Legal Principles and Remedies

Option (1) is correct: Y is liable being an owner. Option (2) is incorrect: Y is liable though he was not aware. Option (3) is incorrect: Y is liable fully, not partially.

Option (1) is incorrect: Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act deals with perpetual injunction when granted. Option (2) is incorrect: Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act deals with mandatory injunctions. Option (3) is correct: Section 40 of the Specific Relief Act deals with damages in lieu of or in addition to injunction. Option (4) is incorrect: Section 37 of the Specific Relief Act deals with temporary and perpetual injunctions.

Option (1) is correct: General exceptions under the Indian Penal Code states those offences which are not punishable. Option (2), (3) and (4) are incorrect: No punishment would be given to the offender whose offence falls under general exceptions of the Indian Penal Code.

Perpetual injunctions can be granted in three specific circumstances under Section 39: (i) where defendant is trustee of property for plaintiff, (ii) where no standard exists for calculating actual damages, and (iii) where the injury is such that monetary compensation would be inadequate. Since ALL three scenarios are valid grounds, option D is correct.

(4) The argument above has the structure: Litigation creates work for lawyers; therefore, these laws will not be reformed. The speaker apparently believes, though he does not say so explicitly, that the existing system of laws encourages litigation. Thus, (4) highlights a suppressed premise of the argument.

(2) The initial argument tries to provide an explanation for a certain situation: The lawyers in the legislatures refuse to reform the law because reform would reduce the income of lawyers. In other words, the initial argument suggests that the lawyers in the legislature act out of self-interest. The argument implicitly assumes that the lawyers in the legislature derive financial benefit from the existing laws. (2) attacks this hidden assumption of the argument.

Set-off means a claim set up against another. It is an extinction of debts of which two persons are reciprocally debtors to one another by the credits of which they are reciprocally creditors to one another. Where there are mutual debts between the plaintiff and the defendant, one debt may be settled against the other.

Under section 3 (1) clause (b) of the Limitation Act, it has been laid down by the legislature that any claim by the way of a set off or a counter claim shall be treated as a separate suit.

Actionable claim means a claim to any debt, other than a debt secured by mortgage of immovable property or by hypothecation or pledge of movable property, or to any beneficial interest in movable property not in the possession, either actual or constructive, of the claimant, which the civil courts recognise as affording grounds for relief, whether such debt or beneficial interest be existent, accruing, conditional or contingent. 

The agent is bound to act with reasonable diligence and to use such skill as he possesses and to make compensation to his principal in respect of the direct consequences of his neglect, want of skill or misconduct, but not in respect of loss or damage which are indirectly or remotely caused by such neglect, want of skillor misconduct.

Section 16 clause b of the specific relief act states that specific performance cannot be enforced in favor of a person who has become incaapble of performing or violates any essential term of the contract or acts in fraud of the contract or wilfully acts at variance with.

All of the above are valid defences and can be claimed by the defendant in the suit of specific performance. 

The bailor is bound to disclose to the bailee faults in the goods bailed, of which the bailor is aware and which materially interfere with the use of them or expose the bailee to extraordinary risks; and if he does not make such disclosure, he is responsible for damage arising to the bailee directly from such faults.

Qui facit per alium facit per se is a Latin legal term meaning, "He who acts through another does the act himself." This is a maxim often stated in discussing the liability of employer for the act of employee.

In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offence.