Choose the most appropriate answer to each Factual Situation given in Question Nos. 1 to 5 within the scope of the Principle mentioned.
1. PRINCIPLE: A person, who lawfully brings on his land something which though harmless, but will do mischief if it escape, must keep it at his peril, and if the does not, he is answerable for all the damage.
FACTUAL SITUATION: 'A' was the owner of a mill. In order to supply it with water he constructed a reservoir upon nearby land by employing engineers and contractors. 'B' was the owner of coal mines, under lands, close to but no adjoining the premises on which the reservoir was constructed. The contractors, while excavating for the bed of the reservoir, came upon abandoned shafts and filled them with soil not suspecting that they were abandoned mine shafts. The reservoir was completed and partly filled. Within days the bed of the reservoir gave way and burst, leading of flow of water through the channels connected with B's mine. Is 'A' liable to pay damages for loss caused to 'B'?
(a) 'A' is not liable because there was no negligence on his part. He was not aware that the reservoir bed was connected to B's mines
(b) 'A' is liable to pay damages to 'B' because he brought the water on his property which would have caused mischief if it escaped and it did escape.
(c) 'A' is not liable because 'B' never informed him the existence of B's mines.
(d) 'A' is liable because he hired the services of unqualified engineers
2. PRINCIPLE: Cheating is defined as deceiving any person to deliver any property and it includes the dishonest concealment of facts. Cheating by personation means a person cheating another by pretending to be some other person or another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.
FACTUAL SITUATION: 'A', while leaving a restaurant mistakenly picked up the umbrella of 'B' instead of his own. The next day he decided to return to the restaurant with the umbrella, hoping to find the real owner, 'C', who had never seen 'B' in person and had only communicated with 'B' through letters was on his way to the restaurant t meet 'B' Since 'B' and 'C' had never met, it was agreed between them to identify each other at the pre-appointed spot, the restaurant door, by the clothing of 'C' and umbrella of 'B' which they had described to each other in detail. 'C' saw 'A' at the door of the restaurant and identified the umbrella. Thinking 'A' to be 'B', 'C' delivered a parcel labeled Mr. 'B' to 'A', 'A', received the same without protest and promptly returned home without looking for 'B', Is 'A' guilty of cheating by personating?
(a) 'A' is not guilty because he was going to return the umbrella to the real owner and handing over 'B's' packet to 'A' was 'C's' mistake.
(b) 'A' is not guilty because he was overcome by a sudden temptation.
(c) 'A' is guilty because he was aware of the mistaken identity and that the parcel was not meant for him but for 'B'.
(d) 'A' is guilty because the parcel might have been valuable to 'B'.
3. PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right to defend his property against any act of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass. This right of private defence of property extends to causing of death of the wrong-doer, if the person exercising the right apprehends that death or grievous hurt shall be the consequence is such right of private defence is not exercised.
FACTUAL SITUATION: 'A's cattle was being regularly the thief. One night, 'A' finally manages to catch 'B' untying his cow from the cowshed under the cover of darkness. 'A' slowly crept up to 'B' and slashed his neck with a sickle leading to the death of 'B'. Is 'A' guilty of the offence of culpable homicide.
(a) No, 'A' was only exercising his right of private defence of property.
(b) No, 'B's' continued stealing of his cattle would have rendered his business inoperable.
(c) Yes, 'A' had no reasonable apprehension that 'A' could suffer any grievous hurt if he did not kill 'B'.
(d) Yes, 'A' should have first challenged 'B' to surrender before taking any steps to cause 'B's' death.
4. FACTS: Sahil, a child of 10 years of age, find a gold coin in his uncle's home. He gives the coin to his sister Rachna who is 8 years old. The uncle reports the matter to the police. The police conducts a search. During the investigation the police finds the coin kept in the toys of Rachna. Rachna tells the police that Sahil had given coin to her.
PRINCIPLE: Acts done by children below 12 years of age are not offences if they are not mature enough to understand the nature and consequences of the acts.
(a) Sahil is guilty of theft.
(b) Rachna is guilty of theft.
(c) Both Sahil and Rachna are guilty of theft.
(d) Neither Sahil nor Rachna is guilty of theft.
5. FACTS: Ajay runs the 'Indian Circus.' The circus has an interesting night show. Two motor cyclists, Ramesh and Suresh, rotate their motorcycles inside a big iron globe in complete darkness. And the audience, especially, the children given a big clap. One day it so happens that during one night show an accident orrurs inside the globe. Ramesh and Suresh collide with each other and Ramesh loses both his legs. His parents claim compensation form Ajay, the proprietor of the circus.
PRINCIPLE: An employer is responsible for any accident or loss caused to his employees, during the course of employment.
(a) Ajay is not liable to pay any compensation because he cannot be held responsible for the accident.
(b) Ajay is liable to pay compensation because he is the employer and the accident occurred during the course of employment.
(c) Ajay is not liable to pay compensation but he can pay some amount to Ramesh if he has sympathy for him.
(d) None of the above.
6. FACTS: A farmhouse is located in South Delhi on 2 acre plot of land. The owner of the farmhouse keeps a specially trained ferocious dog to guard his property. He also employs a dog-handler to handle this dog and instructs all his other employees to avoid the dog. A sign is also put on the gate saying "Beware of the Dog". On the afternoon of 26th January, a group of poor boys playing cricket in a nearby park hit the ball into the farmhouse. A 14 year old boy enters the farmhouse to get the ball. The dog attacks the boy and he dies of the injuries. The family of the boy sues farmhouse owner for damages.
PRINCIPLES: (i) An occupier is not responsible to a trespasser except in respect of willful act intended to cause harm or done with reckless disregards. (ii) Master is liable for the acts of the employee/servant.
(a) The owner is liable because the dog has a vicious or savage propensity and he had knowledge of the same.
(b) The owner should pay the damages because he is rich and the boy killed was poor.
(c) The owner is not liable because the boy was a trespasser.
(d) The owner is not liable because a 14 year old boy ought to have known about the presence of the ferocious dog.
7. FACTS: Charu while driving her car at a high speed, knocked down Seema, a middle aged woman who was walking on the road, Seema got her leg fractured as a result of this accident. As Seema was suffering from diabetes, her leg had to be amputated. Seema filed a suit against Charu for damages for the loss of her leg.
PRINCIPLE: A person is liable for all direct consequences of his act, which he could have reasonably foreseen as naturally flowing from his act.
(a) Charu is liable as the loss of leg is directly attributable to her act.
(b) Charu is not liable because she did not know Seema was suffering from diabetes.
(c) Charu is liable because she could have reasonably foreseen the loss of leg of Seema.
(d) Charu is not liable since a diabetes paitent like Seema ought not to have walked on the road.
8. FACTS: The residents of the adjoining slums were persistently using the park for defecation. On the order of the Chairman of the DDA the park was fenced and electric current was run on the wires on the top. A trespassing slum dweller touched a live wire and was electrocuted. Can the Chairman be held liable for an offence of causing death by negligence?
PRINCEPLE: Whosever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with both.
(a) No, because getting a public park electrically wired is no rash act.
(b) Administrative actions are immune to any liability.
(c) Yes, because getting a public park electrically wired is a rash and negligent act.
(d) None of the above
9. FACTS: A sets fire, by night, to an inhabited house in a large town, for the purpose of facilitating a robbery and this causes death of a person. A pleaded that he has intended the robbery but not the causing of death and became sorry for the death caused by his act. It A liable for causing the death voluntarily?
PRINCPLE: A person is said to cause an effect "voluntarily" whereby he intended to cause it or by means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe, to be likely to cause it.
(a) A liable for causing the death voluntarily though he has not intended to cause death of anyone, because he has set fire in an inhabited house not in abandoned house and it is quite natural that in such house people must be there during night.
(b) A is not liable because he has not intended the murder of anyone.
(c) A is not liable for murder but is liable for robbery only.
(d) A is not responsible for murder because he has not killed anyone by his own hands.
10. FACTS: Certain persons transferred a tea estate to an incorporated company and claimed exemptions from "ad valorem" duty on the ground that they themselves were shareholders in the company.
PRINCIPLE: An incorporated company under the Companies Act has a separate entity and corporate liability.
(a) The shareholders are liable to pay as the company is a separate legal person.
(b) The shareholders are not liable to pay as it is transfer from them in one name to themselves under another name.
(c) The shareholders are liable because everybody has a duty to pay on a transfer or conveyance.
(d) The shareholders will not pay the company would pay on their hehalf.
11. PRINCIPLE: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence twice.
FACTUAL SITUATION: 'A', a kleptomaniac, was an acquaintance of 'B' and used to visit unable to find his watch after a visit from 'A'. missing watch and the persons who had been to his room. The police, among others, made a search on person of 'A' and found the watch in his pocket. At his trial, the Court found him guilty of theft and sentenced him to 3 months in prison. After completing his sentence, 'A' went to 'B's' home to apologize for his consuct. After 'A' left, it was discovered that 'B's' watch was missing. 'A' informed the police who located the watch from 'A's' home. Can 'A' be prosecuted for theft?
(a) No, he has already been prosecuted and punished for theft and cannot be punished for the same again.
(b) No, he is a kleptomaniac with a psychological disorder of stealing and therefore cannot be found guilty.
(c) Yes, he can be prosecuted because he has committed two separate acts of theft.
(d) Yes, he can be prosecuted because the recovery of the stolen goods in each case has been from separate places.
12. PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing, it is by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law: provided that the thing which intoxicated his was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
FACTUAL SITUATION: 'A' was having a get together with his old friends and on his friends suggestions, he consumed some alcohol. On his way back to home at home at night, 'A' heared some footsteps and turning back, he imagined he saw a figure moving towards him with a spear. In fact, it was only a man, 'B' with an umbrella who was telling 'A' to walk carefully, carefully since 'A' appeared to be unsteady. However. 'A' proceeded to attack 'B' with an iron rod leading to grave injuries to 'B'. Is 'A' guilty of causing grievous hurt to 'B?
(a) No, 'A' is not guilty because in his intoxicated state, the umbrella appeared a spear to him and he exercised his right of private defence.
(b) No, 'A' is not guilty because 'B' could have attacked 'A' with his umbrella.
(c) No, 'A' is not guilty because he was intoxicated on the suggestions f is friends and was incapable of knowing that he was savagely attacking a man who was carrying only an umbrella.
(d) Yes, 'A' is guilty because he got intoxicated voluntarily intoxication, he attacked and caused grievous injuries to 'B' who posed no threat to him in fact.
13. PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence, which is done by accident or misfortune and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.
FACTUAL SITUATION: 'A' is a woodcutter. One day when he was at work a number of children flocked to him, and asked him to make a cricket bat for them. Without listening to them he continued to chop woods using a heavy axe. Suddenly a piece of chopped wood flew and struck one child who was standing just two feet away from his as a result of which the child lost his one eye. A result of which the child lost his one eye. Is a liable for the injury caused to the boy?
(a) No, 'A' was only exercising his right of private defence of property.
(b) No, 'B's' continued stealing on his cattle would have rendered his business inoperable.
(c) Yes, 'A' had no reasonable apprehension that 'A' could suffer any grievous hurt if he did not kill 'B'.
(d) Yes, 'A' should have first challenged 'B' to surrender before taking any steps to cause 'B's' death.
14. PRINCIPLE: A consumer is a person who buys any goods or services for a consideration and uses the goods for non-commercial purposes. Exclusive use of the goods for the purposes of earning his livelihood, by means of seft-employment is not considered as commercial use. A consumer can approach a consumer forum if there is a deficiency in goods or service.
FACTUAL SITUATION: 'A', a taxi driver received a car music system for free, from an electronics company through a draw of lots and installed the same in his taxi. Some time later, the music system stopped working. 'A' approached the electronics company for a replacement but the company kept delaying. Can 'A' sue the company in a consumer forum?
(a) Yes, 'A' is not using the music system for any commercial purpose. He is just plying a taxi for earning his livelihood.
(b) Yes 'A' there is a deficiency in good since the music system became non-functional.
(c) No, 'A' is using his taxi for ferrying passengers which is a commercial purpose. Which is a commercial purpose. Hence he is not a consumer.
(d) No, 'A' is not a consumer since the has not paid any consideration for the music system.
15. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A person can be benefited under private defence in case of intoxication.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Ram Lal got drunk voluntarily and on his way to home assaulted a policeman.
Which of the following is correct?
(a) Ram Lal cannot be liable because he was drunk
(b) Ram Lal cannot be liable because he gets benefit under private defence
(c) Ram Lal can be liable because he got drunk voluntarily
(d) None of the above.
16. LEGAL PRINCPLE: The occupier of the premises owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitors.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Gopal was running a dairy from his farm house. People used a part of his farm as a short- cut to get to a nearby railway station. Gopal did not approve of this, and put up a notice that "Trespassers will be prosecuted." However, since a number of these people were also his customers he tolerated them. One day, a person who was using this short-cut was attacked by a bull belonging to the farm. The injured person filed a suit against Gopal.
DECISION:
(a) Gopal is liable for having kept a bull on his farm
(b) Gopal is not liable in view of the clear notice against trespassers
(c) Gopal is liable because in fact he allowed the people to use his premises
(d) Gopal is not liable to the people other than his customers.
17. PRINCPLE: Justice must not only be done, but also be seem to be done.
FACTS: A judge is a shareholder in a Company. Which is a party to a case before him. the integrity of the judge is above suspicion. Both the opposing censuses affirm their faith in the impartiality of the judge. The case is at the stage of final arguments. The judge, however, recluses himself from the case, on the ground of his shareholding. Which of the following is the most appropriate statement in the light of the Principle cited here?
(a) The judge should have a continued hearing the case since he was an honest judge.
(b) The judge should have continued hearing since the counsels of both the parties had requested him to do so and, had thus agreed to adjudication by him.
(c) Had the judge continued to hear the case, its outcome might have appeared to be prejudiced, even though it would not have been so.
(d) The judge could have lost objectivity in the case and therefore recused from it.
18. PRINCIPLE: The word 'offence' denotes a thing made punishable by the Indian Penal Code. A prevents B from proceeding in any direction and keeps him/her confined to a place. A has committed an offence of criminal confinement. According to the Indian Penal Code. Whoever instigates a person to do a thing, is said to abet such a thing.
(a) Yes, because the comments of L could have encouraged people to live together without entering into a nuptial bond.
(b) Yes, because the comments of L in fact encouraged certain individuals to live together without entering into a nuptial bond.
(c) No, because two adult people wanting to live together is not an offence.
(d) No, because the comments of L were not directed towards any particular person, and anybody acting on them, did so at his/her own risk.
19. PRINCIPLE I: According to section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
PRINCIPLE II: Hindu law, as contained in the Hindu Marriage Act, enforces monogamy. Polygamy is permitted under the Muslim law.
FACTS: Jitendar, a Hindu, was married to Meena, also a Hindu, Jitendar and Sunita, another Hindu girl, converted to Islam and got married.
QUESTION: Is Jitendar guilty of the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code?
(a) No, because Jitendar converted to Islam which permits more than one wife.
(b) No, because jitendar and Sunita converted to Islam and married, with mutual consent.
(c) Yes, because Jitendar had a wife living. He married again. The said marriage was void by reason of its taking place during the life of the first wife, in terms of Section 494, IPC.
(d) Both (1) and (2)
20. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A person is guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder if the act by which the death is cased is done with the intention to cause death.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A was hiding behind a bush to catch some rabbits. B also came to the same place for hunting with his gun. When B noticed some movements behind the bush he thought it was an animal and fired a shot due to which A was killed. Can B be persecuted for murder?
(a) B would not be liable for murder because he did not have the intention to kill A (but for culpable homicide amounting to murder)
(b) B shall be liable for murder because he should have taken care to find out the target before shooting.
(c) B shall not be liable for murder because B was not expected to identify the target before shooting
(d) B shall be liable for murder because for whatever reasons A was killed.
21. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Law of Contract mandates that two or more people are free to create mutual rights and duties provided such rights and duties are not opposed to public policy.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A enters into an agreement with B under which B undertakes to kill A when he is asleep. For this act, A deposited 1 lakh with a bank, which B could withdraw once he has performed the aforesaid taks. B kills A according to the terms of the agreement.
DECISION:
(a) B must 1 lakh because he has performed his task
(b) B must be prosecuted because he has killed A
(c) B must not be prosecuted because A has consented to be killed
(d) B must be prosecuted for killing A but he should get 1 lakh as agreed by A.
22. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Every partner in partnership firm is liable for the acts of every other partner during the course of business of the partnership.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A, a partner in the firm XYZ with another partner B takes loan from a bank for the partnership firm. A misuses the fund for his personal use. B is very resourceful person. Can the bank demand the entire money from B?
DECISION:
(a) No, because A has misused the money for his personal use
(b) Yes, because both are partners in the same firm
(c) No, because B has not taken any loan
(d) No, because B has another partner in his firm.
23. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: If a person without any authority prevents a person to proceed to any direction and is kept confined, he commits an offence of criminal confinement.
FACTUAL SITUATION: The Municipal Board allowed X to hold a marriage party blocking a part of a public road. The marriage party blocked most of the roads and did not allow A, a passerby, to cross the road. He brings a charge of criminal confinement against the head of the marriage party and other associates. Can A succeed?
(a) A cannot succeed because X has got previous permission from the Municipal Board and has blocked part of the public road
(b) A can succeed because he has authourity to walk on public road
(c) A cannot succeed because he must have to wait upto end of marriage party
(d) A shall succeed because no one is allowed to use public property for the personal benefit.
24. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: An act of God is an operation of natural forces so unexpected that not human foresight or skill could reasonably be expected to anticipate it.
FACTUAL SITUATION: The Surya Club was celebrating its 50th anniversary and arranged for a concert by a leading musical group. The event was to be organized in Great Palace auditorium in the coastal area. All the tickets were sold out. On the day of the event, the tsunami destroyed many of the buildings including the auditorium. People who purchased the tickets asked for refund from the Club as the show could not take place.
DECISION:
(a) The management of the Auditorium must refund the cost of tickets as they got money from the Club
(b) The Club must refund the cost of tickets as the people were not at fault
(c) The Club is not liable to refund the ticket but the ticket holders can demand the show to be organized at a later point of time
(d) Neither the management of the Auditorium nor the Club is liable to refund the money.
25. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Contractual liability is completely irrelevant to the existence of liability in tort.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Sudhir purchased a bottle of soft drink from a retailer. As he consumed more than half of the contents of the bottle, he found decomposed remains of a cockroach in the bottle. He vomited and fell sick on the thought of what he has consumed. He sued the manufacturer of soft drink for negligence, through there is no contractual duty on the part of manufacturer.
DECISION:
(a) Sudhir cannot sue the retailer as he did not commit any mistake
(b) Sudhir cannot sue the manufacturer for negligence as there was no contract between them
(c) Sudhir can definitely sue the retailer as it was his duty to check the products before he sells them
(d) Sudhir can sue the manufacturer as he had a duty to ensure that bottles before he sells them
26. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Any act done in the exercise of right of private defence shall not be an offence. The right to private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of private defence.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Rajan was a thief jumping the boundary wall and entering his house in the night. He picked up the sword and did in a corner. The moment the person entered the house, the hit the person with sword and cut his head. Did Rajan commit the offence of killing the thief?
(a) Yes, because he exceeded the right of private defence
(b) No, he has not committed any offence because he exercised his right of private defence
(c) Yes, because the thief should have been given an opportunity to run away from there
(d) No, criminals should not be dealt with any leniency.
27. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Every person is entitled to freedom of conscience and to profess, practice and propagate his religion subject to public order, morality and health.
FACTUAL SITUATION: X, a Muslim sacrifices a cow on Bakra-Id believing it to be a part of his religious rites. However, there was a law of general prohibition on slaughter of cows. X, was prosecuted for slaughtering cow.
Answer:
(a) X cannot be prosecuted as killing of cow on Bakra-Id has the Muslim religious sanction.
(b) X can be prosecuted as the state has a right to regulate the freedom of the religion in the interests of the public order.
(c) X can be prosecuted as the slaughtering of cow hurts other community's religious sentiments.
(d) X can be prosecuted, as the slaughtering of cow is cruelty to animals.
28. LEGAL PRINCIPLE of SEDITION: Whoever by works, by sings or otherwise brings into hatred or contempt or excites disaffection towards the Government established by Law in India shall be punished with imprisonment for life.
FACTUAL SITUATION: In a public meeting Z, the leader of an opposite party thunders, "this is a Government of Scoundrels, bootleggers and scamsters. They deserve to be unseated. Teach them a lesson in the coming elections by voting them out of power". The Government prosecutes Z for sedition.
DICSION:
(a) Z is guilty of sedition for having made irresponsible and inflammatory statement against the Government
(b) Z is not guilty of sedition as he is only exercising his freedom of speech in public.
(c) Z is guilty of sedition as his statement would incite people to violence leading to breakdown of law and order.
(d) None of these
29. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: The violation of legal right without damage gives rise to tort.
FACTUAL SITUATION: X runs a Medical coaching centre and charges Rs. 2 lakhs per annum as fee. Y started another Medical coaching centre and started charging Rs. 1 lakh per annum free for competing with X. This act of Y compelled X to reduce his charge to such Rs 1 lakh
QUESTION: Can X claim Damages from Y?
(a) Yes, he can as Y violated his legal right
(b) No, X has reduced the fee on his own
(c) Yes because as there was damages there was legal injury
(d) No because though there was damage but there was no legal injury
30. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Every agreement in restraint of marriage of any person is void.
FACTUAL SITUATION: X entered into an agreement with a banker and deposited Rs five lakhs with the banker. The terms of the agreement provided that X's son Y shall be the beneficiary of the deposited amount only if he marries after he attains the age of 21.
QUESTION: Is agreement between X and Banker void?
(a) Yes, since the agreement is restraining the marriage of Y
(b) Yes, because Y has right to marry only when he is eligible to cast his vote
(c) No, agreement is valid and enforceable
(d) None of the above
31. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Agreement, the meaning of which is not certain, or not capable of being made certain, are void.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A purchased cards for a certain price coupled with a promise to give Rs 100 more to the seller if the cards are proved lucky.
(a) This is a valid agreement
(b) This agreement is void for uncertainty because it is not possible to precisely determine whether the cards brought good luck to A
(c) The agreement is partially valid and partially void
(d) The agreement is voidable
32. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: It is settled that ignorance of law in no excuse but ignorance of fact may be excused.
FACTUATL SITUATION: X, a foreign national was carrying child pornographic material with him and was apprehended when he reached India. It is an offence to possess child pornographic material in India. X did not know this law.
QUESTION: Can X be prosecuted in India?
(a) X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the Indian law.
(b) X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusable.
(c) X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusable.
(d) It is always in the discretion of court to decide in cases involving foreigners.
| 1 (b) | 2 (c) | 3 (c) | 4 (d) | 5 (b) |
| 6 (a) | 7 (b) | 8 (c) | 9 (c) | 10 (a) |
| 11 (c) | 12 (d) | 13 (d) | 14 (d) | 15 (c) |
| 16 (a) | 17 (c) | 18 (c) | 19 (c) | 20 (a) |
| 21 (b) | 22 (b) | 23 (a) | 24 (c) | 25 (d) |
| 26 (a) | 27 (b) | 28 (b) | 29 (d) | 30 (c) |
| 31 (b) | 32 (c) |
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment