Reasoning the Reason

LEGAL ,LOGICAL , ANALYTICAL REASONING

LEGAL REASONING


1. PRINCIPLES: 1. An assault is an act which intentionally causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on a person.
2. A battery consists of an intentional application of force to another person without any lawful justification.
FACTS: Jagan was in his car when he was approached by a police officer who told him to move the vehicle. Jagan did so, reversed his car and rolled it on to the foot of the police officer. The officer forcefully told him to move the car off his foot at which point Jagan swore at him and refused to move his vehicle and turned the engine off. Jagan was convicted for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. Is he liable for battery or assault?
(a) He is not liable because there cannot be an assault in omitting to act and that driving on to the officer’s foot was accidental, meaning that he was lacking mens rea when the act causing damage had occurred.
(b) He is not liable as the act neither amounts to an attempt nor a threat to commit a battery that amounts to an actionable tort of assault.
(c) Jagan’s crime was not the refusal to move the car but that of having driven on to the foot of the officer and deciding not to cease the act, he had established a continual act of battery.
(d) He is neither liable for assault nor battery as he accidentally drove his car on the police officer’s foot.

2. PRINCIPLES:
1. ‘Misrepresentation’ means and includes the positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true; any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gains an advantage of the person committing it, or any one claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him; causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement, to make a mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement.
2. The tort of negligent misstatement is defined as an inaccurate statement made honestly but carelessly usually in the form of advice given by a party with special skill/knowledge to a party that doesn’t possess this skill or knowledge.
FACTS: The plaintiff, Mr. Madan, entered into a tenancy agreement with the defendant, Esso Petroleum, in respect of a petrol station owned by the latter. During the course of the negotiation of the agreement, ‘expert’ advisers employed by the defendant had provided an estimate of the sales which the petrol station could expect which was based on inaccurate information and consequently was significantly inflated. The value of the rent on the agreement had been calculated based on this inflated figure. As a result, it was impossible for the plaintiff to operate the petrol station profitably. Whether the plaintiff could have any action for negligent misrepresentation?
(a) The contract could not be held void for misrepresentation as the defendants presented the inflated figure as an estimate rather than as a hard fact.
(b) The defendant has no obligation to disclose as the parties contracting should obtain the necessary information themselves without relying upon the other party.
(c) As the defendant had taken it upon themselves to employ experts for the purpose of providing an estimate of sales, they owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to ensure that this was done on the basis of accurate information. Hence, the plaintiff can recover the losses which he had suffered as a result of the defendant’s negligent misstatement.
(d) Both (a) and (c).
The answers are: 1. (c); 2. (d).


LOGICAL REASONING


Directions (Qs. 1-5): Study the following information carefully and answer the given questions that follow.
Eight friends, A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H are sitting around a square table in such a way that four of them sit at four corners of the square while four sit in the middle of each of the four sides. The ones who sit at the four corners face the centre while those who sit in the middle of the sides face outside. A, who faces the centre, sits third to the right of F. E, who faces the centre, is not an immediate neighbour of F. Only one person sits between F and G. D sits second to right of B. B faces the centre. C is not an immediate neighbour of A.

1. Who sits second to the left of B?
(a) F
(b) A
(c) E
(d) H.
2. What is the position of E with respect to F?
(a) Fourth to the left
(b) Second to the left
(c) Immediate left
(d) Third to the right.
3. Three of the following four are alike in a certain way and so form a group. Which is the one that does not belong to that group?
(a) C
(b) G
(c) F
(d) D.
4. Which of the following will come in place of the question mark based upon the given seating arrangement?
CD BG EC ?
(a) FB
(b) FH
(c) HE
(d) AH.
5. Which of the following is true regarding C?
(a) C is an immediate neighbour of F
(b) C faces the centre
(c) C sits exactly between E and D
(d) B sits third to left of C.
The answers are: 1. (b); 2. (d); 3. (d); 4. (a); 5. (c).


ANALYTICAL REASONING


Directions (Qs. 1-3): In each of the questions below are given four statements followed by four conclusions numbered I, II, III and IV. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. Read all conclusions and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the given statements disregarding commonly known facts.
1. Statements:
Some bags are truth.
All truth are shirts.
Some shirts are boys.
All boys are shops.
Conclusions:
I. Some shops are bags.
II. Some boys are bags.
III. Some shops are shirts.
IV. Some shirts are bags.
(a) Only I and II follow
(b) Only I and III follow
(c) Only III and IV follow
(d) Only II and IV follow.

2. Statements:
All pens are chairs.
All flowers are chairs.
All chairs are trucks.
All trees are trucks.
Conclusions:
I. Some trucks are pens.
II. Some trucks are chairs.
III. Some trees are pens.
IV. Some trees are chairs.
(a) Only I and III follow
(b) Only I and II follow
(c) Only III and IV follow
(d) Only II and IV follow.

3. Statements:
All desks are pillars.
Some pillars are towns.
All towns are benches.
Some benches are cars.
Conclusions:
I. Some cars are towns.
II. Some benches are desks.
III. Some benches are pillars.
IV. Some cars are pillars.
(a) None follows
(b) Only I follows
(c) Only II follows
(d) Only III follows.
The answers are: 1. (c); 2. (b); 3. (d).

Leave a Comment