R vs. Stephens (LR 1 QB 702)

Case Name: R v Stephens Citation: LR 1 QB 702 Jurisdiction: Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of England and Wales Judgment: The judgment in this case established that an individual could be indicted for a public nuisance on their premises caused by the actions of their servants, employees, agents, or subcontractors, even in … Read more

Chisholm v. Doulton [1890] 22 QBD 736.

Case Name:- Chisholm v. Doulton Citation:- [1890] 22 QBD 736. Jurisdiction:- United Kingdom (UK) Judgment:- The judgment found that a master cannot be held criminally responsible for acts committed by a servant without the master’s knowledge or authorization, in accordance with the principle “Actus non facit reum, Nisi mens sit rea” (An act does not … Read more

Cundy v/s. Le Cocq 13 QB D. 207

Case Name:- Cundy v/s. Le Cocq Citation:- 13 QB D. 207 Jurisdiction:- This case was heard in the Queen’s Bench Division of the English High Court. Judgment:- This case established a precedent emphasizing the duty of care for sellers regarding the sale of potentially harmful goods and the responsibility to ensure they do not contribute … Read more

R Vs. Scofield P.C. 1028

Case Name:- R vs. Scofield Citation:– P.C. 1028 Jurisdiction:- This case falls under the jurisdiction of the Privy Council. Judgment:- Nature of the Case: The case involved allegations against Mr. Scofield for a criminal offense where intent played a crucial role. Key Issue: The central contention was whether mere intent, without the actual commission of … Read more

Robinson vs. Davidson LR 6 Ex 269

Case Name:– Robinson vs. Davidson Citation:– LR 6 Ex 269 Jurisdiction:– Court of Exchequer Judgment Summary:– Historical Background:- Legal Framework in the 19th Century: During the 19th century, contract law was undergoing significant development, transitioning from a more rigid application of contractual obligations to a more nuanced understanding of implied conditions and fairness. The legal … Read more

Baily Vs. De Crespigny LR 4 QB 180 (185)

Case Name:– Baily Vs. De Crespigny Citation:– LR 4 QB 180 (185) Jurisdiction:– England and Wales (Queen’s Bench Division) Judgment:– The judgment discussed the principle that an “act of God” does not per se excuse a party’s breach of contract, emphasizing that the absence of contract terms addressing such unforeseen events determines whether non-performance is … Read more

Breeknock Co. vs. Pritchard (6 TR 750)

Case Name: Breeknock Co. vs. Pritchard Citation: 6 Term Reports 750 (6 TR 750) Jurisdiction: English courts Judgment:-The case involved a contract for building and maintaining a bridge over a river for a fixed term. A severe flood, considered an “act of God,” destroyed the bridge within the specified timeframe. The court ruled that despite … Read more

Nichols vs Marsland [1876] 2 Ex. D. 1

Case Name:- “Nichols v Marsland.” Citation:- “[1876] 2 Ex. D. 1.” Jurisdiction:- This case was heard in the Court of Exchequer Division in England. Judegment:-The judegment in Nichols v Marsland [1876] 2 Ex. D. 1 ruled in favor of the defendant, Marsland, stating that he was not liable for the damage caused by the escape … Read more

Paradine vs. Jane (1647) Aleyn 26, 82 Eng. Rep. 897

Case Name: Paradine v. Jane Citation: (1647) Aleyn 26, 82 Eng. Rep. 897 Jurisdiction: England Judgement: The judgement in this case upheld the principle that if a party voluntarily imposes a duty upon themselves through a contract, they are bound to fulfill that duty, even if unforeseen circumstances prevent them from doing so. Abstract: Paradine … Read more

Forward vs. Pittard (1785) 1 TR 27

Case Name: Forward v. Pittard (1785) 1 Term Reports 27 (1 TR 27) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Judgement: The judgment in this case established that events caused by the elementary forces of nature, such as storms, tempests, lightning, or extraordinary high tides, fall under the category of an “act of God.” In this case, the … Read more