the decisions unless it is having territorial jurisdiction over the property or the person against whom decision is to be executed. The Court which gave the decision can transfer the matter to the court which has the territorial jurisdiction over the person or property. Facts: A decision is given by court at New Delhi on a contractual matter against X in a suit between X and Y. X is resident of Maharashtra and he has properties in Maharasthra and Gujarat. (CLAT 2019)

18. Assertion (A): Idol is a person who can hold property. Reason (R): Only human being can be called person not the lifeless things. (CLAT 2015)

19. Factual Situation: Bournville ran a sales promotion whereby if persons sent in 3 chocolate bar wrappers and a postal order for ` 100 they would be sent a record. Big Beats owned the copyright in one of the records offered and disputed the right of Bournville to offer the records and sought an injunction to prevent the sale of the records which normally retailed at ` 1,000. Under the Copyright Act, retailers are protected from breach of copyright if they gave notice to the copyright holders of the ordinary retail selling price and paid them 6.25% of this. Bournville gave notice stating the ordinary selling price was '100 and three chocolate bar wrappers. The issue is whether the chocolate bar wrappers formed part of the consideration? (AILET 2018)

20. Legal Principle: A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgement as to its effect upon his interests
Factual Situation: Mr X who is usually of sound state of mind, but occasionally of unsound state of mind, enters into a contract with Mr Y when he was of unsound state of mind. Mr Y having come to know about this fact afterwards, wants to file a suit against Mr X. (AILET 2015)
Decision:

21. Legal Principle: One of the principles of natural justice is Nemo judex in causa sua, which means that no one should be a judge in his own cause. In other words, no person can judge a case in which he has an interest.
Factual Situation: X, a member of the selection board for government service, was also a candidate for selection for the same service. X did not take part in the deliberations of the board when his name was considered and approved. (CLAT 2014)

22. Legal Principle: Employers/Principles are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees/ agents in the course of employment/agency. A servant/ agent may be defined as any person employed by another to do work for him on the terms that he, the servant/agent, is to be subject to the control and directions of his employer/principal in respect of the manner in which his work is to be done.
Factual Situation: A motor car was owned by and registered and insured in the name of A (wife) but was regarded by her and her husband (B) as “our car.” B used it to go to work, and A for shopping at the weekends. B told A that if ever he was drunk and unfit to drive through, he would get a sober friend to drive him or else telephone her to come and fetch him. On the day in question the husband telephoned the wife after work and told her that he was going out with friends. He visited a number of public houses and had drinks. At some stage, he realised that he was unable to drive safely and asked a friend, C, to drive. C drove them to other public houses. After the last had been visited C offered the three friends (X, Y and Z) a lift and they got in, together with B who was in a soporific condition. C then proceeded, at his own suggestion, to drive in a direction away from the B's home to have a meal, On the way, due to C's negligent driving, an accident occurred in which both B and C were killed and the other friends got injured. X, Y and Z brought an action against the wife both in her personal capacity and as administration of the husband's estate. Decide whether A is liable. (AILET 2017)
Decision:

23. Principle: An agreement may be entered into orally, in writing, or by conduct. Facts: 'A' went to the shop of 'B' and picked a tooth brush and gave a cheque of Rupees twenty to B and left the shop. (CLAT 2019)

24. In order to defend the sale, Bandita will need to show that (CLAT 2011)

25. Legal Principle: Law never enforces an impossible promise.
Factual Situation: 'A' made a promise to 'B' to discover treasure by magic. (CLAT 2016)