Legal maxims

1. Actus Curiae neminem gravabit:

An act of the court shall prejudice no one.

Actus curiae neminem gravabit is a Latin maxim that means ‘an act of the Court shall
prejudice no one’. Courts should pass an order to ensure that the interest of none of
the party to the litigation is harmed. It is the duty of the court to see that no one is
suffered by it’s order. Every order should be passed to afford a safe and certain guide
for the administration of justice. This principle has been held to be fundamental to the
system of justice and application to Indian Jurisprudence – that no man should suffer because
of the fault of the court or delay in the procedure

2. Actus non facit reum ,nisi mens sit rea-

An act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is guilty.

Conviction of a crime requires proof of a criminal act and intent. It emphasis

on INTENT + ACT = CRIME
This maxim is important for the determination of criminality of an act or omission.
It means that act does not make a man guilty unless his intention is so. The maxim
contains a good deal of truth, as there could be no crime without the presence of
the guilty mind.

.
3. Audi Alteram Partem
Latin; literally 'hear the other side'. The concept of natural justice has evolved
through this maxim. Natural justice is a concept of civil law, which means
judgement which is given should be fair and reasonable. Equity and equality should
be there. No man should be condemned unheard, or both the sides must be heard
before passing any order. A party is not to suffer in person or in purse without an
opportunity of being heard’. In short, before an order is passed against any person,
reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to him. Generally, this maxim
includes two elements: (i) Notice; and (ii) Hearing.
4. )Delegatus non potest delegare:

A delegate cannot delegate.

The principle in constitutional and administrative law.A person to whom an authority

or decision-making power has been delegated to from a higher source, cannot, in turn,
delegate again to another, unless the original delegation explicitly authorized it.
For example, an attorney given legal authority in a power of attorney cannot, of their own
 volition, delegate the exercise of that authority without the consent of the person who granted
the power of attorney.

5. Ex nudo pacto non oritur:

No right of action arises from a contract entered into without consideration.

Ex nudo pacto non oritur action is a Latin phrase. It means ‘no right of action arises
from a contract entered into without consideration.’ A cause of action cannot be based
upon a mere promise or bare agreement, without a legal consideration. This Maxim is
related to the Indian Contract Act, 1872. There are various elements which are
essential to form a valid contract. One of them is Consideration.Consideration means
'something for something' or 'something in return'.

E.g. If A agrees to sell to B goods, for a price of Rs 10,000. The amount is the
consideration for A for parting with the goods, similarly the consideration for B to
pay Rs 10,000 is goods sold by A.

6. Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius -

The expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius is a Latin phrase that means express mention of
one thing excludes all others. This is one of the rules used in interpretation of statutes.
The phrase indicates that items not on the list are assumed not to be covered by the
statute. When something is mentioned expressly in a statute it leads to the
presumption that the things not mentioned are excluded.

Examples: If a statute refers to buses and trucks, it will include only buses and trucks
in its scope and will exclude cars or any other means of transportation.

If a Statute refers to Lions and Tigers it only refers to Lions and Tigers and will not
include Leopards' or any other wild animals

7. Ignorantia facti excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat-

Ignorance of the fact excuses; ignorance of the law excuses not.

Ignorantia facti excusat is a Latin maxim means ignorance of a fact or mistake of a

fact is an excuse. It is applicable to civil as well as criminal jurisprudence. It says that
ignorance will be considered as an excuse if a person charged with an offence can
 claim that he/she is unaware of the fact .Ignorantia juris non excusat means ignorance
of law or lack of knowledge or mistake of law about legal requirement is not an
excuse and hence liability arises in such cases. Ignorance of law means lack of
knowledge of those laws which a person has to know irrespective of whether he
knows the whole fact or not. It implies that the court presumes that every party is
aware of the law. Hence cannot claim ignorance of the law as a defense to escape
liability.)

8. Nemo dat quod non habet,

Literally meaning "no one gives what he doesn't have"

Sometimes called the nemo dat rule, that states that the purchase of a possession
from someone who has no ownership right to it also denies the purchaser
any ownership title. A person who does not have adequate ownership of property or
goods does not have the ability to transfer the ownership of that property or goods to
another person.

9. Noscitur a sociis:

The meaning of doubtful word can be derived from its association with other words

Latin: that the meaning of a word may be known from accompanying words.Under
the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, the meaning of questionable words or phrases in a
statute may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of words or phrases associated
with it.

Example "The wording which accompanies the words food supermarket indicates
that food supermarket in the lease means a supermarket limited to the selling of items
of food."

10. Qui facit per alium facit per se:

He who acts through another does act himself.

It is a fundamental legal maxim of the law of agency. It is a maxim often stated in

discussing the liability of employer for the act of employee." Indirectly, the principle is
in action or present in the duty that has been represented by the agent so the duty
performed will be seen as the performance of the agent himself. Whatever a principal
can do for himself, can be done through an agent. The exception to this maxim would
be acts of personal nature.
 E.g. Nisha, the owner of a car, asked her friend Saurabh to take her car and drive the
same to her office. As the car was near her office, it hit a pedestrian Srikant on
account of Saurabh's negligent driving and injured him seriously. Now Srikant files a
suit for damages against Nisha. Nisha will be held liable in the above situation as
Saurabh was driving under her authority.

11. Respondeat superior: Let the master answer

The Latin term respondeat superior, which translates as “let the master answer,”
The responsibility of an employer or principal for his agent’s or employee’s acts
performed in the course of employment refers to a legal doctrine in which an
employer may be held responsible for the actions of his employees, when the actions
are performed “in the course of employment.”
For the purpose to arise the liability of the master, the following two sine qua non
must be fulfilled-
The act must be committed by the servant.
The act must be committed in the course of employment.

12. Res ipsa loquitur:

Latin for "the thing speaks for itself," a doctrine of law that one is presumed to be
negligent if he/she/it had exclusive control of whatever caused the injury even though
there is no specific evidence of an act of negligence, and without negligence the
accident would not have happened.

Examples: a) a load of bricks on the roof of a building being constructed by Highrise

Construction Co. falls and injures Paul Pedestrian below, and Highrise is liable for
Pedestrian's injury even though no one saw the load fall.

13. Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium :

It is a Latin legal maxim which means "where there is a right there is a remedy".

The word ‘Jus’ means the legal authority to do or demand something, and the word
‘remedium’ means the right of action in a Court of law The basic principle
contemplated in the maxim is that, when a person's right is violated the victim will
have an equitable remedy under law

In Ashby vs White, 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 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. 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.

14. Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt . –

Law will help only those who are vigilant. Law will not assist those who are careless
of his/her right. In order to claim one’s right, she /he must be watchful of his/her
right. Only those persons, who are watchful and careful of using his/her rights, are
entitled to the benefits of law. Law confers rights on persons who are vigilant of their
rights.

Any party aggrieved by any decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal may file an
appeal to the High Court within a period of sixty days from the date of
communication of the decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal to him on any
question of law arising out of such order. If X the aggrieved party approaches the
high court after the exhaustion of such a period, then the appeal would not be
entertained.

15. Volent non fit injuria.

To a willing person ,injury is not done

It is a common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places themselves
in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might
result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party in tort or
delict. Volenti applies only to the risk which a reasonable person would consider them
as having assumed by their actions; thus a boxer consents to being hit, and to the
injuries that might be expected from being hit, but does not consent to (for example)
his opponent striking him with an iron bar, or punching him outside the usual terms of
boxing. Volenti is also known as a "voluntary assumption of risk."

If A has a bike whose brakes do not work and B knowing about the conditions of the
bike still chooses to sit on it with A driving it and due to the failure of such brakes
they both sustain injuries in an accident, B cannot claim relief from A because he had
voluntarily consented to sit on the bike.