1. Legal Principle:
Any direct physical interference with goods in somebody’s possession without lawful justification is called trespass of goods. Facts:
Z purchased a car from a person who had no title to it and sent it to a garage for repair. X believing wrongly that the car was his, removed it from the garage.
a) X can be held responsible for trespass of goods.
b) X cannot be held responsible for trespass of goods as he was under a wrong belief.
c) X has not committed anything wrong.
d) None of the above.
According to the doctrine of vicarious liability, a person shall be liable for the damage caused by his employee in the course of employment. Situation:
Kishen lal is a big trader in coffee and he appointed Kiran as his agent to procure coffee beans from the coffee growers in a particular region. Normally, Kiran used to collect coffee beans from the growers and the payments would be made within a month. This arrangement was going on for something. There arose some problems between Kishenlal and Kiran and Kishenlal terminated Kiran’s employment. Kiran continued to procure coffee beans even thereafter and he disappeared with the coffee beans so procured. The coffee growers filed a suit against Kishenlal claiming payment.
a) Kishenlal is not liable to pay since Kiran was not in his employment at the relevant period of time.
b) Kishenlal is liable, since the coffee growers did not have reason to disbelieve Kiran.
c) Kishenlal is liable, since he failed to check Kiran from posing himself as the agent of Kishenlal.