Share Q.80:
Q.80
Tort, MV Act & Consumer Protection Medium Knowledge-Based
Bare Act Law of Torts · Ashby vs. White (1703)

Ms J, a banker refuses to honour a cheque of Ms F despite sufficient balance. Ms F suffers no monetary loss. Which maxim applies?

A Volenti-non-fit-injuria
Injuria-sine-damnum Answer
C Damnum-sine-injuria
D Res-ipsa-loquitur
📋

Explanation & Strategy

Click any section to expand · only one open at a time

When a bank wrongfully refuses to honour a cheque despite sufficient funds, the customer's legal right (to have the cheque paid) is violated, even if no actual monetary loss results. This is the classic application of 'injuria sine damnum' — legal injury without damage. The landmark case is Ashby vs. White where a returning officer's refusal to record a vote was held actionable despite the candidate winning anyway. The violation of a legal right is itself sufficient to ground an action in tort.

At a Glance
Subject Tort, MV Act & Consumer Protection
Difficulty Medium
Act Law of Torts
Section Ashby vs. White (1703)
Answer (B) Knowledge-Based
Paper AIBE XIX — December 2024
Progress in Paper
Q.80 100 questions

80% through paper

📚 Carry these bare acts to the exam: Set 1 on Amazon ↗  ·  Set 2 on Amazon ↗
You're on Legistro
AIBE Prep is just one part of Legistro
India's advocate directory, court records, and legal tools — all free
⚖️
Advocate Directory
Find verified advocates by city, court & practice area
🏛️
Judge & Court Records
5,848 judge profiles with order history & disposal rates
🧮
Court Fee Calculator
State-wise court fees for 25+ states — gazette verified
📋
Join as Advocate — Free
Case diary, cause list, client management & verified profile
Explore Legistro →