Question

The boundary wall surrounding A‘s property was broken which caused a number of villagers to cross through his property to reach the adjoining market. A repaired the wall and stopped the villagers. What was the nature of legal relationship?

• A. Liberty-no right
• B. Claim-duty
• C. Immunity-disability
• D. Power-liability
• A. An immunity
• B. A claim
• C. A power
• D. A liberty
• A. A claim
• B. A liberty
• C. A power
• D. A liability
• A. Claim
• B. Liberty
• C. Power
• D. Immunity
• A. Duty
• B. Liability
• C. Disability
• D. No Right
• A. An immunity
• B. A liberty
• C. A disability
• D. A power
• A. Claim
• B. Power
• C. Disability
• D. Liability
• A. liberty
• B. power
• C. claim
• D. immunity
• A. In personam
• B. In rem
• C. Both (a) and (b)
• D. None of the above
• A. Converted a liberty into a claim right.
• B. Placed a duty on the State to protect the right
• C. Prevented tate from undertaking any activity which intruded on the privacy of the people
• D. All of the above

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

1. (A): The villagers crossed only because the gap existed, not because of any enforceable entitlement, that is a bare liberty, and A retaining the ability to repair the wall and stop them shows he had no corresponding duty, so the pair is liberty on their side and no right on his, until he acted.
2. (B): A claim-duty pairing would require the villagers to already hold an enforceable right, but A's successful repair and stoppage without consequence shows no such duty restrained him.
3. (C): An immunity-disability pairing would mean A could not have changed the position even if he tried, but he did change it, by repairing the wall, so he was never disabled.
4. (D): Power-liability concerns the ability to alter someone's legal status, such as through litigation, not ordinary physical use of a path.

The relationship at this stage was (A) Liberty-no right.

Answer 2

1. (A): Immunity would mean A is permanently disabled from ever affecting the villagers' position, which is more than what mere long use establishes on its own.
2. (B): Twenty-five years of open, continuous, unopposed crossing is exactly the kind of prescriptive use that hardens a tolerated liberty into an enforceable claim, now placing a duty on A not to obstruct the path.
3. (C): A power involves the ability to alter legal relations, such as through litigation, not the passive benefit of continued use.
4. (D): Calling it a bare liberty ignores that A could freely revoke a liberty at any time, as he did earlier, but after this long an unopposed period he can no longer do so at will.

Long, unopposed use has ripened into (B) A claim.

Answer 3

Marriage here is a matter of personal choice with no one bound by a duty to bring it about, so the answer has to be found among the four Hohfeldian first-order positions rather than assumed from the term right alone.

1. Claim: would require someone else to owe Bareta a duty connected with her marrying; that duty does not exist here, so this is ruled out.
2. Liberty: simply means she may marry or not marry as she pleases, and nobody has a right to prevent her once she is an adult; that is exactly what the question describes, so this fits.
3. Power: concerns the legal capacity to create or change legal relations, which is a different question from whether she is free to choose in the first place, so it is set aside.
4. Liability (option D): only arises where somebody else holds a power over Bareta's position; nothing in the facts gives anyone such power, so this cannot be right either.

Matching the facts to the definitions leaves only one position consistent with her freedom to choose her spouse, so the correct answer is a liberty.

Answer 4

Capacity and freedom are not the same thing in law, and this question tests that distinction directly by asking what a change in age does to Bareta's earlier position.

1. Claim: untouched by age, since it depends entirely on whether another person owes her a duty, which has nothing to do with being a minor.
2. Liberty: her desire and freedom to choose a partner is a personal matter of will and does not vanish because she is under eighteen; what changes is not this freedom but whether the law lets it take effect.
3. Power: the law only recognises a valid exercise of legal capacity, such as forming a marriage, when the person has attained the age and competence the law demands; a minor's attempt to do so is legally weakened, which is a direct hit on capacity, that is, power.
4. Immunity: would matter only if a third party's power over her were in question, which is not the scenario here.

Because the question is really about whether the marriage can be legally effected, not whether she wishes to marry, minority strikes at her capacity rather than her freedom, so the correct answer is power.

Answer 5

Article 21 works by cutting down what the State is legally capable of doing, and identifying the resulting position on the State's side is a matter of tracking which Hohfeldian pair speaks to a loss of capacity rather than a new obligation.

1. Duty: would mean the State must positively do something for the individual; the Article instead limits how the State may act, so a duty label undersells its restraining effect.
2. Liability: only makes sense if the State were exposed to someone else's power being exercised on it, which is not what Article 21 describes.
3. Disability: the State's power to deprive a person of life or liberty by an executive order alone is taken away, leaving it without the legal capacity to act except through procedure established by law; that is a textbook disability.
4. No Right: that label attaches to someone facing another's liberty, not to a government body stripped of a power to act, so it does not match the facts.

Article 21 leaves the State without the power to deprive life or liberty by mere executive order, so the correct answer is disability.

Answer 6

A protection from something is usually the clue that the Hohfeldian pair in play is immunity/disability rather than the other three pairs, and testing each option against that clue narrows the answer quickly.

1. Immunity: exists precisely where a person cannot have their legal position changed by another's power except as the law permits; requiring a specific legislative procedure before custody can be imposed is exactly this kind of shield, so it fits.
2. Liberty: is about freedom to act on one's own initiative, not about being shielded from another party's power, so it does not capture a protection from arrest.
3. Disability: would describe an absence of power on the individual's own side, which is not what is being protected here.
4. Power: would require the individual to be the one altering legal relations by their own act, which is not what happens when someone is merely protected from being arrested.

Since the protection works by fencing off the State's power to arrest unless legislation authorises it, the correct answer is an immunity.

Answer 7

Filing a plaint or putting in a defence is something a litigant actively does, so the correct Hohfeldian category has to be one that governs a person's own capacity to act rather than a duty owed by, or a shield against, someone else.

1. Claim: would need a duty resting on another person, which is not what CPC procedural conditions create.
2. Power: since suing or defending is an act that changes legal relations, in this case putting a dispute before the court, the CPC's preconditions are simply the rules for validly exercising that capacity, which is what power means.
3. Disability: would mean the capacity is entirely absent, but the CPC conditions are enabling rules that a person can satisfy, not an outright bar, so this overstates the position.
4. Liability: belongs to someone on the receiving end of another's power, not to the person initiating or contesting the suit.

Because these conditions govern how and when a person may validly exercise the capacity to litigate, the correct answer is power.

Answer 8

Standing before an international institution is a gateway that has to be unlocked before any substantive right can even be argued, and identifying which Hohfeldian category that gateway belongs to settles this question.

1. Liberty: would only be relevant if individuals were somehow forbidden from trying, which is not the issue; the issue is capacity, not restraint.
2. Power: since invoking an international institution is an act that creates a new legal relation, that is, a case or complaint before that body, and special conditions decide whether an individual can validly perform that act, this is squarely a question of power, contrasted with the direct power States already hold.
3. Claim: describes the underlying right the individual ultimately wants enforced, not the procedural gateway to reach the forum where it can be enforced, so this conflates two different things.
4. Immunity: would protect the individual from another party's power, which has no bearing on whether the individual can approach an institution in the first place.

Since the requirements decide whether individuals can validly invoke the institution at all, they touch the individual's power, so the correct answer is power.

Answer 9

The classic test for sorting a right into in personam or in rem is to ask who exactly can be made to answer for it, and applying that test to a simple bilateral contract settles the matter quickly.

1. In personam: B alone is bound to perform under the contract, and A cannot go after any third party for that performance, which is exactly what a right against a determinate person means.
2. In rem: would require the right to bind everyone generally, the way ownership does, but no stranger to this contract owes A anything, so this is ruled out.
3. Both (a) and (b): is impossible here because the same right cannot bind only B and also bind the world at the same time; the facts point to one category only.
4. None of the above: fails because the right clearly fits a recognised category.

Since only B, and no one else, can be held to the contractual obligation, the correct answer is in personam.

Answer 10

Whenever an option list includes all of the above, the fastest reliable route is to check whether any of the individual statements is actually false, since a single false statement would rule that option out.

1. Converted a liberty into a claim right: holds up, since privacy went from an unprotected freedom to a right the State and others must actively respect.
2. Placed a duty on the State to protect the right: also holds up, since constitutional recognition obliges the State to actively safeguard the right, not just stay passive.
3. Prevented State from intruding on privacy: holds up too, since State action touching privacy must now clear a legality and proportionality test before it is allowed.

None of the three statements is false, and each captures a genuine effect of the recognition, so no basis exists to pick just one over the others.

Since all three descriptions are individually correct, the correct answer is all of the above.