Examsnet
Unconfined exams practice
Home
Exams
Banking Entrance Exams
CUET Exam Papers
Defence Exams
Engineering Exams
Finance Entrance Exams
GATE Exam Practice
Insurance Exams
International Exams
JEE Exams
LAW Entrance Exams
MBA Entrance Exams
MCA Entrance Exams
Medical Entrance Exams
Other Entrance Exams
Police Exams
Public Service Commission (PSC)
RRB Entrance Exams
SSC Exams
State Govt Exams
Subjectwise Practice
Teacher Exams
SET Exams(State Eligibility Test)
UPSC Entrance Exams
Aptitude
Algebra and Higher Mathematics
Arithmetic
Commercial Mathematics
Data Based Mathematics
Geometry and Mensuration
Number System and Numeracy
Problem Solving
Board Exams
Andhra
Bihar
CBSE
Gujarat
Haryana
ICSE
Jammu and Kashmir
Karnataka
Kerala
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Tamil Nadu
Telangana
Uttar Pradesh
English
Competitive English
CBSE
CBSE Question Papers
NCERT Books
NCERT Exemplar Books
NCERT Study Notes
CBSE Study Concepts
CBSE Class 10 Solutions
CBSE Class 12 Solutions
NCERT Text Book Class 11 Solutions
NCERT Text Book Class 12 Solutions
ICSE Class 10 Papers
Certifications
Technical
Cloud Tech Certifications
Security Tech Certifications
Management
IT Infrastructure
More
About
Contact Us
Our Apps
Privacy
Test Index
CLAT 2017 Question Paper with answer key for online practice
Show Para
Hide Para
Share question:
© examsnet.com
Question : 135
Total: 200
Principle:
A master shall be liable for the fraudulent acts of his servants committed in the course of employment. However, the master and third parties must exercise reasonable care in this regard.
Facts:
Rahul was a door to door salesman with United Manufacturing Company (the Company). The Company was manufacturing Water Purifiers. Rahul, along with the Company’s products, used to carry Water Purifiers manufactured by his Cousin in a local Industrial Estate. He used to sell the local product at a lower rate giving the impression to the buyers that he is offering a discount on the Company’s product. The Company Management detected the fraudulent activity of Rahul and dismissed him from service. Rahul still continued to carry on with his activity of selling the local product pretending that he was still a salesman of the Company. Several customers got cheated in this process. The fraud was noticed by the Company when the customers began to complain about the product. The customers demanded the Company to compensate their loss.
The Company is liable to compensate all the customers as it did not inform the public about Rahul’s fraudulent conduct and the subsequent dismissal.
The Company is not liable as Rahul was dismissed by the Company.
The Company is liable to the customers who purchased the local product from Rahul only till he remained as a salesman of the Company.
The liability rests with the local manufacturer as it was a defective product.
Validate
Solution:
© examsnet.com
Go to Question:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Prev Question
Next Question
More Free Exams:
AILET Previous Papers
BA LLB Banaras University
CLAT Previous Papers
LSAT India Practice Tests