Posted in Legal Aptitude, Study Material

Answers to Legal Reasoning Quiz-1

Answers Key:

1-(a), 2-(c), 3-(c), 4-(b), 5-(a), 6-(b), 7-(c), 8-(b), 9-(d), 10-(b)


  1. The principle talks about ‘willful rash driving’, whereas as per the facts, Mr. Boru is merely driving while intoxicated. His actions do not amount to ‘wilful rash driving’. The correct answer is (a).
  1. Akash is not liable for fraud as the principle clearly states, “Mere silence as to the facts likely to affect the willingness of a person is not fraud’. The circumstances of the case are not such that it is the duty of the person keeping silent to speak. If, however, Anubhuti asks Akash while inspecting the horse, “Is the horse of a sound mind?”, and if Akash says no, then he will be liable for fraud. In the present case, however, Akash has not committed fraud as he did not say anything positive about the mental state of the horse. The correct answer is (c).
  1. According to the principle, only the parliament or state legislatures have the authority to enact laws. The judiciary does not have the power to direct the parliament to enact a new law as there is a separation of powers. However, it is well within the power of the judiciary to quash a law which violates a person’s fundamental right. Thus, the correct answer is (c).
  1. By merely quoting the lowest price of the car, Aparna has not made an offer. Rather, he has just provided information regarding the car. Thus, it is only an invitation to offer and not an offer itself. As there is no valid offer, there can be no acceptance by Arshita. Aparna can refuse to sell the car as quoting the lowest price was an invitation to offer and not an offer. Accordingly, the correct answer is (b).
  1. As Sakshi is of unsound mind while entering into the contract, as according to the principle, he cannot enter into the contract with Samyak. Thus, the answer is (a).
  1. The principle has to be applied directly. UCIL bought a substance on their property which could cause damage if it escaped. The substance escaped. It is not relevant whether UCIL took adequate care to ensure that the substance would not escape. The principle states that one who stores the dangerous substance is liable for ‘any’ damage caused upon escape. The authorities are entitled to the whole sum, as UCIL shall be held liable for all the repercussions of their act even if they had exercised due care. Thus, the correct answer is (b).
  1. Make sure you only apply the principle mentioned in the question. According to principles 1 and 3, defamation has occurred in both instances as a third person came to know of the defamatory material (publication) and injury was caused without lawful justification. Truth cannot be a defence as this question is only concerned with Principle 1 and 3. The correct answer is (c).
  1. As a defamatory statement was published which resulted in the loss of reputation of Ashim, defamation has been committed by Akashdeep. The correct answer is (b).
  1. As a defamatory statement which is untrue has been published causing a loss of reputation the answer is (d). All of the above.
  1. Based on a direct application of the principle, since Abhiroop is a minor, any contract with him is a void contract. The correct answer is (b).


Comment your score below 🙂

Follow us and ensure that you do not miss a single post. Like our Facebook Page as well and help us grow. If you have any specific doubts, message us on Facebook or write to us at



An initiative by NLSIU students to help CLAT aspirants.

27 thoughts on “Answers to Legal Reasoning Quiz-1

  1. Hey, a little doubt.
    I’ve read in many books that when a minor misrepresents his/her age then the minor may be asked to restore the contents of the contract, or pay the sum.
    Hence, I marked (a) for Q.10.
    An explanation would be really helpful. Thanks in advance.


    1. Hey Shaurya.
      Yes it is true that when a minor misrepresents his/her age then the minor may be asked to restore the consideration received through the contract.
      However, the principle in this question doesn’t talk about what happens when the minor represents his/her age. It only says that a contract with a minor is void. Always stick to the principle, word-to-word. So this is why option (A) is correct.


    1. In q.4, the principle does not talk about willingness to enter into a “contract”. It only talks about willingness to do/abstain from doing something. Hence, option (b) is more appropriate.
      for q.6, the explanation given above is sufficient in our view. “Any” damage doesn’t provide for the fact that the authorities were inefficient. So we do not need to worry about efficiency of authorities. “Any” is significant word in the principle.


  2. mine is 7/10. But I could have scored 9 had I not marked D for the question no 3 which I thought was the correct answer because though the law enacted by the parliament was invalid, but there was no mention what the court could do whether it has the power to quash it or not, so I thought it should be D. Also, I had marked option A for question no 9 because I think option B was not correct as though the injury was caused to Asheem by Akashdeep letter but the point of ‘lawful justification’ should also be missing but I think information is not adequate to judge that, and for the option C I think it is not correct because we again don’t know whether it was truth or not. please correct me if I am wrong..!! Thanks.


    1. For q.3, as no law made by the state can take away a person’s fundamental rights, it can be reasonably derived that such a law must be quashed. It can be reasonably assumed that only the court shall have the power to quash such a law. Hence, option (c) is right.


    1. While your answer may be true in the practical context (see Khan Gul v Lakha Singh), in the question you are required to strictly stick to the principle. As the principle does not talk about whether or not the minor falsely misrepresents his/her age, option (b) is correct.


      1. Regarding the 8th question, the principle demands us to make use of only the 1st and 2nd principles, so naturally I was inclined to choose option A because B has given the same sentence as given in principle 3 (which you are not supposed to use). If it isn’t too much trouble can you pick out the flaw in my logic? Thanks in advance. 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s