Question:

X went to Y's house and forgot his bag which contained 1 kg sweets. Y's children consumed the sweets. Decide the liability of Y.

Show Hint

Y made no promise, but the Contract Act still imposes duties on a person into whose custody another's goods fall. Think finder of goods and bailee.
Updated On: Jul 17, 2026
  • Y is bound to pay the price of sweets to X
  • Y is not bound to pay anything
  • Y is bound to pay half the price of sweets.
  • Y would not have to pay anything because X loves Y's children.
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understanding the Question.
X left his bag of sweets behind at Y's house by mistake. Y never asked for the bag and never agreed to keep it. Y's children then ate the sweets. The question is whether Y owes X anything even though there was no agreement between them.

Step 2: The Rule Being Tested.
The Contract Act creates certain relations that resemble those created by contract, even where no actual agreement exists. One of them covers the finder of goods. A person who finds goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody is subject to the same duties as a bailee. A bailee must take reasonable care of the goods and must not make unauthorised use of them. He is bound to return them to the owner or to compensate the owner if he cannot.

Step 3: Applying the Rule to Y.
The bag was left in Y's house, so it came into Y's custody. From that moment Y stood in the position of a finder of goods and owed X the duties of a bailee, whether he liked it or not. The obligation is fixed by law, not by agreement, so Y cannot escape it by saying he never promised to look after the bag.
Y's duty was to keep the sweets safe and hand the bag back to X. Instead the sweets were eaten by his children, who were in his house and under his control. The goods can no longer be returned. When a bailee cannot return the goods because they were consumed or destroyed through unauthorised use in his keeping, he must compensate the owner for their value.
So Y must pay X the price of one kilogram of sweets.

Step 4: Why the other options fail.
Option (B) assumes no liability can arise without an agreement. That is wrong, because the finder's duty is imposed by law under the head of quasi contract. Y did not have to promise anything for the duty to attach.
Option (C) has no basis anywhere. There is no rule that splits the value of consumed goods in half. The bailee either returns the goods or pays their full value.
Option (D) mistakes affection for law. Whether X is fond of Y's children has nothing to do with Y's legal duty. Fondness is not consent, and X never gave the sweets to the children.

Final Answer:
Y held the sweets as a finder with the duties of a bailee, and the sweets were consumed in his keeping, so he must pay X their price. Option (A) is correct.
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