A' is in dire need of Rs. 100000/- but was unable to get any loan from banks as he had no security to offer. 'A' approached his friend 'B' who knowing the helpless position of 'A' lent money at a very high rate of interest, saying that he had himself borrowed money from 'C'
The contract between 'A' and 'B' was:
A. Vitiated by undue influence that 'B' had exercised over 'A' to his close friendship
B. Void as the rate of interest being very high was unconscionable
C. Not valid as 'B' has wrongly misled 'A' that he had borrowed money from 'C'
D. Valid as a friend could not be supposed to have wielded undue influence only because the money lent carried a higher rate of interest
Answer: Option D
This Question Belongs to Law >> Law Of Torts
The 'tort of intimidation' was propounded in
A. Winterbottom v. Wright
B. Pasley v. Freeman
C. Winsmore v. Greenbank
D. Rookes v. Barnard
The maxim 'scienti non fit injuria' means
A. Where there is no fault, there is no remedy
B. Mere knowledge does not imply consent to take risk
C. Mere giving consent does not imply to take risk
D. Scientific knowledge is not enough to cause injury
A. Scott v. London & St. Katharine Docks Co.
B. Hedley Byrne Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners
C. Derry v. Peek
D. Cann v. Willson
A. Section 82 of the Evidence Act
B. Section 102 of the Evidence Act
C. Section 122 of the Evidence Act
D. Section 124 of the Evidence Act
Join The Discussion