LEGAL MAXIMS

ASSIGNMENT- 3

NAME: R SRIMUGAN

ROLL.NO: 20191BAL0080

SECTION: 4

SUBJECT: LEGAL PROFESSION COMMUNICATION SKILLS

SUBMITTED TO: Prof. SUDESHNA PANDAY

DATE: 09/04/2020
 1. ACTUS DEI NEMINI FACIT INJURIAM:

Ans. It is a legal maxim, used in India, with the following meaning: The act of God prejudices no
one. The law does not hold a man to a legal duty where he is prevented from performing it by an
act of god. Act of god includes natural causes such as storm, earthquake, etc.

Also called as actus dei nemini facit injuria (i.e., without the "m").

In Latin it is known as; An act of God causes legal injury to no one.

Herbert Broom translates this Latin maxim as:

“The law holds no man responsible for the act of God”

In Heinhold v Sieke, Justice Stephan of the Supreme Court of Nebraska rendered the Latin to
English translation as:

“….. actus Dei nemini facit injuriam - the act of God injures no man…..”

In Ballentine's Law Dictionary of 1969, the authors define actus dei nemini facit injuriam as
follows:

"An  act of God does not violate the legal rights of anyone. The loss from an injury caused
thereby must be borne by the one who suffered it."

2. ACTUS REUS NON FACIT REUM NI9SI MENS SIT REA:

It explains that for any act to be illegal in nature it must be done with a guilty mind. Thus to
convict the defendant, it must be proved that the criminal was carried out with a criminal intend.
The essential ingredient is the blameworthy condition of the mind. Its absence negates the
liability.

In Latin it is known as; Conviction of a crime requires proof of a criminal act and intent.
Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea: (Latin) an act does not make a defendant guilty
without a guilty mind.

Latin for Lawyers (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1960) has it: "The act itself does not
constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intent."

In R v Tolson: "Ordinarily speaking, a crime is not committed if the mind of the

person doing the act in question be innocent".

And in Fowler v. Padget (1798) 101 ER 1103 (1798): "It is a principle of natural justice,
and of our law, that actusfacit reum nisi mens sit rea. The intent and the Act must both concur to
constitute the crime."

This Latin phrase is often given as a pinnacle of the common law criminal justice system, and
usually in the context of mens rea rather than actus reus.

In his History of the Criminal Law (1883), James Stephen wrote:

"The maxim is sometimes said to be a fundamental principle of the whole criminal law, but I
think that, like many other Latin sentences supposed to form part of the Roman law, the maxim
not only looks more instructive than it really is, but suggests fallacies which it does not precisely
state. It is frequently, though ignorantly, supposed to mean that there cannot be such a thing as
legal guilt where there is no moral guilt, which is obviously untrue, as there is always a
possibility of a conflict between law and morals."

And as is quite rightly pointed out in a 1930 article in 52 CCC 202, entitled What Is Crime?:

"Ordinarily ... mens rea is an essential ingredient of a crime. But when the legislature expressly
declares an act to be criminal, the question of intention or malice need not be considered except
as affecting the quantum of punishment. A statute may be so framed as to relate to such a
subject-matter and make an act criminal whether there has been any intention to break the law
or otherwise to do wrong or not.

"The legislature has power to make the bare doing of a particular act a crime, no matter how
innocent from a mental point of view the doer of it may be; in such a case the doer must be held
to be a criminal."

3. DIESDIES DOMINICUS NON EST JURIDICUS:

It means that Sunday is not a day for judicial or legal proceedings. In other words Sunday is
observed by Christians as a day of rest and worship, in commemoration of Christ’s resurrection
and is referred to as the Lord’s Day. And this became a custom and hence was adapted by the
common law system as a day of rest and a day in which no legal proceedings or contractual
obligations could be held.
In Latin it is known as; Sunday is not a day for judicial or legal proceedings.
This Latin maxim has, at its origin, the 4th of the Ten Commandments, to keep Sunday "holy";
later, Sunday was said to be the day of the week upon which Jesus resurrected.

According to the Law Reform Commission of New South Wales:

"The first formal laws requiring Sunday observance under pain of punishment are attributed by
virtually all authorities to the Roman Emperor Constantine in 321 A.D.... From the fifth century
onwards most of Europe was under the sway of Christendom and laws requiring the observance
of Sunday as part of the Christian religion became normal....

"In Saxon England laws regulating behaviour on Sunday were inspired by the edicts of the Holy
Roman Empire and were in force at the time of the Norman Conquest in 1066. Thereafter
Sunday observance in England (and Europe generally) declined and it was not until the fifteenth
century that strong legislation began to reappear.

The maxim was incorporated into statute in 1676 with the Sunday Obervance Act that prohibited
legal proceedings or the execution of judicial service or other warrants on a Sunday except for
high crimes.

The statute at 29 Car. 2, Chapter VII, An Act for the Better Observation of the Lord's Day,
Commonly Called Sunday, stated that:

"[E]very person whatsoever shall on the Lord's day apply themselves to the observation of the
same, by exercising theselves thereon in the duties of piety and true religion publicly and
privately....

"No person whatsoever shall do or exercise any worldly labour, business or work of their
ordinary calling upon the Lord's Day."

At one point, the space made for religious observance was so large that even contracts entered
into on a Sunday were suggested to be void on that basis (see Drury v Defontaine, page 135-
136).

4. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR:
It is a doctrine that a party is responsible for acts of their agents. For example, in the United

States, there are circumstances when an employer is liable for acts of employees performed
within the course if their employment. This rule is also called master-servant rule, recognized in

both common and civil law.

In Latin it is known as; Let the principal answer.

A principle of agency law which holds that a principal (or employer) is vicariously liable (also

known as derivative liability) for the torts of his agent (or employee) which occur during the

course of the agent's (or employee's) actions on behalf of the principal (or employer).

It is generally limited in its application to the relation of employer and employee, or of principal

and agent as in Pennsylvania v International Union of Operating Engineers, the US District

Court wrote (1978), in reference to the related term respondent superior:

"Respondeat superior, a doctrine centuries old, is predicated on the assumption that a master,

employer, or principal will be held responsible for the acts of a servant, employee, or agent

respectively. The rationale for this view is succinctly expressed by the maxim qui facit per alium

facit per se."

As stated in American Federation v. Equitable Life, re employees:

"For respondeat superior liability to attach, the employee must have breached his duty to a third

party while acting in the course and scope of his employment."

It is often used to refer to a relationship between a purported principal and agent, as in a

"respondeat superior relationship".

5. UT RES MAGIS VALEAT QUAM PEREAT:

It is a legal maxim, used in India, with the following meaning: It is better for a thing to have
effect than to be made void, i.e., it is better to validate a thing than to invalidate it.

In Latin it is known as; It is better for a thing to have effect than to be void.

Relying on Edward Coke on Littleton, Herbert Broom notes that ut res magis valeat quam pereat
is issue of a longer maxim:

Benigne facienda: sunt interpretationes propter simplicitatemt laicorum ut res iagis valeat quam
pereat; et verba intention], non e contra, debent inservire: a liberal construction shall be put
upon written instruments, so as to uphold them, if possible, and carry into effect the intention of
the parties....

"In the case of an agreement, also, the Courts are bound so to construe it, ut res magis valeat
quam pereat - so that it may be made to operate rather than be inefficient; and, in order to effect
this, the words used shall have a reasonable intendment and construction.

As it applies to the judicial effort to breath life into a contract being contested, it has been stated
as: a contract shall never be void where the words may be applied to any extent to make it good.

In Marquest Industries v. Willows Poultry Farms, Justice Bull of the British Columbia Court of
Appeal wrote:

"The primary rule of construction has been expressed by the maxim, ut res magis valeat quam
pereat or as paraphrased in English, a deed shall never be void where the words may be applied
to any extent to make it good....
"Every effort should be made by a Court to find a meaning, looking at substance and not mere
form, and that difficulties in interpretation do not make a clause bad as not being capable of
interpretation, so long as a definite meaning can properly be extracted. In other words, every
clause in a contract must, if possible, be given effect to.

"If the real intentions of the parties can be collected from the language within the four corners of
the instrument, the Court must give effect to such intentions by supplying anything necessarily to
be inferred and rejecting whatever is repugnant to such real intentions so ascertained....
"If I can possibly derive a sensible meaning from the clause I must do so. At the same time I must
not develop from the words of the clause (read in their context) any conception more elaborate
than they express or fairly imply; nor must I develop something which is at variance with any of
the language of the clause."