Which case established that “Equity will not assist a volunteer”? a) Jeffreys v. Jeffreys (1841) b) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) c) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) d) Ashby v. White (1703)
Answer: a) Jeffreys v. Jeffreys (1841)
Explanation: This case clarified that equity will not enforce or assist a person who has not provided consideration or has not suffered any detriment, as equity only intervenes in cases of justice and fairness.
Question 126
The doctrine of part performance in equity was first applied in which case? a) Maddison v. Alderson (1883) b) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) c) Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893) d) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)
Answer: a) Maddison v. Alderson (1883)
Explanation: This case established that part performance of a contract could allow enforcement in equity even if the contract did not comply with formal requirements like being in writing, provided the part performance unequivocally points to the existence of a contract.
Question 127
Which case dealt with the principle of “fraud upon a power”? a) Vane v. Vane (1873) b) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) c) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) d) Earl of Oxford’s Case (1615)
Answer: a) Vane v. Vane (1873)
Explanation: This case emphasized that when a power is exercised dishonestly or with an improper purpose, equity will intervene to set aside the exercise of such power.
Question 128
The principle of “marshalling of securities” was elaborated in which case? a) Aldrich v. Cooper (1803) b) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) c) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) d) Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche (1875)
Answer: a) Aldrich v. Cooper (1803)
Explanation: This case laid down the principle that when a creditor has access to multiple securities and another creditor has access to only one of them, the former must satisfy their debt in a way that does not harm the latter.
Question 129
Which case emphasized the principle of fiduciary duty in joint ventures? a) Chan v. Zacharia (1984) b) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) c) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) d) Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893)
Answer: a) Chan v. Zacharia (1984)
Explanation: This case reinforced the principle that fiduciary duties require parties in a joint venture to act in utmost good faith and not pursue personal benefits at the expense of the partnership.
Question 130
The rule of “election” in equity was discussed in which case? a) Cooper v. Cooper (1874) b) Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche (1875) c) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) d) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
Answer: a) Cooper v. Cooper (1874)
Explanation: The doctrine of election requires a party to choose between two inconsistent or alternative rights, preventing them from simultaneously enjoying both. This case elaborated on the application of the rule.
Question 131
Which case recognized the principle of restitution for unjust enrichment in Indian law? a) Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) b) Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979) c) Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche (1875) d) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)
Answer: a) Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)
Explanation: This case acknowledged that unjust enrichment at the expense of another party is actionable in Indian law, laying the foundation for restitution principles.
Question 132
The concept of “specific performance of a contract” was discussed in which Indian case? a) Ardeshir H. Bhiwandiwala v. State of Bombay (1961) b) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) c) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) d) Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. (1947)
Answer: a) Ardeshir H. Bhiwandiwala v. State of Bombay (1961)
Explanation: This case explained the circumstances under which specific performance of a contract could be granted in Indian law, focusing on fairness and justice in enforcing agreements.
Question 133
The doctrine of “subrogation” was discussed in which case? a) Bansidhar v. Sant Lal (1958) b) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) c) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) d) Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche (1875)
Answer: a) Bansidhar v. Sant Lal (1958)
Explanation: This case dealt with the principle of subrogation, which allows a person who has paid off another’s debt to assume the rights and remedies of the creditor against the debtor.
Question 134
Which Indian case dealt with the principle of “undue influence” under equity? a) Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad (1924) b) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) c) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) d) Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893)
Answer: a) Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad (1924)
Explanation: This case highlighted the equitable principle of undue influence, where a party in a position of dominance takes advantage of another’s vulnerability to secure unfair gains.
Question 135
Which case established that equity can intervene to prevent “anticipatory breach of contract”? a) Frost v. Knight (1872) b) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) c) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) d) Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893)
Answer: a) Frost v. Knight (1872)
Explanation: This case established that when one party to a contract clearly indicates that they will not perform their obligations before the due date, equity can intervene to provide remedies for the injured party.
Question 136
In which case was the principle of “Equity follows the law” clarified? a) Earl of Oxford’s Case (1615) b) Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche (1875) c) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) d) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
Answer: a) Earl of Oxford’s Case (1615)
Explanation: This case established that equity is not meant to override the law but to supplement it where rigid legal rules result in injustice.
Question 137
The doctrine of “clean hands” was emphasized in which case? a) D&C Builders Ltd. v. Rees (1966) b) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) c) Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche (1875) d) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
Answer: a) D&C Builders Ltd. v. Rees (1966)
Explanation: This case reinforced the principle that a claimant seeking equitable relief must come to court with clean hands, i.e., without engaging in any wrongdoing in relation to the claim.
Question 138
Which case first introduced the concept of “equitable estoppel” in Indian legal jurisprudence? a) Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979) b) Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche (1875) c) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) d) Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. (1947)
Answer: a) Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979)
Explanation: In this case, the Supreme Court of India recognized and applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel, preventing a party from going back on their promise when it has been relied upon to another party’s detriment.
Question 139
Which case dealt with the principle of “rectification of documents” in equity? a) Fry v. Lane (1888) b) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) c) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) d) Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche (1875)
Answer: a) Fry v. Lane (1888)
Explanation: This case allowed for rectification of a written contract when the written document did not reflect the actual agreement due to mutual mistake or fraud.
Question 140
The principle of “account of profits” in equity was applied in which case? a) AG v. Blake (2000) b) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) c) Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche (1875) d) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
Answer: a) AG v. Blake (2000)
Explanation: This case demonstrated that equitable remedies can require a defendant to account for profits earned from wrongful conduct, especially where compensatory damages are insufficient.
Question 141
Which case is significant for the doctrine of laches in Indian legal context? a) Rajendra Prasad v. Gopal Prasad (1971) b) Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979) c) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) d) Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. (1947)
Answer: a) Rajendra Prasad v. Gopal Prasad (1971)
Explanation: This case elaborated on the doctrine of laches, holding that delay in filing a suit could lead to the denial of relief if it caused prejudice to the other party.
Question 142
Which Indian case upheld the principle that equity prevails over technicalities? a) Bihar State Electricity Board v. Parmeshwar Kumar (1996) b) Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche (1875) c) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) d) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
Answer: a) Bihar State Electricity Board v. Parmeshwar Kumar (1996)
Explanation: The court held that equity prevails over technical procedural requirements when they conflict with substantive justice.
Question 143
Which case discussed the principle of injunctions to prevent irreparable harm? a) American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. (1975) b) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) c) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) d) Ashbury Railway Carriage v. Riche (1875)
Answer: a) American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. (1975)
Explanation: This case established guidelines for granting interim injunctions, emphasizing the need to prevent irreparable harm to the plaintiff while balancing interests of both parties.
Question 144
The principle of “fraudulent misrepresentation” was applied in which case? a) Derry v. Peek (1889) b) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) c) Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893) d) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
Answer: a) Derry v. Peek (1889)
Explanation: This case defined fraudulent misrepresentation, where a false statement is made knowingly or recklessly, leading to a contract being voidable in equity.
Question 145
In which case was the principle of equitable relief for “anticipatory repudiation” discussed? a) Frost v. Knight (1872) b) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) c) Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) d) Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893)
Answer: a) Frost v. Knight (1872)
Explanation: The court ruled that a party can seek relief when the other party unequivocally indicates they will not perform their contractual obligations before the due date, as equity intervenes to prevent injustice.
