MCQ 27 Dec 2023

Daily practice questions for CLAT - (27 December 2023)

Acts of God provisions, also called Force Majeure clauses, relate to events outside human control, such as flash floods, earthquakes, or other natural disasters. Generally, these provisions eliminate or limit liability for injuries or other losses resulting from such events. In contract law, an act of God may be interpreted as a defence against breach for failing to perform based on the concepts of impossibility or impracticality. When an act of God intervenes in the performance of a contract, the promise to perform is often discharged because of the unforeseen circumstance and the resulting delay, expense, or other factors resulting in what would otherwise amount to a breach. For example, if someone promises to be present and perform certain obligations on a specific day, but is unable to do so because a large storm cuts off all practical means of transportation to the job site, this may be considered an act of God that would forgive performance. A refund or rescheduling may still be called for, but direct liability under the contract might be avoided in all or in part due to the storm. Other kinds of contracts on the other hand, cannot be avoided by acts of God and may, in fact, be the whole point of the contract. A good example is an insurance policy. As a result, most insurance policies relating to acts of God only pertain to limiting the variable, such as types of damage, timing, and extent of coverage. Nevertheless, after major events, like wildfires, earthquakes, widespread floods, or hurricanes, insurance companies have been known to try to limit making payments based on force majeure clauses. Acts of God may also affect tort laws in America. Tort laws are most often associated with personal injuries. An act of God may be asserted as the intervening cause of a person’s injury, without which the harm would never have occurred. In that case, the alleged tortfeasor (person accused of causing the injury) may escape liability. For example, if someone is injured while driving a car, but the accident was caused by an earthquake, then any other driver involved in the accident, the manufacturer of the car, and any other potentially in the injured driver’s cross-hairs may escape liability by asserting that the act of God (the earthquake) is what actually caused the accident.

Question1:- X gets his bike insured by PQR Insurance Company. X was drunk when he was driving the insured bike. He met with an accident. In the given limited facts to you, choose the correct option?
  • A. PQR Insurance Company cannot be held responsible, as drunk driving is an offence that is not covered by the insurance policy.
  • B. PQR Insurance Company cannot be held responsible as the accident had happened due to the intoxicated condition of X that cannot be termed as Act of God.
  • C. PQR Insurance Company can only be held liable to a limited extent due to the force majeure clause present in typical insurance contracts against the Acts of God.
  • D. None of the above.
Answer is B is correct. Option B is the correct answer, as the accident did not occur due to any natural calamity or an act of God but due to human induced intoxication, therefore the correct answer is option B.
Question2:- Which of the options given below correctly defines ‘Act of God’ under the law of torts?
  • A. All occurrences are outside human control.
  • B. All events caused by natural phenomena.
  • C. Both A and B
  • D. Any force majeure event outside human control
Answer is D is correct. Option D is the correct answer as force majeure means any unforeseen event that prevents the fulfilment of a contract such as an earthquake or volcanic eruption. Therefore, the correct option is D.
Question3:- As per the information provided in the passage, who can be termed as a ‘Tortfeasor’?
  • A. Person accused of committing a tort
  • B. Person against whom a tort is committed
  • C. A legally injured person
  • D. Person who cannot be held liable for committing a tort
Answer is A is correct. As per the passage above, it has been stated that the person accused of causing any injury is a tortfeasor. Since the passage relates to injury under the law of tort, it can be easily inferred that the person accused of committing a tort is a tortfeasor. Therefore, the correct option is A.
Question4:- X is driving an insured bike. Suddenly due to heavy rainfall, X is unable to see a tree ahead. His bike hits the tree and gets badly damaged. In view of the facts given in the question, choose the correct option?
  • A. The insurance company is not liable to pay as it is an act of God.
  • B. The insurance company cannot evade its responsibility by taking the defence of the act of God.
  • C. X cannot claim the loss caused to the bike from the insurer as the accident was due to an Act of God.
  • D. Either B or C depending on the court
Answer is B is correct. Option B is the correct option as insurance policy is an example of a contract that cannot be avoided by acts of God as stated in the passage. Therefore the correct answer is option B.