TITLE OF THE PROJECT:

Concept of Jural Relations in Hohfeld’s Theory

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

Several misconceptions are taken as rights and duties. There are widespread tendencies to
confuse rights with liberties.

OBJECTIVE OF STUDY:

To look into the theory of Hohfeld and understand the Jural relations between the proposed
lowest denominators of law.

HYPOTHESIS:

Does the eight proposed lowest common denominators of the law easy to be reduced to all
Legal Quantities.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

 What do we understand by the Jural relations?

 How does pair of co-reltives exist together and the pair of opposites never exist
together?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

In accordance with the objectives of the present study, doctrinal research design has been
adopted. The doctrinal design has been used to study the Hohfeld’s Theory and the concept of
Jural Relations. Doctrinal Research is a research, as we all know, based on the principles or the
propositions made earlier. It is more based on the sources like books of the library, and
through resources collected through access to various websites. For the purpose of the
Research Project, the Researcher has collected relevant materials from books on Jurisprudence
and also from various websites. The Research has been done primarily with the help of case

1|Page
laws and leading judgements of various courts as well as legislative provisions. Various
articles from the internet sources have also been referred.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

I. CASES

 Kasturi Ralia Ram Jain Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh (1965 Air 1039)

 Commomwealth Vs Tasmania ((1983) Hca 21; 158 Clr 1; 57 Aljr 450;46 Alr 625

II. ARTICLES

 Jural Relations and their classisfication

Arthur L. Corbin
 Beyond Legal Relations: Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld's Influence on American
Institutionalism

Luca Fiorito &Massimiliano Vatiero

 Teaching Wesley Hohfeld's Theory of Legal Relations

Curtis Nyquist
 Hohfeld's Contribution to the Science of Law

Walter Wheeler Cook

III. BOOKS

 Hohfeld's Theory of Fundamental Legal Concepts - Leopold Willem Rosdorff

2|Page
 CONTENTS

Introduction.........................................................................................................................6

Jural Relations Concept.......................................................................................................7

Rights And Duties....................................................................................................................8

Privilege And No-Right............................................................................................................9

Power And Liabilities...............................................................................................................9

Immunities And Disabilities...................................................................................................10

Case Study.........................................................................................................................11
Kasturi Ralia Ram Jain Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh (1965 Air 1039).....................................11

Facts....................................................................................................................................11

Issue....................................................................................................................................11

Judgement...........................................................................................................................11

Commomwealth Vs Tasmania ((1983) Hca 21; 158 Clr 1; 57 Aljr 450;46 Alr 625..............12

Facts....................................................................................................................................12

Issue....................................................................................................................................12

Judgement...........................................................................................................................12

Analysis Of The Cases With Theory.................................................................................13

Conclusion.........................................................................................................................14

Bibliography......................................................................................................................15

3|Page
 INTRODUCTION

Legal professionals generally regard jurisprudence as a purely academic subject with no

practical applications. The reason for such a belief is that jurists and writers generally propose
their own understandings of legal concepts and derive intellectual pleasure from it and
consider their job done. However, the different theories are only a means to an end and not the
end itself. Very few writers deliberated upon the utility of their theory.
Prof. Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld always emphasized upon the important part played by
analytical jurisprudence in the legal profession. He advocated that every legal professional
must have a basic understanding of the concepts of analytical jurisprudence in order interpret
and apply the law correctly and accurately. He believed that the task of finding solutions to
legal problems becomes much easier by studying and applying concepts of analytical
jurisprudence.
It must be noted that although Hohfeld strongly believed in the utility of analytical jurisprudence, he
recognized the fact that it is not an all-sufficient tool for a legal professional. He emphasized upon the fact
that analytical jurisprudence only paves the way to other branches of jurisprudence and only a complete
understanding of jurisprudence would facilitate the quest for solutions to legal problems. One of his major
contributions to the field of analytical jurisprudence has been his theory of jural relations
Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld  was an American jurist. Hohfeld noticed that even respected
jurists conflate various meanings of the term right, therefore in order To eliminate ambiguity,
he defined these terms relative to one another, grouping them into four pairs of Jural Opposites
and four pairs of Jural Correlatives..

4|Page
 JURAL RELATIONS CONCEPT

According to Hohfeld, one of the greatest obstacles in finding solutions to legal problems is
the assumption that all legal concepts can be reduced to ‘rights’ and ‘duties’. Moreover, it is
believed that the aforesaid two legal concepts are adequate enough to help solve the problems.
Although prima facie  it may appear to be a problem of only terminologies, Hohfeld argues
that in a “closely reasoned (legal) problem” such an issue may lead to lack of clarity in
thoughts and expression.  He identifies eight fundamental legal concepts, namely- rights,
privilege, power, immunity, no-rights, duty, disability and liability. He then proceeds to
arrange them as ‘jural opposites’ and ‘jural correlatives’ and explains their practical
application by giving relevant examples. 

5|Page
The most satisfying approach is to lay down various jural relations in a scheme of “opposites”
and “correlatives” and, then, to proceed with stating examples of their individual scope and
application in concrete cases. Hohfeld saw every jural relation as a relation between two
persons.

The vertical arrows couple jural correlatives, ’’two legal positions that entail each other’’12
whereas the diagonal arrows couple jural opposites, ’’two legal positions that deny each
other’’.

Every pair of correlatives must exist together and none of the pairs of opposites can co-exist. Thus, if a
person has a right, he also has a duty. However, if a person has a privilege, he cannot have a duty. The
eight Jural Relations are basic parts of the more complex legal relations that law has to deal with. Let
us discuss each of the relations separately in detail.

RIGHTS AND DUTIES

As discussed earlier, ‘rights’ is one of the most misunderstood terms since everything is tried to be
defined as a right. Words such as privilege, power and immunity are used synonymously with the term
‘rights’. However, Hohfeld is of the opinion that if we look at the statutes carefully, there is a marked
distinction between the various legal concepts. Hohfeld proposes that the term rights must be confined
to only that which exists corresponding to a duty. Rights and duties are correlated concepts and when a
right is infringed there is always a duty that has been violated.

Hohfeld uses the example of trespass to explain the correlation between rights and duties. He states that
suppose if X has a land and he has the right against Y that the latter shall not enter in his land, Y also
has the corresponding duty to not enter upon X’s land. He goes on to say that an appropriate synonym

6|Page
for the term ‘right’, in the light of the aforesaid meaning accorded to it, would be ‘claim’.duty that has
been violated.

PRIVILEGE AND NO-RIGHT

Hohfeld defines privilege as the jural opposite of duty. Privilege, according to him, is the
negation of a duty. The negation of duty takes place only when the contents of both, the duty
and privilege, are opposite to each other. For instance, a duty not to enter can be negated by
the privilege of entering. Duty is the correlative of right. Similarly, privilege also has a
correlative. However, there exists no particular term to explain the same, which is why,
Hohfeld has decided to term it as a “no-right”.  Thus, if I have the privilege of entering into
land, the correlative is a “no-right” against my entering to the land. Unlike a duty which has to
be necessarily fulfilled, one may or not exercise his privilege. There is no right that is infringed
in case of non-exercise of a privilege.
After discussing the meaning of the concept of privilege, Hohfeld emphasizes upon the
importance of differentiating between a privilege and a right and discusses how usage of both
the terms interchangeably has caused “blurring of ideas”.
A privilege as a jural relation means a bare negation of duties. Privileges are permissions to act
in a certain way without being responsible for the damage done to other people who,
simultaneously, are not in position to call in the authorities to prevent such action.

POWER AND LIABILITIES

Legal power is the jural opposite of legal disability and the jural correlative of legal liability.
Power is the ability conferred upon an individual by the law to alter or create new legal
relations. One can make a will of his property or can alienate his property; one can marry one’s
deceased wife’s sister–all these are often termed as rights however a careful legal analysis
reveals that they are powers, not rights.

7|Page
A synonym for legal power is (legal) ability.[2] Legal relations may be altered by facts and
circumstances which may or may not be in human control. When such facts are in control of
one or more human beings, such human being is said to possess legal power. Liability is the
jural correlative of power. Whenever a person exercises the power to alter existing legal
relations or to create new legal relations, the person with whom such legal relations have been
created or altered owes a liability to the former. Hohfeld proposes the terms “subjection” and
“responsibility” as synonyms of the term “liability”. Many ‘duties’ or ‘obligations’, ignorantly
stated to be so, are actually liabilities.   
Power is the ability to change a legal relationship liability is the possibility that one’s legal
relation will be changed when another person uses their power.

IMMUNITIES AND DISABILITIES

Immunity is the jural correlative of disability and the jural opposite of liability. In simple terms,
immunity is the negation of liability. According to Hohfeld, the contrast between power and immunity
is the same as the contrast between right and privilege. He states that a right is the “affirmative claim”
against someone and privilege is a freedom from such an affirmative claim. Similarly, power is the
“affirmative control” over a legal relation and immunity is the freedom from such control.  The jural
correlative of immunity is a disability which refers to no-power. Thus, when a person exercises
immunity in a legal relationship with another, the latter has no power over the legal relation.

Immunity is state of being safe from modifications of one’s entitlements by another. Disability
is a lack of power to change legal entitlements. For example, If A has an immunity against B,
B is under a disability with respect to exercising powers referring to entitlements covered by
the immunity.

8|Page
 CASE STUDY

 KASTURI RALIA RAM JAIN Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (1965

AIR 1039)

FACTS
M/S Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain is a partnership firm duly registered under the Indian
Partnership Act dealing in bullion and other goods. Ralia Ram was going to Meerut to sell
gold, silver and other goods in the market. On the way some police officers of the state seized
gold from the appellant while exercising their statutory powers, but were not able to keep it in
a safe custody so the gold was not returned and a suit was filed claiming the value of gold.

ISSUE
1. Whether the police officers in question were negligent in taking care of gold that was
seized from Ralia Ram.
2. Whether the respondent( the State of Uttar Pradesh) was liable to compensate the
appellant for the loss caused to it by negligence of public servants employed by the
respondent.

JUDGEMENT

9|Page
The Supreme Court held that power to arrest a person, to search, to seize the found property is
conferred on special officers by statute. Though the act was committed during the course of
employment but the claim against the state can’t be sustained because it was committed by the
police officers in exercise of delegated sovereign powers.

(1983) HCA 21; 158 CLR 1; 57 ALJR 450;46 ALR 625

 COMMOMWEALTH Vs TASMANIA ((1983) HCA 21; 158 CLR 1; 57

ALJR 450;46 ALR 625

FACTS

In 1978, a proposal was made for the construction of a hydro-electric dam on the Franklin
River in Tasmania, Australia. The government of Tasmania rejected this, arguing that the
federal government acted without the necessary constitutional power in making these
regulations.

ISSUE
Whether the federal government had the power and if it worked within the scope of these
powers to make these regulations.

JUDGEMENT
The High Court held  that the external affairs power granted the federal government the power
to legislate to give effect to treaty obligations even where the operation of the legislation is
principally within Australia. However, on the specific facts, it was only held at a four to three

10 | P a g e
majority that the creation of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983(WHPC)was
a legitimate exercise of power .Crucially, section which prohibited the adverse interference in
World Heritage Areas without Federal Ministerial approval, was held to be valid. the High
Court provided that the legislation is valid under the external affairs power if it is of
“international concern” despite not relating specifically to any international obligation on
Australia’s behalf.

ANALYSIS OF THE CASES WITH THEORY

While describing the jural relations and making it easy for people and scholars to understand
Hohfeld’s made four pairs of Jural correlatives. He laid various relations in a scheme of
opposites and correlatives.

He identified jural correlatives as power-liability, immunity-disability,-right-immunity and

privilege-no right and jural opposites as liability-immunity, power-disability, duty-privilege
and right and no right.

In case of kasturilal vs State of Uttar Pradesh the police officers had the power which was
conferred to them by the statute and the state therefore did not hold any liability towards the
appellant. It was a case of jural opposites between power and disability.

On the other hand, in case of Commonwealth vs Tasmania it deals with the power, privilege
and rights that the state had in case of construction of dam on the river.

11 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

According to Hohfeld, there are eight fundamental legal conceptions. Those fundamental legal
conceptions are sui generis. The most satisfying approach is to lay down various relations in a
scheme of opposites and correlatives, and of then, to proceed with stating examples of their
individual and scope application in concrete cases. Hohfeld saw every Jural relation as a
relation between two persons.

The discussion on Hohfeld’s scheme of jural relations has turned out to be one of the most
complex discussions in the history of legal analysis. Hohfeld himself stressed “the great
practical importance of a clear appreciation of the distinctions and discriminations set forth”.
The eight proposed terms-rights and duties, privileges and no-right, powers and liabilities,
immunities and disabilities represent “the lowest common denominators of the law” to which
all “legal quantities” may be reduced.70 They enable “discovering essential similarities and
illuminating analogies in the midst of what appears superficially to be infinite and hopeless
variety....to discern common principles of justice and policy.....to use as persuasive authorities
judicial precedents that might otherwise seem altogether irrelevant”.

Hohfeld put forth a scheme of jural relations in which legal positions are connected with each
other by purely logical relations of entailment and negation. Hohfeld’s goal was to provide a
precise analyse of legal rights and thus prevent confusions arising from "inadequacy and
ambiguity of terminology” that refers to the use of rights, liberties and powers etc. in practice.

12 | P a g e
Hohfeld explains exactly how several conceptions are mistaken as rights and duties. With his
theory of jural relations, he has provided legal professionals with a powerful tool to help
understand complex legal problems and devise effective solutions. The widespread tendency to
confuse rights with liberties can lead a jurist to make conceptual errors and faulty
interpretations. For example, if one believes that the right to free speech is a right (in the strict
sense), but in fact it is only a liberty, then one will wrongly believe that others have duties of
non-interference which are correlative to this ‘right’. The concepts of rights, privileges,
powers, immunities seem to be the legal benefits granted to an individual while the four
correlative terms – duty, no-right, liability and disability are the corresponding legal burdens.  

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Hohfeld, ‘Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning and Other

Legal Essays’, Yale University Press (Walter Wheeler Cook ed., 1920).

 Legal Bites- Law and Around: Hohfeld’s Theory

 Hohfeld's Jural Relations - Thomas A. Alspaugh

 Education Orbit- Hohfeld theory

13 | P a g e