Important Foreign Maxims of Law with Examples

Introduction

Many broad principles of law can be easily represented by the use of legal maxims.

Legal maxims are the principles of law usually represented in the Latin language. These terms are being readily used by those in the field of law, for instance- during legal proceedings. During medieval and modern age, many legal issues related to rights of individuals and remedies available to the individuals and liability of the individuals were decided with referencing legal maxims.

The legal maxims in a unique way put forth the legal principles directly and they follow the principles of natural justice. Most of the legal maxims find their base from reason and necessities. Based on these principles many cases were decided by the judges. The legal maxims find their relevance in legal codes of every civilized nation.

The foreign legal maxims, namely, Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea, Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Persona, De Minimis Non Curat Lex, Delegatus Non-Potest Delegare, etc. are explained further below.

Foreign Maxims of Law

Legal maxims and terms are an established principles or prepositions of law or a legal policy usually stated in Latin form. Each legal maxim is the concise form of a big definition with each of it coming from a different source or case laws. Most of these Latin maxims originated from the medieval era in the European states that used Latin as their legal language.

These are usually used in the legal domain due to their accurate and precise meaning, especially by the judges in order to ensure a concrete base in the judgments. They are principles and authorities, and part of the general customs or common law of the land, and are of the same strength as acts of the parliament.

Michael Polanyi said: “Maxims are rules, the correct application of which is part of the art which they govern”.

Francis Bacon, in the preface of his book ‘Maxims of the law’ said that maxims would be used in “deciding doubts, and helping soundness of judgment, but, further, in gracing argument, in correcting unprofitable subtlety, and reducing the same to a more sound and substantial sense of law, in reclaiming vulgar errors, and, generally, in the amendment in some measure of the very nature and complexion of the whole law.”

Legal maxims serve as a legal jargon due to their confined application and understanding amongst the individuals of the legal system.

 actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea is a legal maxim of Latin origin and comes under Criminal law. It can find its importance under section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Actus means ‘act or action’.

Non facit means ‘does not’.

Reum means ‘guilty’.

Nisi mens sit rea means ‘unless there is presence of guilty mind’.

Hence, the term literally means, an act alone cannot make a person guilty unless there is presence of a guilty mind. To convict the defendant, it must be proved that the criminal act was carried out with a criminal intend.

Actus Reus is the wrongful act committed whereas Mens Rea is the state of mind behind such acts which are two basic components. Not only is the act of the accused important but also the intention of the accused to do the specific act is equally important in order to prove the guilt of the accused. Thus, mere commission of a criminal act or breach of law is not sufficient to constitute a crime. It should be combined with the presence of wrongful intent. Understanding the severity of the crime committed is also important.

Illustration: A, a patient of mental disorder committed a road accident which led to the death of B, another person driving on the same road. A will not be said to have committed an offence because he was a mental patient and hence, there is absence of guilty mind.

In the case of R. Balakrishnan Pilai v. State of Kerala (1996 AIR 901), it was held that a man who has violated criminal law would be attached to criminal guilt. However, the rule is not absolute as it meets with certain limitations inherent from the Latin maxim Actus Non-Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea which indicates that there can be no crime without the presence of a guilty mind. To make a person liable for a crime, it must be proved that the guilty act committed by him was followed by a guilty mind too. Thus, there are two components of every crime- actus reus and mens sit rea.

actio personalis moritur cum persona

Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Persona is a Latin maxim. It relates to the extinction of liability of a person at his/her death.

Actio means ‘action’.

Personalis means ‘personal’ belonging to a person.

Mortitur means ‘die’.

Persona means ‘person’.

Hence, the maxim means- a personal right to action dies with the person.

Example: If there are two persons, A and B. If A commits battery on B and in the process, A dies then B would not be able to take any action against the same. But if for instance, when A commits battery on B due to certain injuries and B dies, then if any cause of action arises on the third  person, then such right won’t be affected.

A person cannot opt for a legal recourse once he is dead according to this maxim. However, the Supreme Court of India has limited its scope to certain actions like actions for damages for defamation, actions for assault, and actions for other personal injuries not causing the death of the party. The Supreme Court in Girja Nandini Devi & Ors. vs. Bijendra Narain Choudhury (1967 AIR 1124) held that an action for account is not an action for damages ex delicto, and does not fall within the enumerated classes. Nor is it such that the relief claimed being personal could not be enjoyed after death, or granting it would be nugatory.

The above maxim plays a significant role in determining the rights of a person who no longer exists and reduces the burden of courts to reinterpret those rights repeatedly in every individual case.

de minimis non curat lex

De Minimis Non Curat Lex is a Latin Maxim. It is also recognized by Section 95 of IPC. It is applied by a court to avoid resolving trivial matters that are not worthy of judicial scrutiny.

De minimis means ‘about minimal/trifle things’ or ’too trivial or minor to merit consideration, especially in law.’

Lex means ‘a system or body of laws.’

Non-curat means ‘not take care’.

So, it is a legal doctrine by which a court refuses to consider trifling matters.

Illustration: 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 for the tort as the matter is trivial in nature.

Hence, in accordance with this maxim, rationale citizens would consider an appeal for trivial matters to be a complete waste of time and resources. It will bring disrepute to the judicial system.

In the case of Coward v. Baddeley (1859) 157 ER 927: In the course of a fire incident, a passerby touched a fireman on the arm in order to draw his attention to another part of the building in which a fire raged. The court on a suit filed for battery by the fireman, held that on the basis of maxim de minimis non curat lex, the passerby was not liable for battery.

audi alteram partem

Audi Alteram Partem is a Latin maxim. It is considered to be one of the basic theories of natural justice which is based on fairness, equality, and equity. It means that the court must not pronounce any judgment until and unless both the parties are heard i.e. both the plaintiff and the defendant must be given the opportunity to present their case before the judge.

Audi in the singular imperative form of ‘audire’- to listen.

Alteram means ‘one of two’ or ‘former’/’latter’.

Partem means ‘party’ or ‘side’.

Hence, the maxim means- no person shall be condemned, punished by a law court without being heard.

It gives a right to the parties to a suit that no party shall be condemned unheard and any decision made without listening to both the parties shall be against the principles of natural justice.

Illustration: If a person has been arrested and is not being able to represent himself through a lawyer, it is the duty of the state to provide legal aid to the person or the person should be granted free legal aid if he is not being able to afford legal services.

Before any action is taken against the party who is affected. A notice must be provided to them in order to present a cause against the proposed action and pursue his application. If any order is passed without giving notice then it is against the principle of natural justice and is void ab initio meaning void from the beginning.

If the order passed by the authority without hearing the party or without giving him an opportunity of being heard then it will be considered as an invalid.

The principles of natural justice are the grounds of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Article 14 enshrines that every person should be treated equally. Article 21, in its judgment of Maneka Gandhi vs. The Union of India (1978 AIR 597), it has been held that the law and procedure must be of a fair, just and reasonable kind.

delegatus non-potest delegare

Delegatus Non-Potest Delegare is a Latin maxim. It is a principle in the constitutional and administrative law meaning, a delegate cannot re-delegate.

Delegatus refers to an ‘authorized person’ or ‘delegate’.

Potest means ‘having power’ or ‘authority’.

Non-potest means ‘having no power or authority’.

Delegate means ‘to authorize or entrust or commit to another’.

Hence, it means “one to whom a power is delegated, cannot himself further delegate or sub-delegate that power to other.” Section 190 of the Contract Act 1872, is based on this maxim.

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.

Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India (1960 AIR 554): In this case, it was held that there is no specific bar in our constitution against the delegation of legislative power by the Legislature to the Executive. However, it is now well settled 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.

ex nudo pacto non oritur actio

It is a Latin maxim which means that no right of action arises from a contract entered into without consideration.

Nudo meaning ‘naked’.

Pacto means ‘contract/agreement/promise’

Non-oritur means ‘not arise’

Actio means ‘An action or suit; a right or cause of action’

Hence, the maxim means- a contract without consideration is void.

Consideration is an essential element for the formation of a contract. It means something in return (the prize paid for the contract).

The consideration should be lawful. It can be either is cash or kind or otherwise. Consideration has to take place from both the sides. It is mainly mentioned in section 2(d) and section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

For example: In a contract for the sale of house, the house is a consideration for one party and the price paid in return is the consideration for the other party.

In Sreenivasa General Traders & Ors. vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (1983 AIR 1246): The Supreme Court held that there should be an element of consideration for each service rendered in the sphere of a contractual relationship.

ubi jus ibi remedium

ubi jus ibi remedium is a Latin maxim meaning- any person will not suffer a wrong without a remedy.

Ubi means ‘(time) when, whenever’.

Jus means ‘legal authority to do something or to demand something.’

Ibi means ‘in that place, there’.

Remedium means that ‘the person has the right of action in the court of law.’

Hence, this maxim means- where there is a wrong, there is a remedy. It also underlines the fact that no wrong should be allowed to go without any compensation if it can be redressed by the court of law. Every legal system, whether domestic or international, provides for a remedial mechanism to implement rights and obligations.

Illustration: A clock tower fell due to the negligence on part of the Municipal Corporation thereby injuring various people. The injured people have the right to ask for a suitable remedy in the court of law.

Shivkumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1993 SCC (3) 161): In this case, the Supreme court held that where statutory enactments does not provide any remedy but only creates rights and liabilities, if any person complains of his rights being violated or wrongly affected such person can approach the civil court on the basis of the principle of legislation that where there is a right, there is a remedy.

damnum sine injuria

Damnum Sine Injuria is a Latin maxim meaning any damage which is caused apart from the harm as well as prejudice or in other words, damage done without the violation of legal rights.

Damnum means ‘damage/loss’.

Sine means ‘without’.

Injuria means ‘injury’.

Hence, it means- when a damage suffered without breach of a legal right, such claim of damage is not valid in the 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.

Example: A, a shop owner sells stationery items to primary school students for three years and next to A’s shop, B opens another stationary shop and sells his items at a lower price compared to A’s. Now, A cannot sue B as he did not violate any of the legal rights of A because by opening a shop just next to A is no illegal act. Therefore, in this case, although A suffered sufficient monetary loss in his business, he cannot sue B for opening another stationary shop.   So, we can say A was a victim of Damnum Sine Injuria.

The Gloucester grammar school master case (1410) Y.B. Hill 11 Hen, 4 of 47, P.21, 36 is a landmark case for this maxim, in which the court had laid down the rules that: If there is no infringement of legal right, then no compensation can be claimed.

injuria sine damno

Injuria Sine Damno is a Latin maxim. It means the legal injury caused to the plaintiff without any damage to the physical injury or in simple terms it means a situation where no damage has been caused by a particular act, but that act violated a legal right of another.

Injuria means ‘injury’.

Sine means ‘without’.

Damno or Damnum means ‘substantial harm, loss or damage’.

Hence, it means- where a person’s legal right is violated but the person may not have suffered a damage or loss.

Example: A, a person was on his way to give his vote to favorite leader, but he was not allowed by B to give the vote as he did not had necessary documents to show that he was an eligible voter. A, kept on saying that he was an eligible voter and was backed by necessary documents to prove his eligibility. B still did not allow him to vote. However, the candidate whom A wanted to vote, won and as a result no such damage was caused to him. But, B was held guilty of Injuria Sine Damnum as not allowing a person to give vote is a violation of legal right of A, no matter what the outcome of the result was.

The law provides liberty to every person whose legal right has been infringed to seek relief under the provisions of Specific Relief Act by way of injunction and declaration.

In the case of Ashby vs. White (1703) 92 ER 126: The plaintiff was a qualified voter at the parliamentary elections which were held at that point of time. The defendant, a returning officer wrongfully refused to take the plaintiff’s vote. The plaintiff suffered no damage since the candidate which he wished to vote already won the elections but still, the defendants were held liable. It was decided that damage is not merely pecuniary but injury imports a damage, so when a man is hindered of his rights he is entitled to remedies.

ignorantia facti excusat, ignorantia juris non-excusat

This Latin maxim means ‘ignorance of facts is excused but ignorance of the law does not excuse.’

Ignorantia means ‘ignorance’.

Facit means ‘fact’.

Execusat means ‘excusable’.

Hence, the words above mean- ‘ignorance of facts excuses, or is excused’.

Ignorantia means ‘ignorance’.

Juris means ‘law’.

Non means ‘not’.

Excusat means ‘excusable’.

Hence, the words given above mean- ‘Ignorance of law not excuses, or is not excused’.

Section 76 and Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, deals with the provisions of mistake of fact and mistake of law precisely. It is rooted in the principle of Ignorantia Facti Excusat, Ignorantia Juris Non-Excusat, which infers that ignorance of fact is an excuse, but ignorance of the law is no excuse. The sections intend to shield an individual from conviction whose actions are bound or justified by the law but, due to mistake of fact and in good faith, committed an offense.

Illustrations:

• A murdered B, in this case, A cannot take the defence of ignorance of the law.
• A sees Z commit what appears to A to be a murder. A, in the exercise, to the best of his judgment exerted in good faith, seizes Z, to bring Z before the proper authorities. A has committed no offence because he was acting in a mistake of fact, though it may turn out that Z was acting in self-defence.

State of Orissa v. Khora Ghasi (1978 CriLJ 1305): In this case, the accused while guarding his field shot an arrow on the moving object in a good faith that it was a bear, but the shot results in the death of a person. But the court made him free from any liability and he got the immunity under the mistake of fact.
Grant v. Borg (1982) 1 WLR 638 HL: In this case, the person was charged under the Immigration Act of 1971 for exceeding the vacation period. He goes ahead and pleads ignorance of the law. The court held that it will not be considered as a defence.

Conclusion

Foreign legal maxims are an integral part of any operation in the field of law.

Many different legal maxims like Audi Alteram Partem, Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Persona, De Minimis Non Curat Lex, etc. are being used regularly in different judicial proceedings and other areas.

These maxims do not possess the authority of law but when they are incorporated while deciding issues or framing laws, they mold into laws and form a sound basis of judgments. They are used to avoid the usage of long definitions.

These principles enable courts to deliver justice in a more pristine manner by applying the existing laws in deciding issues fairly.

The article has been contributed by Adiba Ahmed, student at Student at AMU, Faculty of Law.

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_maxim

https://legalraj.com/articles-details/important-legal-maxims-with-meaning

https://www.mondaq.com/india/personal-injury/945062/legal-maxims-used-by-courts-in-india