P' gave her expensive dress to 'D', a dry cleaner for getting it cleaned, who in tum gave the dress to his worker 'M' for the purpose of cleaning. 'M' without permission of 'V' gave the dress to a lady 'X' for wearing on some party. 'X' returned the dress to 'M' in a damaged condition. 'P' files suit against 'D' for her loss.

P' gave her expensive dress to 'D', a dry cleaner for getting it cleaned, who in tum gave the dress to his worker 'M' for the purpose of cleaning. 'M' without permission of 'V' gave the dress to a lady 'X' for wearing on some party. 'X' returned the dress to 'M' in a damaged condition. 'P' files suit against 'D' for her loss. Correct Answer 'D' is vicariously liable since 'M' is 'D's employee and the dress was entrusted to 'M' by 'D'

Bissoy MCQ

Related Questions

X hands over her expensive saree for cleaning to a dry cleaner who loses the same. X claims the total value of the saree. The dry cleaner refers to a clause printed in the contract receipt which states that the dry cleaner can be held liable for Rs. 50 or 10% of the original value of the cloth only, whichever is less. Which one of the following propositions holds good to explain the correct position of law on the point?
To constitute a matter of res judicata which of the following conditions must concur?
1. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually (section 11, explanation III) or constructively (section 11, explanation IV) in the former suit
2. The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties under whom they or any of them claim. Explanation VI of Section 11 must be read with this condition
3. The parties as aforesaid must have litigated under the same title in the former suit
4. The court which decided the former suit must have been a court competent to try the subsequent suit of the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. Explanation II of section 11 is to be read with condition
5. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the first suit. Explanation V of section 11 is to be read with this condition
There are five persons sitting on a bench. Blue eyed lady sitting in the middle is my mother. At the extreme left, the man with grey hair is my maternal uncle. Lady sitting at the extreme right is having a pimple on her nose and is the wife of person who is sitting between blue eyed lady and grey haired man and has a pointed nose. A lady having marks on her face is the younger sister of the blue eyed lady and sitting on the remaining fifth place. The person having a pointed nose is the son of the blue eyed lady. What is the lady having marks on her face to the man sitting at extreme left ?
Principle: A plaintiff who suffers some injury will be entitled to receive compensation even if he suffers no loss.
Factual Situation: Reddy was a strong political worker of Party X. He was proceeding to the poling booth at about 7:30 am, to cast his vote in favour of Mr. Naik, his party candidate. On the way, the State Police officials suspected Reddy to be an anti-social element and took him into custody for questioning. Reddy pleaded with the officials that he was a genuine voter and had no previous criminal records and requested them to allow him to cast his vote. The officials allegedly detained him in custody till about 4:45 pm and thereafter released him, recording that they could not find any thing against him. By the time Reddy reached the poling booth the polling time was over and he could not vote for Mr. Naik. When the results were declared Mr. Naik got a Majority of over 6000 votes and Party X got the majority to form the Government. Reddy files a suit for compensation against the State.
A member of Parliament can be disqualified on the ground of dejection if
1. He leaves the party as a result of split in the party along with members who constitute only 1/3rd of the total membership of that party
2. A nominated member joins any political party after the expiry of 6 months from the date on which he takes his seat in the House
3. He gives up membership of the political party on whose ticket he is elected
4. He votes or abstains from voting in the House against the direction of political party without prior permission
A' files a Suit for Mandatory Injunction against illegal disconnection of electricity. 'A' also suffers loss in the business on account of non supply of electricity. The suit for Mandatory Injunction is dismissed. 'A' thereafter files suit for damages for suffering loss. The subsequent Suit is barred
In a contractual dispute between two parties A and B, A files a suit in New Delhi where the cause of action arose. Two days later, B files a suit in the same matter in Mumbai, where A is resident. The pendency of the first suit is not brought to the notice of the court in Mumbai. The court pronounces judgement in second suit before the first suit is decided. Would such decision operate as a bar on the court in New Delhi to try the suit any further?
A', an Indian citizen, enters into a contract with 'B', a US citizen based in the USA. Certain disputes arise under the contract, and 'B' files a suit in the matter in the civil court of New York. 'A' files a counter claim in the said suit. Subsequently, 'A' files a suit in the same matter in the jurisdictional Civil Court in New Delhi. Is the latter court barred from trying the suit?
In a suit filed by the plaintiff, the defendant in his written statement has taken the objection of non-impleadment of necessary party. Despite such objection the plaintiff continued the suit and the suit finally was decreed. At the first appellate stage, the plaintiff withdraws the suit with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action and subsequently filed a fresh suit. The period spent by the plaintiff in the earlier suit, under section 14 of Limitation Act is
A (a 25 year old man) was B's (a 23 year old woman) neighbour. He fell in love with her and wanted to ask her to enter into a relationship with him. He sent her a number of text messages proclaiming his love for her. She did not respond to his overtures. On November 18, 2013, A went to B's house and told her that he was in love with her, and wanted to marry her. She told him that she was not interested and asked him to leave. A believed that B was only playing hard to get, and if he persisted, she would change her mind. On November 25, 2013, when B was returning home from her workplace, A met her again and proclaimed his love for her again. She again told him that she was not interested, and threatened to complain to the police. In spite of this, a week later, when B was leaving for work, she noticed that A was waiting outside her house, with a bouquet of flowers, and he tried to give her the flowers. B ignored him once again, and went to the police station to complain about A's acts. Under what Section of the Indian Penal Code should the police register the FIR (First Information Report)