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

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

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

Lamond vs. Richard [1897] 1 QB 541

Case Name: Lamond v. Richard Citation: [1897] 1 QB 541 Jurisdiction: England and Wales (United Kingdom) Judgement: The judgment in this case established the principle that travelers have the right to access and seek refreshments in public restaurants. It affirmed that public establishments, including restaurants, are obligated to serve travelers and cannot deny them service … Read more

Collins v. Collins (1858) 53 E.R. 916

Case Name: Collins v. Collins Citation: (1858) 53 E.R. 916 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Judgement: The judgement in the case of Collins v. Collins (1858) 53 E.R. 916 clarified that the arbitration clause in the agreement was valid and binding. It also established that an umpire was not necessary for the arbitration process unless explicitly … Read more

Tarapore & Co., Madras vs. M/S. V/O Tractors Export, Moscow 1970 AIR 891, 1969 SCR (2) 920

Case Name: Tarapore & Co., Madras vs. M/S. V/O Tractors Export, Moscow Citation: 1970 AIR 891, 1969 SCR (2) 920 Jurisdiction: This case was heard in the Supreme Court of India. Judgement: The Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of Tarapore & Co., Madras, stating that the contract was frustrated due to the Indian … Read more

Hansraj Gupta v. Official Liquidators of the Dehra Dun-Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd. AIR 1933 PC 63

Case Name: Hansraj Gupta v. Official Liquidators of the Dehra Dun-Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd. Citation: AIR 1933 PC 63 Jurisdiction: The case was heard by the Privy Council, which was the highest court of appeal for certain British colonies and dominions, including India during the time when the case was decided. Judgement: The Privy … Read more