Practice Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT 2026-Part I
Question 1
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.
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.
Explanation: The object of the contract is to establish an illegal gambling house, making the contract void.
Question 2
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.
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 self-defense.
Explanation: X’s action was necessary to protect himself, making it a lawful act of self-defense.
Question 3
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.
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.
Explanation: An agreement without consideration must be in writing and registered to be enforceable.
Question 4
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.
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.
Explanation: A minor’s contract is void from the beginning and cannot be enforced.
Question 5
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.
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.
Explanation: Fraudulent misrepresentation by T allows U to rescind the contract.
Question 6
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.
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.
Explanation: M had no duty to disclose unless specifically asked, and mere silence is not fraud.
Question 7
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.
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.
Explanation: The employer is liable for acts of the employee if they occur during the course of employment.
Question 8
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.
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.
Explanation: Z has a duty to take reasonable steps to return the wallet to its owner.
Question 9
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.
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.
Explanation: By participating, L voluntarily assumed the risk associated with boxing.
Question 10
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.
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.
Explanation: The act was done in good faith for the patient’s benefit, making it lawful.
Question 11
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.
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.
Explanation: The object of the contract is to establish an illegal gambling house, making the contract void.
Question 12
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.
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 self-defense.
Explanation: X’s action was necessary to protect himself, making it a lawful act of self-defense.
Question 13
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.
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.
Explanation: An agreement without consideration must be in writing and registered to be enforceable.
Question 14
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.
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.
Explanation: A minor’s contract is void from the beginning and cannot be enforced.
Question 15
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.
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.
Explanation: Fraudulent misrepresentation by T allows U to rescind the contract.
Question 16
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.
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.
Explanation: M had no duty to disclose unless specifically asked, and mere silence is not fraud.
Question 17
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.
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.
Explanation: The employer is liable for acts of the employee if they occur during the course of employment.
Question 18
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.
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.
Explanation: Z has a duty to take reasonable steps to return the wallet to its owner.
Question 19
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.
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.
Explanation: By participating, L voluntarily assumed the risk associated with boxing.
Question 20
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.
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.
Explanation: The act was done in good faith for the patient’s benefit, making it lawful.
Subscribe for updates
Join 10,000+ subscribers.
RU
Ruchika Mohapatra
Contributing author
Have a doubt about this?Ask Doubts
