Question:

Principle: Sale of liquor is illegal. All agreements relating to prohibited items do not exist in the eyes of law.
Facts: ‘A’ entered into an agreement with ‘B’ for the sale of liquor. ‘A’ failed to supply the agreed quantity of liquor to B.
This question consists of legal principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as ‘principle’) and facts. Such proposition may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. Principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e., (A), (B), (C), or (D) is the most reasonable conclusion. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your ability in legal aptitude, study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the 'most reasonable conclusion‘ arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason.

Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
  • B can bring a legal action against A.
  • B cannot bring any legal action against A.
  • A can bring a legal action against B.
  • A and B can initiate appropriate legal proceeding against each other.
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Approach Solution - 1

The correct option is (B): B cannot bring any legal action against A..
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution -2

The principle states that agreements relating to prohibited items, such as liquor, do not exist in the eyes of law. A agreed to sell liquor to B but failed to supply it. Let's check whether B has any legal remedy against A under this principle.

  1. B can bring a legal action against A: For B to sue A, there would need to be a valid agreement in the eyes of law that A breached. Since the principle says agreements for prohibited items like liquor do not exist in law at all, there is no valid agreement for B to enforce, so this option is wrong.
  2. B cannot bring any legal action against A: Because the sale of liquor is illegal and the principle treats any such agreement as non-existent in law, there is nothing for B to legally enforce against A, even though A failed to deliver the liquor. This matches the principle directly.
  3. A can bring a legal action against B: The facts describe A as the one who failed to supply the liquor, not B failing to do anything, and in any case the same principle that blocks B's claim also blocks any claim A might have, since the agreement does not exist in law for either side.
  4. A and B can initiate appropriate legal proceedings against each other: This assumes a valid, enforceable agreement exists between them, but the principle expressly says agreements for prohibited items do not exist in the eyes of law, so neither party gets a legal remedy.

Since the agreement itself does not exist in the eyes of law due to its illegal subject matter, B has no legal ground to act against A for failing to supply the liquor.

Therefore, the correct answer is B cannot bring any legal action against A.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution -3

The principle can be read as a conditional rule: if the subject matter of an agreement is a prohibited item, then that agreement does not exist in the eyes of law at all. Liquor is named directly as such a prohibited item. A and B entered into an agreement for the sale of liquor, and A then failed to supply the agreed quantity. Before deciding who can do what, we need to see whether this rule's condition is satisfied here.

  1. B can bring a legal action against A: For B to sue A, there would need to be an agreement recognised in law for B to enforce. Since the subject matter here is liquor, a prohibited item, the rule's condition is met and the agreement does not exist in the eyes of law, leaving B with no legal agreement to found a suit on.
  2. B cannot bring any legal action against A: Because liquor is a prohibited item, the condition of the rule is satisfied, and its consequence, that the agreement does not exist in law, applies fully. With no agreement recognised in law, B has no legal action available against A, regardless of A's failure to deliver.
  3. A can bring a legal action against B: The same rule that removes B's legal agreement removes A's as well, since the rule does not exempt either side once the prohibited subject matter condition is triggered. In any case, the facts describe A, not B, as the one who failed to perform.
  4. A and B can initiate appropriate legal proceedings against each other: This would require the agreement to be treated as valid and enforceable in law for both sides, but the rule's condition being satisfied means the opposite, the agreement is treated as non-existent for both parties alike.

Since liquor is a prohibited item, the rule's condition is triggered and the agreement is treated as never having existed in law, so neither party, and B in particular, has any legal action available over its non-performance.

Therefore, the correct answer is B cannot bring any legal action against A.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top CLAT Legal Studies Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Contract Law Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Questions

View More Questions