Ignorantia Facit Excusact Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat:-
The maxim Ignorantia
Facit Excusact Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat means that the
ignorance of the fact is an excuse, while the ignorance of the law is not an
excuse. The maxim is also stated as Ignorantia Legis Neminem
Excusant . the ignorance of the material fact may excuse a party
from the legal consequences of his conduct; but the ignorance of the law, which
everyone is presumed to know, does not afford the excuse. Everybody is supposed
to know the law of the land. if anyone pleads that he did not know that the
crime he had committed would attract the punishment, his ignorance regarding
the law of the land will not be entertained by the court of law. The ignorance
of the legal consequences of one’s wrongful act is not a reasonable defence in
the eyes of the law. The ignorance of the fact is often inevitable. No
attention could prevent it. But the ignorance of the law is never inevitable
for the law can be and ought to be the definite and knowable one.
However, the common sense rule is
that every man must be taken to be cognizant of the law of the land. Once the
President puts his assent in the Bill it becomes an Act or a Law, and from that
moment it is considered to be known by all the people of the nation.
Eg: If
the heir is ignorant of the death of his ancestor, he be ignorant of the fact;
and if the heir is aware of the death of his ancestor whose heir he is and is
not aware of the rights which have vested upon him after the death of the man,
he is ignorant of the law of the land, relating to the succession and
therefore, his ignorance of the law will not be excused.
Injuria Sine Damno:-
The maxim Injuria Sine
Damno means that the violation of a legal right without the
damage. The term ‘injuria’ means an injury by infringing the legal private
right, the term ‘sine’ means without and the term ‘damno’ means the damage. So
in a whole the maxim means the infringement of a legal private right without
any actual damage. The maxim means that where there is a violation of a private
legal right in rem without any actual loss or damage through an assault or a
battery, or false imprisonment, or trespass, etc the person whose right is so
violated is entitled to bring an action claiming for the damages. In such a
case, the plaintiff need not prove the actual damage because the law presumes
the damage when such a right is violated. For the successful action the only
thing which needs to be proved is that the plaintiff’s legal right has been violated,
that is, there is an injuria, or a violation or an infringement of a legal
right.
Major case law includes:-
Ashby vs. White:-
The facts of the above mentioned
case is as follows, the plaintiff, on Mr. Ashby was deprived of the right to
vote. He was not allowed to cast his vote by the returning officers. Although
the candidate for whom he was about to vote won the elections by a big margin,
the violation of his legal right gave rise to the cause of action. The
defendants, the returning officers, were held liable for the infringement of
the plaintiff’s legal right. Here the pecuniary loss suffered by Ashby is not
relevant for the purpose of the cause of the action. If the court feels that
the violation of a legal right is there owing to a malicious and deliberate act
of the defendant, the court may apply the maxim “injuria sine damno”, that is,
injury of a legal right without any damage.
Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet:-
The maxim Nemo Dat
Quod Non Habet means that no one gives what he does not possess.
The maxim no one can convey a better title than what he himself has embodies
the principle of the transfer of the property or a rule of the conveyance. The
transferor should have a title to the property or the authority to transfer it,
so that he can convey that through a deed. Where the goods are sold by a person
who is not the owner of the goods and who does not sell them under the
authority or with the consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better title
to the goods that the seller had, unless the owner of the goods by his conduct
is prevented from denying the seller’s authority to sell. The general rule is
that a person who is not the owner of the goods cannot validly sell those
goods.
Section 27 of the Indian Sales of
the Goods Act, 1930 states that where the goods are sold by a person who is not
the owner thereof and who does not sell them under the authority or with the
consent of the owner, the buyers acquires no better title to the goods than the
seller had. The best examples of the above mentioned point is that of the goods
sold by the finder of the goods or a thief who stole a good, sells it to the
other person, in such cases there is no title to the buyer.
Major case laws include:-
Leo vs. Bayer:-
In the above mentioned case, it
had been held that, the buyer does not acquire a good title if he purchases a
horse at a public auction, which is stolen.
Helby vs. Mathews:-
In the above mentioned case, it
had been held that, the buyer does not acquire the title if he purchases the
goods from a person obtaining the goods under a hire purchase.
There are a few exceptions for
the above mentioned maxim Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet, which are
as follows, the title by an estoppel, the title under the act of a broker, the
sale under the special right, the sale in the open market, and by the transfer
of the negotiable instrument.
Res Ipsa Loquitor:-
The maxim Res Ipsa
Loquitor means that the thing or the accidents or the facts speaks
for itself. This maxim is applicable to such accidents which could not have
happened without the defendant’s negligence.
Eg: If a
running car hits a standing person on the pavement, it may be presumed that the
driver of the running car had caused the accident and that without the
negligence the accident would not have occurred.
Generally, in the tortious
action, the plaintiff must establish a breach of the duty by the defendant and
its casual connection with the injury. In certain cases, the court raises a
presumption as to the existence of the negligence on the part of the defendant.
It is for the defendant to rebut this presumption providing that he was
diligent or not responsible for the wrong. Res Ipsa Loquitor is
a rule of the evidence which shifts the burden of the proof from the plaintiff
to the defendant.
Major case law includes:-
Scott vs. London Docks Company:-
In the above mentioned case, it
had been held that, there must be a reasonable evidence of the negligence but
where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his
servants, and the accidents in the ordinary cause of the things does not happen
if those who have the management, use proper care, it affords the reasonable
evidence in the absence of the explanation by the defendant that the accident
arose from the want of the case.
The maxim applies when the
following are fulfilled:-
a. The fact of the control of the ‘res’.
b. For the accident to happen somebody’s negligence is responsible,
otherwise ordinarily it could not happen; and
c. The absence of the reasonable explanation.
Respondeat Superior:-
The maxim Respondeat
Superior means that let the principal answer or let the principal
be held liable. This maxim means let the principal or the master be made
liable. The liability of a master for his servant’s tort is usually referred to
this maxim. If a servant causes the injury, due to the negligence to a third
party while acting for the master, then the master will be held liable or held
responsible. The principle of this maxim is that the master enjoys the
advantage from the act done by the servant and he must also be liable for any
injury which a third person may suffer due to the act. The reason for this
maxim are:
a. The difficulty of proving the actual authority; and
b. The master usually will be financially capable of bearing the
burden of the liability.
If the master is no held liable
in this way, then he would always put the blame on the servant and try to
escape scot free and the third party would not be compensated. More over the
imposition of the vicarious liability will make the master more careful in
choosing the servants or the agents.
Major case law include:-
Bayler vs. Manchester Dec. Rly
Company:-
In the above mentioned case, it
had been held that, where a servant is acting within the scope of his
employment an in acting so does something negligent or wrongful the master is
liable even though the act done may be the very reverse of that which the
servant was actually directed to do.
Rex Non Potest Peceare:-
The maxim Rex Non
Potest Peceare means that the king can do no wrong. It is the old
and the fundamental principle of the English Constitution that the King can do
no wrong. Under the common law of England, the King cannot be made liable for
any wrong done as he is above the laws and that everything he does is just and
lawful. It only means that the sovereign individually an personally and in his
natural capacity, is independent of and is not amenable to any other earthly
power or the jurisdiction, and that anything aims in the condition of the
public affairs is not to be imputes to the King so as to render him personally
answerable for it to his people. The King could not be sued in his own courts.
The petition of the right was the only remedy available against the crown. It
was available for a breach of the contract or for the recovery of the goods,
money of the land wrongfully taken by the officers of the crown. The King
cannot be made liable for any wrong done by his servants who are acting under
the express or implied authority. The Crown was immune for the torts of its
servants. But the Crown Proceedings Act was passed in the year 1947 and it has
changed the position completely, now, the Crown can be held liable for the
torts committed by its servants. In India, the Article 300 of the Constitution
of India provides for the suits against the Central and the State Govts.
Salus Populi Supreme Lex:-
The maxim Salus Populi
Supreme Lex means that the regard for the public welfare is the
highest law. If the legal right of an individual is violated, there is a remedy
for the same. But in some cases, the law takes no action even when there is the
violation of a legal right or when the injury is caused to a person. This is
based on the maxim Salus Populi Supreme Lex. This
maxim is based on the principle that every member of the society surrenders his
own individual welfare before the welfare of the community. The property, the
liberty and the life of the individual shall be jeopardized or sacrificed for
the public good. Thus during the time of the war, big buildings, belonging to
the persons can be taken over by the govt for the accommodation of the
soldiers; the goods overboard a ship can be cast into the sea to save the ship
or the lives of the people on board. However, there should be a justification
for the violation and the violation should be only to the extent it is
required.
Major case laws includes:-
Plate Glass Company vs.
Meredisth:-
No comments:
Post a Comment