Legal Reasoning (कानुनी तर्क) – Legal Reasoning MCQ
Legal Reasoning (कानुनी तर्क) – कानुन प्रवेश
Legal Reasoning · Law Entrance – Legal Reasoning, Constitution, English & GK · ६२५ प्रश्न
६२५ प्रश्न उपलब्ध। मोड छान्नुहोस्:
Legal Reasoning (कानुनी तर्क): प्रश्न र उत्तर
सही लागेको विकल्पमा थिच्नुहोस्। सही भए हरियो, गलत भए रातो देखिन्छ; ३ सेकेन्डपछि सही उत्तर र व्याख्या देखिन्छ।
सही: ० / ०
-
Principle: An attempt requires an act done towards the commission of the offence that goes beyond mere preparation. Facts: A buys poison intending to kill B and keeps it at home, but does nothing further. Decide.
सही उत्तर: ग) A is not guilty of attempt, as his act is only preparation
Buying the poison is mere preparation; A has not taken any step towards administering it.
💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)
-
Principle: Intoxication excuses a person only if the intoxicant was administered without his knowledge or against his will. Facts: A voluntarily drinks heavily at a party and then assaults B. Decide.
सही उत्तर: घ) A is liable for the assault
Voluntary intoxication is not a defence under the principle, so A is liable.
💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)
-
Principle: Nothing is an offence that is done by a person who, at the time, because of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it is wrong or contrary to law. Facts: A, suffering from a severe mental illness, kills B under the delusion that he is cutting down a tree. Decide.
सही उत्तर: ख) A is not guilty, as he could not know the nature of his act
A did not know the nature of his act owing to unsoundness of mind, so the defence of insanity applies.
💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)
-
Principle: The right of private defence arises only against an imminent threat and is not available when there is time to seek the protection of public authorities. Facts: A learns that B plans to attack him next week. The next day, A goes to B's house and beats him. Decide.
सही उत्तर: क) A cannot claim private defence and is liable
There was no imminent danger and ample time to approach the police, so the right of private defence did not arise.
💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)
-
Principle: Theft is the dishonest taking of movable property out of the possession of another person without that person's consent. Facts: A pledges his own watch with B, a pawnbroker, as security for a loan. Later, without repaying the loan and without B's consent, A secretly takes the watch back from B's shop. Decide.
सही उत्तर: घ) A has committed theft, as he dishonestly took the watch out of B's possession
The principle protects possession, not just ownership; B lawfully possessed the watch, so A's dishonest taking without consent is theft.
💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)
-
Principle: No one is guilty of an offence unless the act is done with a guilty mind. Facts: When leaving a restaurant, A takes an umbrella from the stand, honestly believing it to be his own. In fact it belongs to B. Decide.
सही उत्तर: ख) A has not committed theft, as he had no dishonest intention
A honestly believed the umbrella was his, so the guilty mind required for theft is absent.
💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)
-
Principle: Where the thing that caused the harm was under the defendant's control and the accident would not ordinarily happen without negligence, negligence may be presumed. Facts: A sack of flour falls from the upper window of A's warehouse onto B, who is walking on the street below. Decide.
सही उत्तर: ग) Negligence on A's part may be presumed
Sacks do not normally fall from warehouses without negligence, and the warehouse was in A's control, so the maxim res ipsa loquitur applies.
💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)
-
Principle: A person is liable only for those consequences of his negligence that were reasonably foreseeable. Facts: A's workers negligently spill furnace oil into a harbour. In circumstances nobody could foresee, the oil later catches fire and burns B's wharf. Decide.
सही उत्तर: घ) A is not liable for the fire damage, as fire was not reasonably foreseeable
Damage of an unforeseeable kind is too remote; A is liable only for foreseeable kinds of harm.
💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)
-
Principle: If the offeror prescribes a manner of acceptance and the acceptance is made in another manner, the offeror may, within a reasonable time, insist on the prescribed manner; if he does not, he is bound by the acceptance. Facts: A asks B to accept by telegram. B accepts by letter. A receives the letter and says nothing for a long time. Decide.
सही उत्तर: घ) A is bound by the acceptance
A did not insist on the prescribed mode within a reasonable time, so he is bound by the acceptance by letter.
💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)
-
Principle: The defence of 'volenti non fit injuria' does not apply to a person who is injured while reasonably trying to rescue others from a danger created by the defendant's negligence. Facts: A negligently leaves his horses unattended on a busy street. They bolt towards a group of children. Police officer B stops them and is injured. Decide.
सही उत्तर: घ) A is liable to B
B acted as a rescuer in response to a danger created by A's negligence, so consent to risk cannot be pleaded against him.
💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)
यी अभ्यास प्रश्न हुन्, आधिकारिक प्रश्न होइनन्। पाठ्यक्रम, विज्ञापन र नतिजाका लागि सम्बन्धित निकायको आधिकारिक वेबसाइट हेर्नुहोस्। उत्तरमा गल्ती भेटे प्रश्नमुनिको "टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट" मा लेख्नुहोस्।
नमस्ते! पाठ्यक्रम, सामान्य ज्ञान, भाषा परीक्षा वा कुनै प्रश्नको उत्तर बुझ्न सोध्नुहोस्।
AI ले गल्ती गर्न सक्छ। महत्वपूर्ण कुरा आधिकारिक स्रोतमा जाँच्नुहोस्।