X, a mother, along with her daughter, Y was shopping in a departmental store, named. "All the Necessities". Y slipped 5 lipsticks in the bag of her mother. They were apprehended by the security staff of the store and after one hour both were handed over to the police. Y was convicted for theft but X was acquitted. X sued for false imprisonment by the store.
A. X would succeed as she was not found guilty
B. X would not succeed as there was a lawful justification for her detention, as the stolen goods were found in her bag
C. X would succeed as she did not steal and she was not aware that stolen goods were placed in her bag
D. Both X and her daughter Y can sue the store as they have no business to detain
Answer: Option B
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