About five firms of shipowners who were engaged in carrying tea from India to European countries combined together and offered forty per cent discount off freight booked through anyone of the five companies. This resulted in the monopoly of trade by them and totally ruined two other shipping companies engaged in the same business.
A. The five companies have committed the tort of conspiracy as they have caused damage to the other companies
B. The combination was in furtherance of their interests and the damage to the other companies is merely consequential. They are not guily of conspiracy
C. Combination of more than two persons resulting in damage to a third person constitutes conspiracy
D. Promotion of one's own interest by any combination resulting in damage to a third person is conspiracy
Answer: Option B
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