Foreign Words and Legal Maxims by Uma Gopal

FOREIGN WORDS AND THEIR USAGE
S. No. Word Meaning Usage in a Sentence

1. Ab Initio From the The contract was void ab initio.
beginning
2. Ad idem Meeting of the The students are ad idem on the choice of
minds their School pupil leader.
3. Ad Continue The arguments went on ad infinitum.
infinitum forever,
without limit
4. Ab intra From inside/ The system need to be worked ab intra.
from within
5. Ad In the Ad interim, we will look for solutions to
interim meantime/ the this problem.
Temporarily
6. Ad Excessive This subject has been discussed ad
nauseam degree/sickeni nauseam.
ng degree
7. A fortiori For similar but If you say China has freedom of
more convinci expression, a fortiori, India also has.
ng reasons
8. A Hindsight / A posteriori the case should not have
posterior from what dragged for so long.
i comes after
9. A Priori From what The case was finally resolved on a priori
comes before. evidence.
In legal
arguments, a
priori generally
means that a
particular idea
is taken as a
given.
10. Ad Hoc Impromptu The discussions were on an adhoc basis.
11. Ad According to Ad valorem, VAT is charged on each litre
valorem the value of petroleum products.
12. Alibi Cover for She has a cast iron alibi for the time of the
murder.
13. Bona fide Made in good We are always willing to contribute to
faith / Sincere bonafide causes.
14. Carpe Seize the day Carpe diem while you have the chance.
diem
15. Casus an act or The decapitation of the soldiers was the
belli situation that casus belli.
provokes or
justifies a war
or conflict
16. Cur adv The court Cur adv vult on this matter.
vult wishes to be
Created by Uma Gopal 1

Assistant Professor at Christ Academy Institute for Advanced Studies,Bangalore, India
advised
17. Corpus An objective The Prosecutor’s office refused to declare
delicti proof that a him guilty because of lack of corpus
crime has been delicti.
committed
18. Corpus The body of In Europe, the Roman Law, especially the
juris Law Corpus Juris Civilis became the basis of
legal system in many countries.
19. De novo From the Let’s examine it de novo.
beginning
20. En masse As a group All the lawyers assembled en masse.
21. En bloc All at the same The classes were boycotted en bloc.
time
22. Ex parte From one side Written communication is ex parte
communication.
23. Ex facto According to Ex facto the problem looks simple.
facts
24. Ex gratia As a favor Ex gratia payment was made to the
rather than as a non-striking workers.
matter of right
25. Ex officio By virtue of The Director serves the committee ex
office or officio.
official
position
26. Fait An The results of the referendum were fait
accompli accomplished accompli.
fact
27. Faux pas An After I gave the answer, I realized I had
embarrassing committed a faux pas.
social blunder
28. De facto Of fact The country was de facto divided between
two states.
29. De jure By law / by A de jure Government is the legal,
right legitimate government of a state.
30. In In absence Two foreign suspects will be tried in
absentia absentia.
31. In A judge's The hearings were done in camera.
camera private office
32. In In memory of The PM himself wrote in memoriam.
memoria
m
33. In At first In principio, the matter looked easy.
principio
34. In rem Directed The censor board filed an in rem petition
against a thing, with the court requesting that the film be
rather than banned.
against a
person
35. In situ In position/ in The camera was used in situ to monitor the

its original test.
place
36. In In transit/on We cannot be held responsible for goods
transitu the way lost in transitu.
37. Inter alia Among other The Court began its proceedings against
things the ex Director, claiming, inter alia,
contempt of court..
38. Intra Within the The Court may review whether, the
vires power Government is intra vires to remove the
CBI Director.
39. Inter Between living This law does not apply to property settled
vivos persons inter vivos.
40. Ipso By that very You are ipso facto responsible for the death
facto fact or act. based on evidence presented in the court.
41. In limine On the Such evidence should be barred and held in
threshold; at limine in these proceedings.
the outset.
42. In against the Two of the defendants filed motions for

persona person dismissal for lack of in personam
m jurisdiction.
43. In toto totally; Congress then has 45 days to accept or
Entirely veto the list in toto.
44. Laissez conforming to If the situation continues in its laissez faire
faire the principles state, people could die.
or practices of
laissez faire
( A policy of
governmental
non-interferenc
e in economic
affairs)
45. Lex loci the law of the It was alleged on the one hand that by the
place Mexican lex loci slavery was prohibited.
46. Lis a pending suit The recording office will record a lis
pendens listed on the pendens upon request of anyone who
court docket claims to be entitled to do so.
47. Locus a right to We had no locus standi for complaining of
standi appear and be this change and did not complain.
heard before a
court
48. Mala fide in bad faith; I had no mala fide intention and no
not genuine. personal gain.
49. Mea a formal The mayor's public mea culpa didn't satisfy
culpa acknowledgme his critics.
nt of personal
fault or error
50. Mens rea criminal intent Most significantly, the government
contends that Lee had the necessary mens

rea — the criminal-intent element — to
commit the felony.
51. Actus the wrongful In a trojan horse defense the defendant
reus act that makes claims he did not commit the actus reus.
up the physical
action of a
crime
52. Modus a method of The modus operandi of the 9/11 attacks
operandi procedure was entirely new and unbelievable.
53. Modus a way of living Both users are mature enough to establish a
vivendi or of getting relatively cordial modus vivendi.
along
54. Mutatis with the The recommendations of the Committee
mutandis necessary would also apply, mutatis mutandis, to this
changes having region.
been made
55. Nudum a simple An example of a nudum pactum would be
pactum contract or an offer to sell something without a
promise corresponding offer of value in exchange.
involving no
legal
considerations.
56. Nota note well; take Nota Bene: This guy is back to disrupting
bene notice. the meeting.
57. Obiter an incidental Such a pronouncement will not amount to a
dictum remark or binding precedent, but is instead called an
observation obiter dictum.
58. Onus burden of In this case, the onus probandi ( the burden
probandi proof of proof ) shifts from the plaintiff to the
accused, who still has the chance to prove
in their defense that consent was given.
59. Pari at an equal rate In this case, pari passu means that all
passu or pace private-sector investors are equally treated.
60. Per by the court as Although it was per curiam, there were
curiam a whole rather multiple concurrences and dissents.
than in the
name of a
particular
judge
61. Per Through lack A lower court is free, however, to depart
incuriam of care from an earlier judgment of a superior
court where that earlier judgment was
decided per incuriam.
62. Per se By itself/in This transaction per se would not
itself precipitate any change in that logic.
63. Per per unit of Even analyses of per capita income and
capita population unemployment can be misleading.
64. Prima at first view : Prima facie it is a case of tax fraud.
facie on the first

appearance
65. Quid pro something If there were a quid pro quo, then it would
quo given or be illegal.
received for
something else
66. Raison reason or Art is the artist's raison d'être.
d’etre justification for
being or
existence:
67. Ratio the principle or The ruling does not contain a ratio
decidendi rule decidendi in the style of common-law
constituting the jurisdictions.
basis of a court
decision
68. Res nobody’s Antarctic areas were considered res
nullius property or a nullius, no man's land subject to the
thing which occupation of any nation.
has no owner
69. Res a matter A court will use res judicata to deny
judicata already reconsideration of a matter.
decided by
judicial
authority
70. Res things done, Particularly, res gestae refers to time,
gestae deeds place, and in the interest of an employer.
71. Sine die for an The assembly was adjourned sine die.
indefinite
period:
72. Sine qua a thing that is Patience is a sine qua non for this job.
non absolutely
necessary.
73. Stare The legal We do not minimize the role that stare
decisis principle of decisis plays in our jurisprudence.
determining
points in
litigation
according to
precedent.
74. Status the existing America needs to understand that its status
quo state of affairs quo is in trouble.
75. sub not yet As the case is still pending, the issues
judice judicially discussed at such gatherings are sub judice.
decided
76. Sui of its own kind "This is so complicated, it's a sui generis
generis situation" , he said.
77. Sui juris independent. The Armenian Apostolic Church is distinct
from the Armenian Catholic Church, the
latter being a sui juris.
78. Suo moto on its own The Commission took suo moto control

motion over the matter.
79. Tour de a feat or The installation works on various levels
force display of and is a tour de force.
strength, skill
80. Ultra beyond the The application was refused on the grounds
vires legal power or of being ultra vires.
authority of a
person,
corporation,
agent,etc.
81. vice with the order That law allowed banks to own insurance
versa changed companies and vice versa.
82. Vis an In dealing with a vis major, The President
major Overwhelming acted firmly and quickly.
force (an Act
of God)
83. Vis a vis In relation to The union represents the local councils vis
a vis the national government.
84. Viva By word of Four to six finalists are invited to a viva
voce mouth voce or oral examination.
85. Vox Popular Supermarkets have heard the vox populi - "
populi sentiment No time to cook!
Reference:
1. https://eng.ichacha.net/
2. http://www.yourdictionary.com/
3. http://www.dictionary.com/
4. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/
5. https://www.merriam-webster.com/
6. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/
7. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/

LEGAL MAXIMS
S. No. Word Meaning
1. Actus non facit reum An act does not make a person guilty, unless
nisi mens sit rea the mind is guilty
2. Actio personalis Any right of action dies with the person.
moritur cum persona
3. Actus dei nemini facit An act of God causes legal injury to no one
injuriam
4. Audi alteram partem hear the other side
5. Communis error facit Common error makes right
jus
6. Cessante ratione legis The reason for a law ceasing, the law itself
cessat ipsa lex ceases
7. Delegatus non potest A delegate cannot delegate
delegare
8. Damnum sine injuria; Injury with no damages
injuria sine damnum Damnum sine injuria: When a damage suffered
without breach of a legal right but such claim of
damage is not valid in court of law.
Injuria Sine Damno (Injury Without Damage)
is where a person's legal right is violated but the
person may not have suffered a damage or loss.
9. Ex nudo pacto non An action does not arise from a bare promise
oritur actio
10. Ex turpi causa non No right of action arises from a base cause
oritur actio
11. Generalia specialibus General things do not derogate from special
non derogant
12. In pari delicto pour et In equal fault, the condition of the possessor is
conditio possidentis the more favourable.
13. Ignorantia facti Ignorance of the fact excuses; ignorance of the
excusat; ignorantia law excuses not
juris non excusat
14. Omnia praesumuntur All things are presumed against a wrongdoer
contra spoliatorem who destroys evidence
15. Respondeat superior let the superior give answer; a doctrine in tort
law that makes a master liable for the wrong of
a servant
16. Res ipsa loquitur The thing speaks for itself
17. Salus populi suprema The safety of the people is the supreme law
lex esto
18. Ut res magis valeat The provision of a Statute must be so construed
quam pereat as to make it effective and operative
19. Ubi jus ibi remedium Where there is a right there is a remedy
20. Volenti non fit injuria That to which a man consents cannot be
considered an injury

LEGAL MAXIMS EXPLAINED
1. Actio personalis moritur Any right of action dies with the person.
cum persona
Actio means action or right of action; personalis means personal, moritur means
die; cum means combined with or when; persona means personality/person.
Actio personalis moritur cum persona is a Legal maxim in Latin which means that a
personal action dies with the person. This maxim states the general rule that actions
of tort are destroyed by death of either the injured or the injuring party. There are a
few legal causes that can no longer be taken up after a person dies, for example
defamation. In actions of tort actions of libel and slander can be taken up. A claim
for compensation for defamation under the civil law may not be maintainable in
respect of defamation of a deceased person on the principle that a personal right of
action dies with the person because of Actio personalis moritur cum persona and
defamation is a deed of personal wrong. So, a right of personal action dies with the
person.
However, the law makers felt that even after death defamation of a person can still
legitimately give rise to criminal prosecution along with him/her if another member
of the family or any of the kith and kin of the deceased person has been defamed.
The maxim is applicable only when the action is one for the damages of a personal
wrong. It does not apply in a suit for property. The expression, thus, operates in a
limited class of actions ex delicto (from a wrong) such as action for damages for
defamation, assault or other personal injuries not assuming the death of the party,
and in other actions where after the death of the party the relief granted could not be
enjoyed or granting it would be of no value.
Compensation may, however, be recovered by the relatives of a person negligently

killed. Compensation may also be recovered in some cases of trespass, such as
trespass to person, trespass to goods and trespass to land. An action may be brought
by the personal representatives of a deceased person for injury done to his property
in his lifetime. It has also been applied to actions arising out of contracts of a purely
personal nature, e.g., promise to marry, write a book or paint a picture. All these
cases may however have restrictions subject to various statutes.
2. Communis error facit jus Common error makes right or common error
make law.
Communis error facit jus is a Legal maxim in Latin which means common errors
make law. Another expression for this is Communis opinio or common opinion. In
ancient Rome, the phrase expressed the notion that a generally accepted opinion or
belief about a legal issue makes that opinion or belief the law. Judges have pointed
out that universal opinion may also be universal error. Until the error is discovered,
however, the belief continues to be the law.
So, historically, we come across numerous instances where the common sense of
those times may appear barbarous to us today. This concept of communis opinio
is not especially favoured by the contemporary U.S. courts.
Nevertheless, to extend the meaning of the maxim, it cannot be said that common
opinion is not law and nor common error does not make the law of the land. Does it
mean that the common voice of the people should govern the making of a law?
However, history shows that there is not any country where laws have not had an
origin from a common opinion.
Again, to say that common error is law, will be a law if decided so, after having
gone through a process of origination from a common opinion until the error is
discovered.
Considering all the aspects, one can conclude that the maxim communis error facit
jus can be dangerous in its application because if it sets up a misinterpretation of the
law, till the error is found, it can cause damage because in it erroneous form it may
find acceptance in a country. Moreover, a country where the public has extreme
opinions can be very judgemental. This maxim has to be applied with great caution.
Perhaps that is why it is not favoured in the U.S. Courts.
3. Damnum Sine Injuria and Injury with no damages.

Injuria Sine Damno Damnum sine injuria: When a damage suffered
without breach of a legal right but such claim of
damage is not valid in court of law.
Injuria Sine Damno (Injury Without Damage) is
where a person's legal right is violated but the
person may not have suffered a damage or loss
Damnum means damage or loss; Sine means without; Injuria means damage:
(Damage without Injury) is when a damage suffered without breach of a legal right,
damage without injury is not actionable. Such claim of damage is not valid in court
of law. Even if the act of the person is intentional or deliberate, but if there is no
violation of the legal right, there will be no remedy awarded. There are many
violations which though may have caused damage may not be wrongful in the eyes
of law.
To explain Damnum Sine Injuria, a case that is usually referred to, is the Gloucester
Grammar School case. Here the plaintiff brought forward a complaint against the
defendant for having set up a rival school that resulted in the plaintiff having had to
reduce the tuition fees of their school substantially. However, the decision was that
since the plaintiff’s legal right had not been violated, there could be no no cause of
action against the defendant on the ground that genuine competition can afford no
ground of action, whatever damage it may cause.
Injuria Sine Damno

Injuria sine damno means the violation of a legal right without causing any harm,
loss or damage to the plaintiff. It is just reverse to the maxim damnum sine injuria.
It is applied when a person's legal right is violated but the person may not have
suffered a damage or loss. In this case, a person doesn’t have to prove the damage.
It is sufficient to show the violation of a legal right in which case the law will
presume damage. For e.g., assault, libel, trespass on land, etc.
In Ashby v. White, (1703) 2 LR 938, the plaintiff, Mr Ashby was a qualified voter
at a parliamentary election, but the defendant, a returning officer wrongfully
refused to take plaintiff’s vote. No loss was suffered by such refusal because the
candidate for whom he wanted to vote won in spite of that. The principle of Injuria
Sine Damno was applied and the defendant was held liable, even though his actions
did not cause any damage.
In case of injuria sine damno, the loss suffered by the plaintiff is not relevant for
the purpose of a cause of action. It is relevant only for assessing a number of
damages. If the plaintiff has suffered no harm and yet the wrongful act is
actionable, nominal damages may be awarded.
4. Respondeat superior Let the master answer or let the superior give
answer; a doctrine in tort law or civil wrong that
makes a master liable for the wrong of a servant
The common-law doctrine of respondeat superior was established in

seventeenth-century England to define the legal liability of an employer for the
actions of an employee.
The application of this maxim arises chiefly because of the relation existing
between the employer and the employee. This provides people a better way to
recover damages in the case of any wrongdoing by the employee or the servant
employed as most of the times the employee and or the servant may not have the
financial capability to pay the damages. However, it should be proved that the
employee or the servant was doing his assigned duty or acting on behalf of his
employee, an act which would have benefited the employer. In case of a civil wrong
the master or the principal is legally responsible for all actions of his servant or
employee.
If a servant commits a trespass after being commanded by his master, the servant is
himself liable directly to committing the trespass and master is also liable under the
rule of Respondeat superior. Although it is relatively easy to ascertain the employer
responsibility for acts committed by the employer, wilful or intentional acts of
criminal nature is less clear. Many employers believe that intentional acts of
criminal nature are the sole responsibility of the employee. This is a grey area and
difficult to prove. In such cases, the court usually considers whether justice is
served after holding the employer liable.
The master is liable, even though the servant in the performance of his duty is guilty
of a deviation from the strict line of it, or a failure to perform it in the most strict
and convenient manner; but, where the servant instead of doing what he is
employed to do, does something not warranted by his employment, the master
cannot be said to do it by his servant, and so is not responsible for the negligence of
the servant in doing it.
Example 1: Employee A has been appointed as a security guard to take care of the
safety of a shop premise. However, one day there was an argument between A and
a customer. Another guard intervenes and ushers the customer out of the shop.
Some time later, A follows the customer and punches him on the face causing
injury to the customer. The customer files a lawsuit against the owner of the shop
seeking damages for the hospital bill as well as for the pain caused due to injury. In
this case it is unlikely that respondeat superior would apply because here the
master has no role to play and cannot be held responsible for the illegal act of A.
Example 2: A family employs a nurse A to take care of an elderly patient from an
agency. A had been employed by the agency recently without the agency having
done its due diligence. A actually didn’t have a clean track record and had a past
history of mistreating her patients. Two months into her employment by the family,
the family files takes a legal recourse to address the ill-treatment meted out by A. In
this case the employer or the agency that had employed A will be held responsible
under respondeat superior, and the liability may fall under civil lawsuit. The nurse
however will additionally face criminal charges.
Public functionaries, as judges, magistrates, &c, are not liable for the illegal or
wrongful acts of their inferior ministerial officers, provided they themselves act
within the scope of their authority, but otherwise if not within the scope of such
authority.
5. Ubi jus ibi remedium Where there is a right there is a remedy
Ubi means when/where; jus means a legal right or principle; ibi means there;
remedium means remedy. The principle of this maxim has been at all times
recognised in the field of law.
In ancient times, this maxim was more looked to as a guiding principle because the
remedies provided by the law present then were not there as much. Therefore, the
first principle was to recognize the evil in order and find a suitable remedy.
However, it is recognized that this principle, has at all times been considered
valuable. Such actions have played a major part in the development of the law of
tort.
Today, the law enforcing bodies have understood the evil that exists in a society
and have thus been able to anticipate the defects.The Legislature have initiated
comprehensive remedies to cure these evils, but the maxim still exists, when
necessary to lend its aid to redress any wrongdoing. The maxim particularly is
applied to cases where a common law assigns a right or prohibits a wrong
irrespective of the fact whether an actual damage has arisen from the violation of a
right. However, this right that the complainant claims, should be recognized by the
law rather than what one chooses and therefore claims to be a right. Only legal
wrong can be corrected by a legal remedy. Extending the principle, it is to be
understood that wherever a man has a right, there is a remedy and the absence of a
remedy is evidence but not conclusive that no right exists.
Example: If A has a house, built around twenty years ago and B buys a
neighbouring plot now. While digging as a part of laying the foundation for his
house, B ends up causing injury to A’s house, A will have no remedy to legally
claim damages, for by law A had not acquired a right as against the owner of the
adjoining land to prevent him from digging on such foundation. So, here the
principle of Ubi Jus Ibi remedium does not apply. But probably A might, in such
case, think that his house should be injured by no act, and that therefore his right
has been invaded, and that there ought to be some legal remedy for him in such a
case.
This principle was established for the first time in the leading case of Ashby Vs
White (1703). In this case – The defendant, a reputed officer in a parliamentary
election, wrongfully refused to take the vote of the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff
did not suffer any loss by this refusal because the candidate for whom he wanted to
vote won . Holt, C.J, the chief justice in this case pronounced that, – “every injuria
imports a damage though it does not cost the party one farthing”; in other words
Ubi jus ibi remedium or for every injury there is a remedy. So, the defendant was
held liable to pay damages to the plaintiff.
6. Volenti non fit injuria That to which a man consents cannot be

considered an injury or to a willing person.
Volenti means voluntary assumption of risk, non means negation or absence; fit
here means considers right and injuria means injury or invasion of one’s right. This
maxim means that if someone willingly places themselves in a position of injury,
knowing very well that a degree of harm may occur, they cannot sue the other party
in tort. Similarly, if a person has knowledge that an injury may occur due to a
certain act, there is no scope to claim compensation for the injury. Therefore, both
knowledge and consent are necessary. A man cannot claim to recover damages
from the injuries he may have suffered from the injuries he may suffered because
of his own negligence. Thus if a boxer after being hit by a boxer claims for
damages for the injuries he receives in the boxing arena in a match, it will amount
to volenti. However, if he gets hit by an iron rod in the match, he can claim for
damages because he had not voluntarily assumed this risk; it is not something he
had consented to.
This principle underlying volenti is illustrated everyday in life. But for this
principle, non offenders would have been made responsible for innocent acts, thus
causing a lot of problems. In a cricket match, if a ball were to hit the batsmen, and
the batsmen suffers injuries he could claim damages for this act of the bowler, but
for this maxim through which it can be proved that the batsmen knew very well
about the risks involved and consented to face the ball. In the medical field, if the
patient knows about the risk involved in the medical procedure and gives consent to
the procedure, knowing fully well about the risk, it prevents the procedure to be a
trespass to the person. Both knowledge and consent are important. However,
consent must be brought about freely and not under duress. If the courts find out
that the consent was not voluntary, they are unlikely to find volenti.
Similarly, if a person is a joint-contributor to the injury he has received, which has

resulted partly due to his negligence and partly due to someone else’s negligence,
he cannot claim for a remedy. It also applies to voluntary payments, voluntary
releases and relinquishments of rights and for all those acts which a man does, or
consents to, whereby he receives suffers a loss, which he could have avoided
through his discretion and common sense.
Therefore, if a man trespasses on a railway line and suffers injuries, the damages
cannot be recovered against a railway company. Similarly a man cannot claim
damages for running into an obstruction placed negligently in the road by the
defendant, if he was intoxicated or by getting hurt while climbing his neighbours
tree. Such acts of negligence cannot entitle a plaintiff to recover damages if chooses
to claim for it. A man cannot complain of an injury which he has received through
his own want of prudence and foresight. A man cannot claim damages for an act to
which he had complete knowledge and gave consent to, willingly putting himself
into that position.
However, rescuers to risky acts will not be considered volens, (that is accepting the
risk), if:
He was rescuing a person or property endangered by the defendant’s negligence or
He was acting under a compelling social, legal or moral duty or
He was acting in all circumstances in a reasonable way and it is purely due to the
defendant’s negligence.
In such case the court can, if it sees reason, grant compensation to the damages
claimed by the plaintiff.
7. Actus non facit reum nisi The act or the crime is not considered to have
mens sit rea been done unless the intention of the accused
was to do so.
Here Actus means an act; non facit means not doing; reum means the
accused/defendant; nisi means unless; mens means mind or mental condition; sit
means to be; rea means reum. The act itself does not constitute guilt unless done
with a guilty intent.
This maxim has reference chiefly to criminal proceedings and the rule is that the
more than the act the intent must concur to constitute a crime. A crime has two
components, actus reus - the physical wrong and mens rea - a guilty mind that
produces the act. This means that a crime is not committed if the mind of the person
committing the crime is innocent. This maxim is often given as the pinnacle of the
common law criminal justice system but has faced many criticisms.
A defendant who causes the death of person in a road accident, does so without
intention, may be charged with accident due to negligence if proven in the court and
thus attracting a diluted quantum of punishment as against if he had caused the
accident with an intention to kill, which again will be proven in the court. If a
public officer or a police officer, acting in excess of his authority, trespasses into a
public building and commits a crime, he will in excess of his authority be deemed a
trespasser ab initio. So in this case the malicious intention to commit the crime is
clear and therefore the person will be tried accordingly.
The question of malicious intent forms, also, an important feature in cases of

defamation. If the matter is published, the more readily will it be believed and
therefore the intention to defame is stronger. So whether written or printed, a person
can be charged of libel as the intention to malign and make it public was present. In
case of slander, where it may be an outburst of hasty temper without malicious
intent, in absence of special damage, the crime is not actionable unless the words
thus spoken to defame would lead the bystanders to infer that the slanderer had
been guilty of intent, then the damage would be same as that of libel.
It is also held that to prove a person guilty of stealing, not only should intent be
proven but also a means of carrying it into effect. So, when a man puts his hand into
a victim’s pocket with the intent to steal, it was held that he could not be convicted
of an attempt to steal unless there appeared to have been something in the pocket
that might have been stolen. The act or the crime is not considered to have been
done unless the intention of the accused was to do so and also the action is said to
have been completed.
8. Delegatus non potest A delegate cannot delegate.
delegare
Here Delegatus means delegated; non is negation; potest means can; delegare
means delegate. That is a delegated person cannot delegate. This legal rule states
that an agent to whom an authority or decision making power has been delegated by
a principal or higher authority may not delegate it to a sub agent unless the original
authority who delegated, explicitly authorizes it, or there is an implied authority
to do so for the trust or confidence to carry on an act has been reposed on him
personally and not to a stranger. It is a fundamental principle of administrative law,
the law relating to discretions conferred by the statues in the application of contract
to an agency.
An agent who has been given the authority or the decision-making power by the
principal does not have the power to employ a sub-agent without the knowledge or
consent of his principal as the principal would not be aware about the personal skill
and integrity of the sub-agent. Section 190 of the Contract Act deals with delegation
of an authority by the agent. So, if power of attorney has been granted to an agent
by the principal, the agent cannot give away the power of attorney to a third party
unless the original principal explicitly authorizes it.
The delegation principle also prohibits the delegation of a legislative authority to a
non-legislative branch of the Government.
The general principle is that the agent cannot delegate his authority to a sub-agent
or a third person, but there are two exceptions to this general rule. They are:
(1) When the ordinary custom of the trade permits the employment of a sub-agent
(2) When the nature of the agency demands the appointment of a sub-agent
because it is necessary for that business
Section 191, Indian Contract Act defines a Sub-agent,who is a person employed by,
and acting under the control of the original agent in the business of the agency.
Sub-agent may be either properly appointed or improperly appointed. If the agent
has been appointed with the authority of the principal he is called sub-agent
properly appointed. If he is appointed without authority of principal, he is
improperly appointed.
When the sub-agent has been properly appointed, the sub-agent is bound by his acts
and is responsible for action as if he were an agent appointed by the principal.
However, the agent is responsible for acts of the sub-agent to the principal. The
sub-agent is not responsible for his acts to the principal. He is only responsible for
such acts to the agent. But if the sub-agent is guilty of fraud or wilful wrong against
the principal, he becomes directly responsible to the principal.
If the sub-agent is improperly appointed, the principal is not bound by his acts. The
principal is not responsible for any transaction made by any legal proceedings or for
any act done by him.
9. Ex turpi causâ non oritur From a base cause, no action will arise or
actio From a dishonourable cause an action does not
arise or
Of an illegal cause, there can be no lawsuit
Here ex turpi means base; causa means cause; non means negation; oritur means
rise; actio means activity. This maxim applies not only to tort law but also to
contract, restitution, property and trusts. An illegal contract is unenforceable. If one
is knowingly engaged in an illegal activity he has no right claim damages arising
out of that activity. Therefore, an illegal contract is unenforceable. It is also known
as illegality defence where in a defendant may plead that even though, for example
he did not respect a contract, since the plaintiff because of the illegality involved
cannot claim compensation.
There are two instances when this maxim will apply:
1. The Court will not enforce a contract which is expressly forbidden by a statute
or that is entered with an intention of committing an illegal activity
2. The Court will not assist a claimant to recover a benefit from his own
wrongdoing.
This old and well known legal maxim is founded on good sense, and expresses a
clear and well recognized legal principle which is not confined to chargeable
offences. This is one of the well established maxims of justice, where it means that
one who seeks justice must come with clean hands. This however does not mean
that the plaintiff cannot register a complaint because he is not not spotlessly clean.
He can sue for some unlawful activity or conduct if it is connected with some harm
suffered by him as a part of the same transaction. It is for the court to decide the
validity of the complaint. However, if the evidence cited by the plaintiff proves the
illegality, whether the defendant has brought this to the the court’s notice or not, the
court is not obliged to assist him once the court is aware of the illegality.
Example: If a passenger suffers an injury while being driven in a stolen car, and he
knew it was a stolen car and wilfully participated in joyriding, there may be no
action in in tort against the driver under the ex turpi non oritur actio principle.
Another example: If a person by name X stole a bottle of liquor from another

person Y, Y would not be able to maintain an action, if it turns out that the action is
taking place in a dry state. Or any robber indulging in an illegal activity cannot sue
for damages if he suffers an injury while performing the illegal activity.
This maxin is also sometimes referred to as simply ex turpi or ex turpi causa.
10. Res ipsa loquitur The thing speaks for itself or the principle that
the mere occurrence of some types of accidents
is sufficient to imply negligence
Here Res means a thing / subject of legal proceedings; ipsa means himself or
herself; loquitur means he/she/it speaks. That is the thing or a subject of legal
proceedings speaks for itself. In the law of torts, it is a principle that allows a
plaintiff to meet their burden of proof with what is, in effect, circumstantial
evidence. However, the plaintiff can create a rebuttable presumption of negligence
conducted by the defendant by proving that the harm would not have occurred if not
for the negligence by the things under the defendant’s control, and there are no
other plausible explanations.
To prove res ipsa loquitur, three things must be proven by the plaintiff as the
burden of proof lies with him:
1. The negligence of the defendant that was avoidable - a surgeon leaving
instruments inside a patient’s body - which is a case of blatant negligence
2. It was caused by a unit that was solely under the defendant’s control - a faulty
plumbing flooding a person’s house after several days of installing a water pipe
would hold the plumbing company responsible in spite of the plumbing company
claiming that the unit worked well at the time of installation.
3. The plaintiff did not contribute to the cause - If expert testimony suggests that
an injury could have only be caused due to negligence such as an expert surgeon
testifying that after having performed thousand surgeries claims to have never ever
caused damage to the liver, which is not located near the appendix, nor does he
know of any colleague who might have caused injury to the liver during
appendectomy.
A case of res ipsa loquitur is made in commercial cases of airplane accidents. Two
trains colliding with each other also falls under res ipsa loquitur as the defendant’s
negligence in the first place caused the trains to be on the same tracks. If sacks of
sugar or any goods fall from a warehouse on passers-by thus injuring them, the
warehouse owner will be held responsible for negligence under res ipsa loquitur.
11. Salus populi suprema lex The safety of the people is the supreme law
esto
Here, Salus means health; populi means people or nation; suprema means supreme;
lex means law; esto means is. It means that let the welfare or the health of the
people be the supreme law. It is such a fundamental law that if one follows it, one
cannot dangerously err. It is an implied agreement of every member of the society
that his own individual welfare shall in cases of necessity be secondary and must
yield to the needs of the welfare of the community at large, his liberty, property or
life can be sacrificed under certain pressing circumstances for public good but
under the legitimacy of the law. And from the peasant to the supreme, all are
amenable to its limitless power. The phrase is the state motto of Missouri, a
midwestern state in the U.S., and is used as an element of its state seal.
During floods, if a public road cannot be used, the public have a right of way over
the adjoining property. Similarly, no obstruction which can be a nuisance, can be
permitted on a public road or a highway though it may be advantageous to a certain
portion of public, until the Parliament authorises it. So, during a war any man’s
property can be taken for the defence or preservation of the state at large. It is upon
this principle that we as private individuals are bound to perform state duties when
called upon to preserve peace, serve as jurors or soldier in times of war. It is upon
this principle that public officers if properly discharging their duties are not liable
for injury to private individuals.
The payment of tax by the citizens for supporting the nation development at large
are also instances of individuals who contribute to the support of the health of
nation and to sacrifice individual good for public good. Moreover, in a democracy
like India, since the people themselves elect their representatives, it is but natural
that the public is connected with the general welfare of the country, which reflects
the principle of this maxim. However, all persons contributing to the health of
nation also know that they receive a corresponding benefit in the protection
awarded to them in person and property by the laws of the nation apart from other
privileges accorded to them.
However, when arbitrary demands are made upon an individual the principle of the
maxim, Nemo cogitur rem suam vendere, etiam justo pretio, can be applied, that is;
No one is compelled to sell his private property, even at a fair price. A person
cannot be compelled to give up his private property for some commercial
undertaking to some speculating individuals, even for the purpose of building a
railway line or business premises or so called town improvement. Here the principle
that private interest is not to be sacrificed to a greater extent than is necessary to
secure public interest, which is considered in all such cases not only by the
Parliament but also by courts of law and justice.
12. Ut res magis valeat quam The provision of a Statute must be so construed
pereat as to make it effective and operative
Or
That the thing may rather have an effect than be
destroyed.
It is better for a thing to have effect than to be
made void.
Here ut means whereof; res means things; magis means more; valeat means please;
quam means than; pereat means perish.
The maxim expresses the primary rule of construction of a clause, expressing that
every effort should be made by a Court to find a meaning, keeping the substance of
the case in mind and not the mere form. Mere difficulties in the way of interpreting
a clause, do not make a clause bad, so long as a definite meaning can be inferred.
To say simply, every clause in a contract must if possible be interpreted and
assigned a meaning to make it operative and rejecting what is offensive to ascertain
the genuine interest of the contract. However, while interpreting no variance should
be developed with the language of the clause.
So, the basic principle should be it is better to validate a thing than to invalidate it.
The intention of a statute which is the authentic repository of the Legislature should
not be allowed to go in vain but validate it in the best interest of maintaining law
and justice.
In conclusion, it may be said that to begin with a statute must be as a workable
instrument and not to reduce to it being an unnecessary exercise. And the courts
need to follow the principle that they are bound to find something meaningful and
not declare them void for uncertainty unless absolutely senseless.
13. Actus dei nemini facit An act of God causes legal injury to no one
injuriam
Here actus means act; dei means God/nature; Neminem means nobody, no man, no
one; Facit means cause; and Injuriam means injury.
This means, ‘The law holds no man responsible for the act of God.’
This maxim is often used along with the maxim, Actus Legis Nemini Est Damnosus
which means, ‘The act of the law is hurtful to no one.’ ‘An act in law shall
prejudice no man.’
The loss from an injury caused thereby must be borne by the victim because the law
does not hold anyone responsible where he is prevented from performing it by an
act of God. It refers to an injury, which happens a result of inevitable circumstances
which no industry or policy can avoid or prevent. Unforeseen circumstances such as
tsunami, earthquakes, cyclones, of which human prudence is not bound to
recognize, cannot be punishable by law.
Supposing in a storm A’s car lands in B’s house, and thereby damaging B’s house,
B cannot claim damages from A, because a storm can be classified as an Act of
God.
However, if nature’s act was foreseeable and a person’s negligence led to an
accident, then jury considers the extent of negligence before giving the verdict,
following the principle of Rylands v. Fletcher (1868-UK, House of Lords) decision.
In this case the plaintiff (Thomas Fletcher) sued John Rhylands for the damage that
the plaintiff believed was caused by the defendant ( John Rylands ). The defendant
had a water reservoir in his land. It was the water from the reservoir that overflowed
to the plaintiff's land and caused damage in his mines. The verdict given by the
courts favoured the plaintiff. Under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, a person who
allows a dangerous element on their land which, if it escapes and damages a
neighbour, is liable on a strict liability basis - it is not necessary to prove negligence
on the part of the landowner from which has escaped the dangerous substance.
In India, the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India ( 1987) held that
where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and
harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous
or inherently dangerous activity resulting, for example, in escape of toxic gas, the
enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected
by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which
operate vis-a-vis the tortuous principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v.
Fletcher.
14. Audi alteram partem Hear the other side
This act was first enacted in the Magna Carta, 1215. It is similar to the maxim,
Audiatur Et Altera Pars which embodies the concept in criminal law that translates
to that, “No person shall be condemned, punished or have any property or legal
right compromised by a law court without being heard.” It includes habeas corpus,
the common law writ or the right to receive notice of hearing and to be given an
opportunity to be represented or heard. It is considered be the principle of
fundamental justice or equity. It is a principle of natural justice and fair-hearing;
that both party shall respond to the evidence against them. It allows the party and
his lawyer to confront the witness against him, to have an opportunity to challenge
the evidence produced against him, to summon one’s own witness and present
evidence and to have counsel, if required at public expense, in order to make one’s
case be heard properly. It is besides the point that sometimes the claim may turn out
not to be meritorious. The principle is valued more so because one should not be
denied the right to be heard especially if his life hangs in balance. This maxim has
come into use for many political and judicial organizations. The ancient Greek
dramatists considered ‘hear both sides’ as part of ‘common wisdom’.
In India, the principles of natural justice are the grounds of Article 14 and 21 of the
constitution. While Article 14 provides that, ‘Every person should be treated
equally’, Article 21 enshrines that, ‘ No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedures established by law.’The principle of
natural justice ensure that there is no prejudice against anybody in any
administrative action.
Even God, it is said, allowed Adam to make his defence before passing judgement.
The principle of natural justice has evolved not only from the law makers but from
mankind itself and is the first principle of civilized jurisprudence.

15. Cessante ratione legis, The reason for a law ceasing, the law itself
cessat ipsa lex ceases.
Here, Cessante / cessat means inactive, ratione means reason, legis means statute,
ipsa means itself; lex means law/statute
The maxim, Cessante ratione legis, cessat et ipsa lex translates to, The reason for a
law ceasing, the law itself ceases. That is the law is redundant if the intended
purpose it had to serve ceases or no law can survive the reason on which it is
founded because situations keep changing in a dynamic society. It is one of the
most ancient maxims known to our law and it is constantly followed by our courts.
This means that no law can survive the reason on which it is founded. It needs no
statute to change it; it gets rid of itself. For example, if there was a need of martial
law, imposed during an emergency situation, but later, the society calms down and
the emergency situation ceases to exist, the martial law ceases to exist.
The same thought was enunciated by Lord Coke (Chief Justice of the King’s bench)
- the reason for a law is the soul of the law, and if the reason for a law has changed,
the law needs to be changed.
Mr. Justice Holmes (an American Jurist), also was of the opinion that it was
revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down,
especially if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since,
and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past. He further believed
that to rest upon a formula since it was made, although it has lost its meaning, is a
prolonged slumber equivalent to its death.
"Holdsworth (Professor of Law at the Oxford University), in commenting on this

quotation from Mr. Justice Holmes, described how the Anglo-American system of
case law has enabled the judges, within fairly wide limits, to apply to old precedents
a process of selection and rejection which brings the law into conformity with
modern conditions. It is as important to the growth of the law that it should have the
inherent power to cast off outmoded or erroneous rules of law as that it have the
capacity for developing new doctrines suited to the needs of the times."
In India, the maxim applies to the principles of common law, but not to any
considerable extent to statute law. A law does not cease to be operative because it is
out of keeping with the present time. But this principle does not apply where
custom outlines the conditions which gave it birth.
16. Ex nudo pacto non oritur No action arises on a contract without

actio consideration or An action does not arise from a
bare promise
Ex means not including; nudo means naked; pacto means to agree to or the
statement (oral or written) of an exchange of pact or promise; non means expressing
negation or absence; oritur means rise; and actio means right of action.
The maxim means, “No action arises on a contract without consideration.” Since
consideration is the founding platform to a contract, a contract without
consideration is void. Consideration is the basis on which a contract is formed and
without consideration, a contract becomes bare or defenceless.
We live in a world, where we keep entering into contracts and therefore it is
important to analyse the various components of a contract. Contract law is a
Western concept born out of mutual mistrust among people involved in business. It
was for this reason that the doctrine of consideration was developed. In fact of all
the components, the most important is “Consideration”. Consideration means
something in return for the promise made by the offeror.
Consideration can be anything of value (such as an goods, money, services, or

promises of any of these), which each party gives as a quid pro quo to support their
side of the bargain. Mutual promises constitute consideration for each other. If only
one party offers consideration, the agreement is a "bare promise" and is
unenforceable.
According to Sir Frederick Pollock,( an eminent Jurist responsible for
modernization of English legal studies), Consideration is the price for which the
promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable.
In the words of Patterson J, Consideration means something which is of value in the
eye of the law moving from the plaintiff. It may be of some benefit to the defendant
or detriment to the plaintiff but at all events it must move from the plaintiff.
In all countries colonized by the British, consideration is a prerequisite before a
contract is binding in the Court of Law. So, if there is no consideration, there is no
contract, which basically means, Ex nudo pacto non oritur actio.
Consideration does not have to quantified or qualified in monetary terms. Any
evident detriment to one of the parties could be that party’s consideration.
What is Consideration?
THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 ACT NO. 9 OF 1872 explains that : The
Indian Contract Act lays down various sections from Sections 10 to 25 to explain
about the Contracts, voidable contracts, and voidable agreements and
considerations.
(a) Section 10 of ICA lays down the essentials of a valid contract. What
agreements are contracts?
(b) Section 23 lays down what considerations and objects lawful and what not.
(c) Section 24 lays down agreements void, if considerations and objects unlawful
in part.
(d) Section 25 opens with the wordings, Agreement without consideration, void,
unless it is in writing and registered, or is a promise to compensate for something
done, or is a promise to pay a debt barred by limitation law. “An agreement without
consideration is void ab initio.” or is void from the beginning.
The Considerations can be as follows:

1. Promise for a promise - Executory
2. An Act for a promise - Executed
Although the need for consideration was initiated to correct any wrong doings in
businesses, this doctrine will also be felt more and more in the civil law countries
because of changing contractual obligations and the system of law in a world where
technological advancements is happening rapidly.
17. Generalia specialibus non General things do not derogate from special,
derogant Or
The provisions of a general statute must yield to
those of a special one.
Generalia means general principles; specialibus means special; non means

expressing negation and derogant means derogatory.
The literal meaning of this expression is that general words or things do not
derogate from special. The maxim is regarded as a ‘cardinal principle of
interpretation’ and is characterised as a well recognised principle
When two provisions are in conflict and one of them deals specifically with the
matter in question while the other is of more general application, the conflict may
be avoided by applying the specific provision to the exclusion of the more general
one. The specific prevails over the general; it does not matter which was enacted
first. This strategy for the resolution of conflict is usually referred to by the Latin
name generalia specialibus non derogant. The English term “implied exception” is
adopted ... for, in effect, the specific provision implicitly carves out an exception to
the general one...."
18. In pari delicto potior et In equal fault, the condition of the possessor is
conditio possidentis more favourable.
In pari delicto means in equal fault; pour means more favourable or preferable; et
conditio means in the condition; possidentis means one in possession.
In other words, when the parties are equally in the wrong, the possessor will always
be given preference. If two parties have equally wronged, whether the wrong doing
in question is a crime or a tort, the courts will not interfere with their status quo.
This phrase is most commonly used by courts when it denies relief to both the
parties in a civil action and does not involve in resolving the other side’s claim.
Therefore, whoever possesses whatever in a dispute may continue to do so in the
absence of a superior claim.
The doctrine is also known as dirty hands or unclean hands doctrine. The defendant
can claim that the plaintiff cannot be granted relief because the plaintiff has acted in
bad faith or in an unethical manner with regards to the subject matter of the
complaint and therefore will not be eligible to recover damages from it. Since it is
the defendant who claims for the defense, it is the responsibility of the defendant to
provide proof that the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine emphasises
that justice or equity must come with clean hands. The English proverbial idiom
equivalent is, “ Pot calling the kettle black.”
19. Ignorantia facti excusat; Ignorance of the fact excuses; Ignorance of the
ignorantia juris non excusat law excuses not
Ignorantia means ignorance; facti means facts; excusat means excuse; juris means
of law; non excusat means no excuse. It is accepted that this maxim originated in
the Roman law and was adapted by the English common law and also applies to the
law of the land in India too. The phrase says that any act committed under a
mistaken impression of material fact can be pardoned or excused. However,
ignorance of a municipal law cannot be used as an excuse by anyone who is of the
age of discretion. Law can be personal, family, civil, criminal, revenue,
commercial, taxation, public and private international law and so on. Law can be
statutory, customary, moral or ethical, based on religion. But ignorance cannot be
an excuse to escape punishment.
Here again ignorance can be voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary ignorance is when
an adult who could have taken reasonable pains to be aware of promulgated laws
chooses not to be acquainted with it. Legal experts state that every person is
presumed to be aware of the law of the land. Therefore, there is no excuse under
law as against a ignorance claimed by an adult Especially when the law has been
promulgated, by printing it in Government gazette and is freely available on the
internet or printed and available for consumption of people, ignorance of law
cannot be an excuse. Presumed knowledge of law is the principle of jurisprudence
that one is bound by even if one doesn’t know of it. It is also defined as ‘prohibition
of ignorance of law.’ A secret law is no law at all.
This maxim ensures that a person charged with a criminal offence or a subject of a
civil lawsuit cannot merely claim ignorance of the law to escape punishment. If
allowed to claim ignorance, the law enforcement machinery can come to a grinding
halt. The law of the land is all pervasive.
For example if a legal heir on whom the estate falls is ignorant of the death of his
ancestor, he is ignorant of a fact but if claims that he is ignorant of his rights as an
heir, he is said to be ignorant of the law.
Take another example. In India hunting of a Wild Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) is an
offence as per section 9 of the Wild life Protection Act 1972. If a person, who is
ignorant of section 9 of the Wild life protection Act, shoots a wild Buffalo thinking
that it is a domestic buffalo he is said to be acting in ignorance of law as well as of a
fact. To cite another example, merely claiming ignorance of the law would not
prevent the Government from prosecuting a person if the person has deliberately
killed another person with premeditation and the evidence establishes it.
Exceptions are when the law has been recently enacted or amended and there was
no opportunity for the person to be aware of it and if the person relies on an
interpretation by a judge or a person in authority which proves to be incorrect.
Moreover, there are many laws and many a times laws are changed based on court’s
decision or many notification and circulars are taken out by the Government with
many changes in rules, regulations and notifications. It is humanly impossible to be
abreast about these changes for anybody especially in a country like India where the
illiterate population is high. Keeping this in mind the courts do take this into
cognizance and do not apply this rule bluntly but ensure that justice is rendered in a
fair means applying the principles of justice, equality and good conscience.
20. Omnia praesumuntur All things are presumed against a wrongdoer
contra spoliatorem
Omnia means All things; praesumuntur means presumed; contra means against and
spoilator is one who spoils. This rule is present in the Section 167 of the Evidence
Act in India and is applicable all over India except in the state of Jammu and
Kashmir. The destruction of evidence during the judicial proceedings is considered
criminal and the person doing so is a criminal. Thence all things are presumed
against the wrongdoer so that she suffers the consequence of destroying the
evidence in order to protect and provide justice to the aggrieved party in an attempt
to not allow any profit to the spoilator with justice pending.
The application of this maxim has been recorded in ancient Rome where the
business were obliged to maintain written records of their businesses for a
stipulated period of time to sort out any claims by the other party, failing which the
maxim was applied with much harshness. Later this law extended to common law
jurisdictions. However, its strict application has diluted over time.
The Supreme Court of India has clearly specified that the law in respect for adverse
presumption is well that the party that withholds or destroys a document or
evidence from the court on ‘The law in respect of adverse presumption is well
settled that the party who withholds a document or evidence from the court with full
knowledge and deliberation that the said document will operate to his disadvantage,
the court can conclude draw adverse inference against such a party, in view of the
clear applicability of the maxim omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatorem.
This can apply either to the plaintiff or the defendant, whosoever suppresses or
destroys the evidence. The Court of King’s Bench delivered its judgement in the
Armory v Delamirie (incorrect spelling of Paul de Lamerie, a great producer of
silver-works in the 18th century, misspelled by the court reporter) [1722] case,
wherein the judgement was in favour of the plaintiff Armory, who was a chimney
sweeper boy who had found a jewel and carried it to the defendant’s shop to obtain
the valuation of the jewel. Delamirie’s apprentice had surreptitiously removed the
gems from the setting of the jewel on the pretext of weighing it. Then he informed
Armory the value of the jewel to be three and half pence. The apprentice offered to
pay the value to Armory but Armory wanted the jewel back in its same shape and
form in which he had handed it over. When the apprentice failed to do so, Armory
took the matter to the court against Delamirie via respondeat superior for the
actions of his apprentice. The court ruled that although Armory did not have
absolute ownership of the jewel had the right to claim justice and recover damages
from Delamirie (as he was answerable to his apprentice’s neglect) unless the
original jewel be returned. The Jury directed Delamirie to make the value of the
best jewels the measure of their damages: which they accordingly did, as per the
maxim, Omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatorem.

Reference:
1. https://archive.org/stream/cu31924017840848/cu31924017840848_djvu.txt
2. https://adekunleadebajo.wordpress.com/2014/05/02/legal-maxims-and-their-short
-explanations/
3. https://dictionary.thelaw.com/
4. https://india.lawi.asia/
5. https://www.legalcrystal.com/dictionary/definition/94871/due-process-of-law
6. http://www.duhaime.org/
7. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
8. http://www.businessdictionary.com
9. https://legalpoint-india.blogspot.com
10. http://www.infipark.com/articles
11. https://legaldictionary.net
12. https://www.law.cornell.edu
13. https://www.casemine.com
14. http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l265-M.C.-Mehta-v.-Union-of-India.ht
ml
15. https://www.latin-is-simple.com/en/vocabulary/phrase
16. https://adekunleadebajo.wordpress.com/2014/05/02/legal-maxims-and-their-short
-explanations/
17. http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal
18. https://indiacode.nic.in/acts/4.%20Indian%20Contract%20Act,%201872.pdf
19. http://www.lex-warrier.in
20. https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/doctrine-of-consideratio
n.php
21. https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/dirty-hands-doctrine/
22. https://www.caclubindia.com/articles/
23. https://greenvillelegal.com/
24. https://definitions.uslegal.com
25. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AdelLawRw/1962/8.pdf
Error. No index entries found.


Foreign Words and Legal Maxims by Uma Gopal

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Foreign Words and Legal Maxims by Uma Gopal

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

FOREIGN WORDS AND THEIR USAGE

S. No. Word Meaning Usage in a Sentence

Created by Uma Gopal 1

Created by Uma Gopal 2

42. In against the Two of the defendants filed motions for

Created by Uma Gopal 3

Created by Uma Gopal 4

Created by Uma Gopal 5

Created by Uma Gopal 6

Created by Uma Gopal 7

Compensation may, however, be recovered by the relatives of a person negligently

3. Damnum Sine Injuria and Injury with no damages.

Injuria Sine Damno

The common-law doctrine of respondeat superior was established in

5. Ubi jus ibi remedium Where there is a right there is a remedy

6. Volenti non fit injuria That to which a man consents cannot be

Similarly, if a person is a joint-contributor to the injury he has received, which has

The question of malicious intent forms, also, an important feature in cases of

Another example: If a person by name X stole a bottle of liquor from another

14. Audi alteram partem Hear the other side

Created by Uma Gopal 18

"Holdsworth (Professor of Law at the Oxford University), in commenting on this

16. Ex nudo pacto non oritur No action arises on a contract without

Consideration can be anything of value (such as an goods, money, services, or

The Considerations can be as follows:

Generalia means general principles; specialibus means special; non means

Created by Uma Gopal 23

Error. No index entries found.

Created by Uma Gopal 24

Você também pode gostar