Principle : Intentional application of force to another person is action able in law.
Facts : 'P' and 'D' are unknown to each other. When 'P' is about to sit on a chair, 'D' intentionally
pulls it away as a result of which 'P' falls on the floor and is injured.

• 'D' is not liable as 'P' is not seriously injured.

• 'D' is liable as he intentinally caused injury to P

• D' is not liable as such jokes are common in the society.

• 'D' is not liable as the injury is not directly caused.

Principle :
1. Wagering agreement are void.
2. Collateral agreement to wagering contracts are valid.
Facts : XYZ Bank lends Rs. 40,000 to Sabu in order to enable him to award as prize to Randeep who is the winner of horse race. Later Sabu refused to pay the prize stating that horse racing is wagering agreement. Can XYZ Bank recover money from Sabu.

• Yes it is only a collateral agreement to horse racing and therefore the bank can recover the money from Sabu

• Horse racing is illegal and therefore XYZ Bank cannot recover anything from Sabu.

• No, as it is as wagering contract.

• Bank can recover money from Sabu so that payment of prize money can be made to Randeep.

Principle : Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so or to provide gratuitously, and such other person takes the benifits of that; the latter is bound to compensate the former for somethind done or thing provided, or ot restore, the thing so delivered.

Facts: Trader 'A' delivers certain eatables at 'B's house by mistake. 'B' consmed the eatables without asking anything. Which of the following derivations is correct?

• 'B' is bound to pay 'A' for the eatables.

• 'B' can be made liable to pay for the eatables, only if 'A' establish as an express contract between 'A' and ''B'.

• 'B' is not bound to pay 'A' for the eatables.

• It is the discretin of 'B' to make payment to 'A'

Principle : Consent is a good defence in a civil action for tort but the act should be the same for which consent was given.

Facts : 'B' was formally invited by 'A' to his house. 'B' after sitting for some time in drawing room, moved to the bed room of the house. 'A' sued 'B' for trespass.

• 'B' has interfered with privacy of 'A'.

• 'B' has committed no trespass as he entered the house with 'A's consent.

• 'B' has offended 'A' by moving to bed room.

• 'B' has committed trespass as there was no consent of 'A' for entry in the Bed room.

Principle : Whoever takes away any moveable thing form the land of any person without that person's consent, he is said to have committed theft.
Facts : During his visit to the house of 'C', 'A' asked 'B' the son of 'C', to accompany 'A' to the forest. Neither 'A' nor 'B' informed 'C' in this regard. 'B' accompanied 'A' to the forest.

• 'A' has committed theft as soon as he entered the house of 'C'.

• 'A' has not committed theft.

• A' has committed theft.

• 'A' has not committed theft till 'B' did not accompany him.