Question:

Assertion (A): A person claims compensation for his non-gratuitous act.
Reason (R): A person who enjoys benefit from lawful, non-gratuitous act of another must compensate him even though there is no contract.

Show Hint

Think of quasi contracts. Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act lets a person recover for a lawful, non-gratuitous act whose benefit another has enjoyed, even with no agreement between them.
Updated On: Jul 17, 2026
  • Both A and R are individually true and R is the correct explanation of A
  • Both A and R are individually true but R is not the correct explanation of A
  • A is true but R is false
  • A is false but R is true
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The assertion says a person is claiming compensation for a non-gratuitous act, that is, an act done without any intention of doing it free of charge. The reason states the rule that lets him make that claim. Both statements must be tested, then the link between them.

Step 2: The rule being tested - Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act:
Section 70 covers the obligation of a person enjoying the benefit of a non-gratuitous act. It has three ingredients. One, a person lawfully does something for another or delivers something to him. Two, he does it without intending to act gratuitously. Three, the other person enjoys the benefit of it. When all three are present, the person enjoying the benefit must make compensation, or restore the thing delivered.
This sits in the chapter on quasi contracts. No agreement is signed and no offer is accepted, yet the law creates an obligation, because it would be unfair to let someone keep a benefit he knew was not a gift.

Step 3: Testing the Assertion:
A claim for compensation for a non-gratuitous act is exactly what Section 70 permits. The claim is legally maintainable, so the assertion is true.

Step 4: Testing the Reason and the link:
The reason restates Section 70 in plain words, including the important part that liability arises even though there is no contract. That is a correct statement of law, so the reason is true. It is also the source of the right claimed in the assertion. Without Section 70 there would be no such claim, because no contract exists to sue upon. So the reason explains the assertion.

Step 5: Why the other options fail:
Option (B) fails because the reason is not an unrelated true fact; it is the very foundation of the claim.
Option (C) fails because the reason correctly states the quasi contractual rule.
Option (D) fails because the assertion is true; such a claim is allowed by law.

Final Answer:
Both statements are true and the reason explains the assertion, so the answer is option (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