Unit 5: Legal Maxims

Course: BA LL.B Second Year (Sem IV) 2021-2022

Subject: Legal Language/General English IV

Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium
(Where there is a right, there is a remedy)
 “Jus” means the legal authority to do or demand something and “remedium” means right
of action in a court of law
 Thus, the maxim lays down that wherever there is a right, there is a remedy. In other
words, there is no wrong without a remedy.

 Exceptions:
i) The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium does not apply to moral and political
wrong which are not actionable.
ii) If there is no legal damage which has been caused to any person then
this maxim will not be applicable.
Case Laws : Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium

i) Ashby v/s White

ii) Nilabati Behera v/s State of Orissa
iii) M.C Mehta v/s Union of India
iv) Bhim Singh v/s State of Jammu and Kashmir
Case Laws : Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium

Ashby vs White
Facts:
The plaintiff was a qualified voter and he was detained from giving a vote in a parliamentary
election by the defendant who was a police officer. The party to whom he wanted to vote had
won the election and the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant stating that he was
wrongfully detained from giving a vote and his right to vote was infringed and also claimed a
certain amount of compensation for the damage caused to him. The defendant in his defence
said that the party to whom he wanted to vote had won the election and therefore, no damage
and injury was caused to him.
Held:
To restrain a person from giving vote is a civil wrong and therefore the plaintiff had the right
to seek remedy from the court of law. The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium was applied in this case
and the plaintiff was awarded some amount of compensation.
Case Laws : Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium

M.C Mehta v/s Union of India

Facts:
The Supreme Court was dealing with a claim arising from the leakage of oleum gas in
December 1985 from one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries in Delhi. As
a result of the leakage, one person died and several others were affected. The action was
brought through a PIL before the Supreme Court.
Held:
The Court applied this maxim and awarded compensation to the victims.
Case Laws : Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium

Bhim Singh v. The State of J and K.

In this case, the petitioner who was an M.L.A. was wrongfully detained by the police and thus
prevented from attending the assembly session. The Supreme Court ordered the payment of
Rs. 50,000/- by way of compensation to the petitioner.
Volenti Non Fit Injuria
(Damage suffered by consent is not a cause of action)

 It simply means “voluntary taking of risk”

 It means that if an act is done with the consent of the plaintiff, or the plaintiff has freely
and voluntarily, with full knowledge of the nature and extent of risk, agreed to an act, he
cannot complain against that act.
 WHAT IS CONSENTED TO IS NOT AN INJURY
CONSENT MAY BE-

EXPRESS IMPLIED

e.g Surgeon e.g games

Volenti Non Fit Injuria

 Conditions for the application of the Maxim –

i) Consent must be free
Necessary that consent given must be freely given ( not by coercion , undue influence, fraud
etc)
ii) Act must be lawful
ACT to which plaintiff consents or undertakes to suffer risk Must be lawful
Thus for application of maxim necessary-
a) Knowledge that risk is there
b) Voluntary acceptance of the risk
BOTH THE ABOVE POINTS MUST BE PRESENT
Volenti Non Fit Injuria

EXCEPTIONS:

A. No consent can legalize an unlawful act

B. Rescuing – Maxim does not apply where Plaintiff has under exigency caused by
defendant’s wrongful conduct, consciously & deliberately faced risk ( even of death ) to
rescue another from imminent danger of personal injury /death
C. MAXIM does not apply in cases of Negligence
Case laws: Volenti Non Fit Injuria

Hall v/s Brooklands Auto Racing Club

The plaintiff went to see a car race in which two cars collided with each
other and as a result of the collision, the plaintiff who was sitting as an
audience was also injured when one of the cars flew into the audience.
Here the defence of volenti non fit injuria was applied because the plaintiff
had given his consent to such a risk by going to the race.
Volenti Non Fit Injuria

Haynes v. Harwood
Facts :
The defendant’s two horses were negligently left unattended in a crowded street. The horses
were upset by the children and they broke free, seeing them in rage the plaintiff who was a
police officer went to stop the horses and in doing so, he got injured and brought a case against
the owner for damages.
Held:
The court held the defendant liable because the defence of volenti non-fit injuria did not apply.
The defendant negligently left the horses unattended and he could have foreseen the
consequences.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
(The thing speaks for itself)
 It simply means: “the thing speaks for itself”
 It is a general rule of evidence that “he who alleges a thing, he shall prove it”
 This means that generally, if the Plaintiff has suffered an injury due to negligence of the
Defendant, the Plaintiff must prove that he suffered that injury because of negligence of
the Defendant.
 However, in some situations, it is very difficult for the Plaintiff to know exactly what
happened (the cause of injury), even though it seems obvious that the Defendant must
have been negligent.
 In such cases, the Plaintiff can use the “Res Ipsa Loquitor” rule.
It is a very popular doctrine in the law of Torts; it is circumstantial or indirect evidence which
infers negligence from the very nature of the accident that has taken place and there is the
absence of direct evidence against the Defendant.
Res Ipsa Loquitor

 Essentials to invoke this maxim:

• Inference of Negligence
1.
• Exclusive control by
2. Defendant

• Freedom from Contributory

3. Negligence
Case laws: Res Ipsa Loquitor

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Subhagwanti & Others

Facts:
The Clock Tower in Chandni Chowk, Delhi, collapsed, resulting in death of three persons.
The legal heirs of the deceased filed a suit for compensation against the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi.

Held:
The Supreme Court held that the principle of res ipsa loquitur applied to the case and
considered that it was the duty of the Municipal Corporation to carry out periodical
examination for the purpose of determining whether deterioration had taken place in the
structure of the building and whether any precaution was necessary to strengthen it. The
Corporation failed to fulfill its duty.
Respondent Superior
(Let the Principal be responsible)
 Whenever a person commits an act which is wrongful, that person is held liable for that
wrongful act. For e.g. A enters into the property of B without his permission, such an act of
A amounts to trespass and thus he is liable.

 This is the general rule, but in some situations a person can be made liable even if he has
not done any wrong, if it is done by some other person with whom he shares a certain
relation, such as master and servant or principal and agent and in these cases his liability is
called “vicarious liability” (i.e liability incurred for another).

 Such liability means the liability of a person for an act committed by

another person and such liability arises due to the nature of the relation
between the two.
Respondent Superior

 Reasons underlying the principle of the maxim:

i) It would generally be very difficult to show that master had actually authorised the servant
to commit the act in question.
ii) The servant would normally not be financially sound to bear monetary liability, and a rich
master could employ a poor servant to commit wrongful acts.
ESSENTIALS: Respondent Superior

• Wrongful Act of the

1. servant

• Done in the course of his

2. employment
Respondent Superior

An act is said to be done in the course of his employment when-

i) A wrongful act authorized by the master
ii) A wrongful or unauthorized mode of doing some act authorized by the master
Examples:
A authorized B, his servant to deal with A’s clients and he deals with them fraudulently.
A authorizes B, his servant to help Mr. C but he mistakenly causes harm to Mr. C
Case laws : Respondent Superior

National Insurance Co. Kanpur v/s Yogendra Nath

The owner of a car authorized his servant to look after the car and keep it dusted while he was
out of town. One of the servants took the car to a petrol pump for getting the tyres inflated,
checking the oil etc. and negligently knocked down and injured two boys.
Held:
The owner is vicariously liable since the act was within the course of employment.
Respondent Superior

Lloyd v/s Grace Smith and Co

Facts:
A widow, who owner two cottages, decided to take consultation from Grace Smith and Co, a
firm of solicitors since she was not satisfied with the income she was having from her
property. She was attended by a managing clerk of the firm. The managing clerk of a firm of
solicitors fraudulently induced her to transfer those properties to him.
Held:
The firm was responsible for the fraud committed by the clerk even though he acted for his
personal benefit and they had no knowledge of the fraud because such fraud was committed in
the course of employment.
Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea
(The intent and the act must both concur to
constitute a crime)
 According to this maxim, a mere act does not amount to a crime. It must be accompanied
by a guilty mind (mens rea) It means that there can’t be a crime without a
criminal mind

Wrongful Act guilty mind CRIME

(Actus reus) (Mens rea)

 If a person is to be punished under criminal law, it is generally agreed that he must have
not only done some criminal act, but must have done such act with a guilty mind. No
person can be punished merely because his act has led to some mischievous result. The law
must also inquire into the mental component of the person doing the act.
Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea
 EXCEPTIONS:
I) Strict and Absolute Liability
example S. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act; S. 91 of The Factories Act

II) Public nuisance

A public nuisance is a criminal offence in which an act or omission obstructs, harms, or causes
trouble to the general public’s right. In such circumstances, strict responsibility is applied since
the public’s interest is jeopardised. As a result, these offences are penalised whether or not there
is a mental purpose.

III) If a person violates the law without the knowledge of the law. The fact that he was not aware
of the rule of law and that he did not intend to violate it is no defence.

IV) Petty offences e.g jumping a red light, not wearing a helmet while driving
Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea

 Case law : McNaughten’s case

Facts:
For many years, Mr. Mcnaughten suffered from persecution mania. He thought that a gang of
persons followed him and slandered him and prevented him from getting a job. One day,
M’Naghten took a pistol and shot Edward Drummond, who he believed to the British Prime
Minister Robert Pell, who he though was responsible for all his misfortunes. Drummond died
five days later and M’Naghten was charged with his murder. He pleaded not guilty by reason
of insanity.
Held:
The Court held that Mcnaughten was not guilty because he was not in a position to understand
the nature and consequences of his act (absence of mens rea)
Audi Alteram Partem
(No man should be condemned unheard)
 It means “to hear the other party”
 It forms the basis for principles of natural justice.
 It means that a person deciding an issue should hear both the sides and give an opportunity
to the person to defend himself against what is being alleged against him.
 The principle also says that no one should be condemned unheard. Both the parties will get
an opportunity of fair hearing.

Case law: Maneka Gandhi v/s Union of India

Case laws: Audi Alteram Partem

 Maneka Gandhi v/s Union of India

Facts:
This writ petition was filed by the petitioner-journalist whose passport was impounded by the
Central Government alleging that it was in public interest to do so. She was not given a fair
hearing and they did not furnish reasons for passing such a order.

Held:
The Supreme Court held that the order was clearly in violation of principles of natural justice
embodied in the maxim “audi alteram partem”.
Nemo dat quod non habet
(No one can give what one he does not possess)

 It means “he who has not, can give not”

 The general rule that applies to transfer of property is that the seller
cannot give to the buyer, a better title to the goods than what he
himself has.
 This maxim is illustrated under Section 27 of The Sale of Goods
Act, 1930 -
where 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 buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller
had.
Exceptions to the maxim Nemo dat quod non
habet
To this general rule, there are some exceptions such as-
i) Sale with consent or authority of the owner
If the person sells the goods with the consent or authority of the owner, then the buyer will
acquire a good title.
e.G If A is the owner of goods, B can sell the goods if he is authorized by A or if A has
consented to such sale
ii) Sale by a joint owner
If goods belong to A and B, B has the sole possession with A’s consent, B can make a valid
sale of those goods provided that the buyer acts in good faith
iii) Sale by mercantile agent
Sale by a mercantile agent in the ordinary course of business, with the consent of the principal
is a valid sale provided that the buyer acts in good faith
Case laws: Nemo dat quod non habet

Lee v/s Bayes

A stolen horse was sold at a public auction. However, both the auctioneer and the buyer did
not know that it was stolen. When sued by the true owner, the court held that the buyer had no
title to the horse.
Caveat Emptor
(Let the buyer beware)

 This rule has its origin in English law.

 It lays down that the buyer must take care when buying specific goods upon which he can
exercise his own judgment and skill. It applies to the purchase of those things upon which
buyer can exercise his own skill and judgment.
 This maxim explains that a buyer/purchaser must carefully examine and judge what is best
for him and if makes a wrong choice, he cannot later blame the seller provided that he was
given reasonable opportunity to inspect the goods before purchase.
 It is contained under section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930-
there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose
of goods supplied under a contract of sale
Exceptions to the rule of caveat emptor

1. If the buyer makes known to the seller that he requires the goods for a particular purpose
and the seller supplies such goods in the ordinary course of business and if the buyer relies
on the seller’s skill and judgment, there is an implied condition that the goods sold will be
reasonably fit for such purpose.
2. Where the goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in such goods, the law
implies a condition that such goods are of merchantable quality. However, if the buyer
has examined the goods, there shall be no implied condition as regards defects which such
examination ought to have revealed.
Case laws: Caveat Emptor

Priest v/s Last

The plaintiff went to a chemist and demanded a hot water bottle from him which
he required for his wife. The defendant gave a rubber bottle to him telling that it
was meant for hot water, but not boiling water. When the plaintiff went home and
filled it with hot water, his wife got injured as the bottle burst.
The court held that the Defendant was liable because there was an implied
condition that the rubber bottle would be fit for the purpose for which it was
meant to be used.
Case laws: Caveat Emptor

Burnby v/s Bollett

The Defendant, a farmer, bought a carcass of a pig from a butcher, intending to use it for
purpose other than eating. Later, he met the plaintiff, who bought it from him for consumption
as food. When he discovered that it was unfit for eating, he sued the defendant.
Held
It was held that the defendant was not liable as he had not held out any implied condition to
the plaintiff that what was sold to him was fit for human consumption.
Noscitor A Sociis
(The meaning of a doubtful word may be ascertained by reference to
the meaning of words associated with it)
 The term has Latin origins, with noscitur meaning knowing a meaning with, and socii meaning
association. Simply put, it refers to ‘knowing with association.
noscitur socii

Noscitor A Sociis (Knowing with association)

knowing a meaning association

 when meaning of a word or phrase is doubtful then, the meaning of the words that surround it can be
understood in order to better grasp the concept.
 Applicable only in the circumstances where the law was either not clear or it was ambiguous
Noscitor A Sociis

 Case laws: Pradeep Agarbatti v/s State of Punjab

Facts:
The Appellant was a registered dealer of “agarbattis” and “dhoop”.The appellant was sought to
be made liable to pay Sales Tax under Entry no.16 of Punjab General Sales Tax Act,1948.
Entry No 16 read thus:
“Cosmetics, perfumery and toilet goods excluding tooth paste, tooth powder, Kumkum and
soap”
The question was whether dhoop and agarbatti fell within the description of perfumery?
Held:
Perfumery means articles as used in cosmetics and toilet goods viz sprays etc but does not
include agarbatti and dhoop
Esjudem generis
 ‘Ejusdem Generis’ is a Latin term and the meaning of it is “of the same kind and nature”.
 It provides that when in a statute, particular or specific words are followed by general
words, the meaning of general words is to be understood with reference to particular
words.
 When specific words do not form a class, this rule would not apply.
Example:
In the expression books, pamphlets, newspapers and other documents

Specific words general words

In the above expression, private letter may not be held included if “other documents“ are
interpreted esjudem generis with what goes before
De minimis not curat lex
(the law does not concern itself about trifles)
 In a lawsuit, the de minimis doctrine is applied by a court to avoid
resolving trivial matters that are not worthy of judicial scrutiny.
 This maxim is also recognized by Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code
which provides that-
Nothing is an offence in which the harm is so slight that no person of
ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.
Examples:
i) X drives at a high speed along a dusty road and his motor wheels throw a
little dust on Y, a pedestrian’s clothes. Here X, on the basis of the maxim
de minimis non curat lex, is not liable as the matter is trivial in nature.
ii) A housewife who takes grains of wheat to a flour mill would not be
allowed to complain that in the process, few scattered grains of wheat
were retained by the owner of the mill in his machine and not returned to
her
De minimis not curat lex

Case law: Coward v/s Baddley

A bystander touched a fireman on the arm to draw his attention to another
part of a building in which a fire raged. On a suit filed for battery by the
fireman, the court held that on the basis of maxim de minimis non curat
lex, the by-stander was not liable for battery.
Delegatus non potest delegare
(a delegate cannot further delegate)
 It means that a person to whom authority is delegated from a higher source, cannot in turn delegate again to
another unless the original delegation authorizes it.
 It is not possible for a delegate to sub-delegate the powers conferred on him unless the law authorizes him to
do so.
 Principle: “where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way
or not at all”
 Also applicable in contract of agency : Section 190 of the Indian Contract Act 1872
“An agent cannot lawfully employ another to perform acts which he has expressly or impliedly undertaken to
perform personally, unless by the ordinary custom of trade a sub-agent may, or, from the nature of the agency, a
sub-agent must, be employed.”
This maxim especially applies where personal skills of the agent is essential or where there is trust and
confidence involved.
Example:
An auditor who has been appointed to audit the accounts of a company cannot delegate the task to another unless
expressly allowed to do so. If express authorization has not been granted, the auditor will have acted ultra vires.
Delegatus non potest delegare

 Case Law: Hamdard Dawakhana vs. Union of India

Supreme Court in this case held that essential legislative functions cannot be delegated by the
legislature to the executive. It means that the legislative policy must be laid down by the
legislature itself and by entrusting this power to the executive; the legislature cannot create a
parallel legislature. Delegation of legislative power cannot amount to abdication of essential
legislative functions.
Ignorantia juris neminem excusat
(Ignorance of law excuses no one)
 The maxim Ignorantia Juris Neminem Excusat means ignorance of the
law is no excuse.
 The principle behind the maxim is based on the presumption that
everyone knows the law of the land.
 If the maxim is relaxed, then every wrongdoer can claim that he had no
knowledge of the law on his part. Therefore, it will be almost impossible
for the prosecution to prove the same.
 It is of great importance in criminal law
 When mistake of law is excused?
Mistake of foreign law is considered as a mistake of fact, because though
everyone is supposed to know the law of his own country, he cannot be
expected to know the laws of other countries.
Case law: Ignorantia juris neminem excusat

Tolson’s case
Mrs. Tolson, who had been deserted by her husband, and had married again within seven years
of desertion, was held not guilty of bigamy because she had believed, on reasonable grounds
that her husband had died (which was a mistake of fact) and her act of getting married could
not be regarded as an act which was illegal.
Nemo judex in causa sua
(No man can be judge in his own cause)
 Fundamental rule in administration of justice that a person cannot be a judge in a cause in
which he is interested. The judge should be impartial and neutral and must be free from
any bias.
 A person cannot and should not be a judge in his own cause because he cannot discharge
his duties objectively, fairly and impartially if he is hostile to one of the parties. He must
be in a position to act judicially and to decide the matter objectively.
 He should not allow his personal prejudice to go into decision-making.
 In the words of Lord Denning, the reason underlying the maxim is simple:
“Justice must be rooted in confidence and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people
go away thinking that the Judge was biased”
Nemo judex in causa sua

 Case law: Dr. Bonham’s Case

In this case, Dr. Bonham, a doctor was fine by the College of Physicians for practising in
London without license of the college. The Statute under which the college acted provided that
the fines should go half to the king and half to the college. The fine was set aside by the Court
as the college had financial interest in its own judgment and hence, was a judge in its own
cause
Salus populi est suprema lex
(Regard for the public welfare is the highest law)

 This maxim is of prime importance and lays down that individual welfare must, in cases of
necessity, yield to the welfare of the community.
 Thus, a person would be excused by the law for committing a private injury for the public
good
Example: when a house is pulled down to stop a fire from spreading
When one person whose house is close to a railway station complains about the noise of the
trains and announcements at the station.

Case law: Plate Glass Co v/s Meredith

There are many cases in which individuals sustain an injury for which the law gives no action,
as where private houses are pulled down, or bulwarks are raised on property, for the
preservation and defence of the kingdom against the king’s enemies
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
(false in one thing, false in everything)
 It means that a witness who willfully gives false statements or testimony, then he or she
cannot be credible in any other matter
 this doctrine has been rejected by many countries
 It is not a rule of evidence but merely a rule of caution.
Case law : Sucha Singh v/s State of Punjab
The Supreme Court held that the maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is not applicable in
India. Falsity of a particular material would not vitiate the entire testimony of the witness
concerned. It is the duty of the Court to separate the falsehood in a testimony from the truth in
the same way as grain is separated from the chaff. It is only when this is not feasible, the Court
can decline the evidence in wholesome.
In Narain v/s State of M.P, the Supreme Court this maxim does not have any status of rule of
law. It is merely a rule of caution.