Practice Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT 2026-Part II

Principle: A contract is void if it is based on an unlawful object.

Facts: A agrees to sell a piece of land to B, but the contract specifies that B will use the land to set up an illegal gambling house. Is the contract valid?

A. Yes, because the sale of land is legal.
B. Yes, because the use of the land is B’s responsibility.
C. No, because the object of the contract is unlawful.
D. No, because contracts involving land are always void.

Answer: C
Explanation: The object of the contract is to establish an illegal gambling house, making the contract void.

Principle: No person shall be held liable for an act done in self-defense.

Facts: X is attacked by Y with a knife. To save himself, X hits Y with a rod, causing serious injuries. Can X be held liable?

A. Yes, because X caused serious injuries.
B. No, because X acted in self-defense.
C. Yes, because X could have run away instead.
D. No, because Y was the aggressor.

Answer: B
Explanation: X’s action was necessary to protect himself, making it a lawful act of selbf-defense.

Principle: An agreement without consideration is void unless it is in writing and registered.

Facts: P promises to give Q Rs. 10,000 as a gift. This promise is neither in writing nor registered. Can Q enforce the promise?

A. Yes, because a promise is binding.
B. No, because it is not in writing or registered.
C. Yes, because P made the promise voluntarily.
D. No, because the amount is too small to enforce legally.

Answer: B
Explanation: An agreement without consideration must be in writing and registered to be enforceable.

Principle: A minor’s agreement is void ab initio.

Facts: A 16-year-old boy, R, enters into a contract to buy a bike from S. Can the contract be enforced?

A. Yes, because R consented to the contract.
B. No, because a minor’s contract is void ab initio.
C. Yes, because the contract involves movable property.
D. No, because S is at fault for entering into the contract.

Answer: B
Explanation: A minor’s contract is void from the beginning and cannot be enforced.

Principle: A person who has been fraudulently induced to enter into a contract can rescind the contract.

Facts: T sells a car to U, claiming it is brand new when it is actually used. Upon discovery, U wants to cancel the contract. Can U do so?

A. Yes, because T’s fraudulent statement induced U to contract.
B. No, because the contract is already executed.
C. Yes, because U discovered the fraud later.
D. No, because the car is still functional.

Answer: A
Explanation: Fraudulent misrepresentation by T allows U to rescind the contract.

Principle: Mere silence does not amount to fraud unless there is a duty to speak.

Facts: M sells a house to N but does not disclose that the house is located in a flood-prone area. Can N claim fraud?

A. Yes, because M concealed material facts.
B. No, because M was not obliged to disclose.
C. Yes, because silence in contracts is fraud.
D. No, because N should have inspected the property.

Answer: B
Explanation: M had no duty to disclose unless specifically asked, and mere silence is not fraud.

Principle: An employer is vicariously liable for the acts of employees done during the course of employment.

Facts: A delivery driver, while delivering goods for his employer, causes an accident due to negligent driving. Is the employer liable?

A. Yes, because the act occurred during employment.
B. No, because the driver was negligent.
C. Yes, because the employer owns the vehicle.
D. No, because the employer did not instruct the driver to be negligent.

Answer: A
Explanation: The employer is liable for acts of the employee if they occur during the course of employment.

Principle: A person who finds goods belonging to another must take reasonable steps to return them to their owner.

Facts: Z finds a wallet containing Rs. 5,000 and an ID card. Instead of returning it, Z keeps the wallet. Has Z committed a legal wrong?

A. No, because the wallet was found, not stolen.
B. Yes, because Z failed to return the wallet.
C. No, because Z made no promise to return it.
D. Yes, because Z violated the principle of honesty.

Answer: B
Explanation: Z has a duty to take reasonable steps to return the wallet to its owner.

Principle: A person who voluntarily assumes risk cannot claim damages for injuries resulting from that risk.

Facts: L participates in a boxing match and gets injured. Can L claim damages from the organizers?

A. Yes, because injuries occurred during the event.
B. No, because L voluntarily assumed the risk.
C. Yes, because the organizers are responsible for safety.
D. No, because boxing is inherently risky.

Answer: B
Explanation: By participating, L voluntarily assumed the risk associated with boxing.

Principle: An act done by a person in good faith for the benefit of another does not constitute an offense.

Facts: A surgeon performs an emergency surgery on an unconscious patient without consent, saving the patient’s life. Is the surgeon liable?

A. Yes, because the surgery was done without consent.
B. No, because it was done in good faith for the patient’s benefit.
C. Yes, because the patient’s consent is mandatory.
D. No, because doctors are always immune from liability.

Answer: B
Explanation: The act was done in good faith for the patient’s benefit, making it lawful.

Principle: An offer can be revoked before it is accepted.

Facts: A offers to sell his car to B. Before B accepts the offer, A changes his mind and informs B. Can A revoke the offer?

A. Yes, because the offer was not yet accepted.
B. No, because the offer cannot be revoked once made.
C. Yes, because revocation is allowed before acceptance.
D. No, because B had the intention to accept.

Answer: A
Explanation: An offer can be revoked at any time before it is accepted.

Principle: A contract is not enforceable if it involves doing an act forbidden by law.

Facts: C hires D to smuggle gold into the country. D fails to deliver. Can C enforce the contract?

A. Yes, because D failed to perform his promise.
B. No, because the contract involves an illegal act.
C. Yes, because all contracts are enforceable.
D. No, because gold smuggling is risky.

Answer: B
Explanation: Contracts involving illegal acts are not enforceable by law.

Principle: Intention to cause harm is a necessary element for an act to constitute a tort.

Facts: F accidentally spills water on G’s laptop, damaging it. Can G sue F for compensation?

A. Yes, because F caused damage.
B. No, because there was no intention to cause harm.
C. Yes, because laptops are expensive.
D. No, because accidents are not tortious acts.

Answer: B
Explanation: Intention to harm is a key element for tort liability.

Principle: A contract requires lawful consideration to be valid.

Facts: H promises to pay J Rs. 10,000 if J agrees to refrain from filing a complaint against H for theft. Is the agreement valid?

A. Yes, because J is giving up his right.
B. No, because the consideration is unlawful.
C. Yes, because it is mutually beneficial.
D. No, because theft is a criminal act.

Answer: B
Explanation: Agreements with unlawful consideration are void.

Principle: A person is not liable for harm caused by an act of God.

Facts: A dam constructed by K bursts due to an unforeseen earthquake, flooding nearby villages. Is K liable?

A. Yes, because K constructed the dam.
B. No, because the damage was caused by an act of God.
C. Yes, because K must ensure safety.
D. No, because natural disasters are unpredictable.

Answer: B
Explanation: Harm caused by natural disasters is considered an act of God, absolving liability.

Principle: A person cannot be punished for an act done under duress.

Facts: M robs a store after being threatened with death by N. Can M be held liable for the robbery?

A. Yes, because robbery is a crime.
B. No, because M acted under duress.
C. Yes, because duress does not excuse criminal acts.
D. No, because N is the real culprit.

Answer: B
Explanation: Actions done under duress may absolve a person of liability.

Principle: Ownership of property does not automatically transfer possession.

Facts: O buys a car from P but does not take delivery. Meanwhile, P continues to use the car. Who owns the car?

A. O, because he paid for it.
B. P, because he still possesses it.
C. O, because ownership was transferred.
D. P, because delivery is essential for transfer.

Answer: C
Explanation: Ownership transfers upon sale, but possession requires delivery.

Principle: An employer is not liable for acts of an employee done outside the scope of employment.

Facts: Q, a delivery driver, uses his employer’s vehicle to run personal errands and causes an accident. Is the employer liable?

A. Yes, because it was the employer’s vehicle.
B. No, because the act was outside the scope of employment.
C. Yes, because Q is the employer’s responsibility.
D. No, because Q acted negligently.

Answer: B
Explanation: Employers are not liable for actions outside the scope of employment.

Principle: Agreements made under a mutual mistake of fact are void.

Facts: R agrees to sell a painting to S, believing it to be an original. Both later discover it is a replica. Is the agreement valid?

A. Yes, because the mistake was mutual.
B. No, because mutual mistakes render contracts void.
C. Yes, because S agreed to the purchase.
D. No, because R misrepresented the painting.

Answer: B
Explanation: Contracts are void if based on mutual mistakes of fact.

Principle: A minor cannot delegate his contractual obligations.

Facts: T, a minor, hires U to paint his house. Later, T refuses to pay, claiming minority. Is T liable?

A. Yes, because T entered into a contract.
B. No, because minors cannot delegate contractual obligations.
C. Yes, because U performed the work.
D. No, because contracts with minors are void.

Answer: D
Explanation: Contracts entered into by minors are generally void, and obligations cannot be enforced.