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

“Actus Dei Nemini Facit Injuriam,”(“The act of God causes no harm to anyone.”)

Introduction:- In the realm of law, there exists a guiding principle known as “Actus Dei Nemini Facit Injuriam,” which translates to “The act of God causes no harm to anyone.” This legal maxim reflects a profound concept that acknowledges the limitations of human responsibility in the face of unforeseen and uncontrollable natural events. The essence … 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

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