just copy file

1. Law of Tort
September 5, 2016
Mohammad Rubaiyat Rahman
Lecturer
BSMRSTU
Gopalganj 8100

2.  Private Wrong
 Mens Rea Not
Necessary
 Suit for Damage
 Not Codified
 The case is usually
started by state
 Public Wrong
 Mens rea required
 The suit is for
punishment
 Codified
 Case is usually
started by the
individual affected

3. Distinction between Tort & Contract
Tort Crime
 A tort is a wrong
committed against a
particular person or
property
 The defendant faces
civil action
 Standard of proof-
‘balance of
probabilities’.
 A crime is a wrong
committed against
the public good
 The defendant faces
criminal charges
 Standard of proof-
‘beyond reasonable
doubt’.

4. Damage & Injury
Injury :
Something done
contrary to law or
right.
Injury is
synonymous to
wrong. Legal wrong
is violation is law.
It is harm or damage
that is called
damnum.
 Damage:
Damage is the loss or
harm suffered by a
person in
circumstances
recognized as legally
actionable.
It may be caused by
breach of any kind of
legal action.

5. Injuria sine
damnum
Injuria refers to a
wrongful act for which
the law provides a
remedy.
It is a Tort.
Damnum sine injuria
is an exception to the
maxim injuria sine
damnum.
[] Where there is
neither injury nor
damage no action
would lie.
Injuria sine damnum
= it is a wrongful act
unaccompanied by any
damage yet actionable at
law.
=This maxim is an
extension of the maxim
ubi jus ibi remedium.
= it is an exception to
injuria sine damnum

6. Distinction between Tort & Contract
Tort Contract
 It is a violation of
rights in rem
 Duties are fixed by
law
 Question of privity is
out of place here
 Intention is
sometimes taken into
consideration
 It is a violation of a
right in personam
 Duties arise due to
voluntary agreement
 Question privity is
closely connected
 In ‘breach of contract’
is of no relevance.

7. Distinction between Tort & Contract
Tort Contract
 Tort is connected with
losses.
 Contract law is
concerned with
promises.

8. Asby v. White Case Brief
(1703) 92 ER 126
Fact:
Plaintiff was precluded from being able to
exercise his right to vote
Issue:
 whether one party may recover damages
when one of his civil rights (right to vote) is
hindered by the action of another.
 Decision:
 Plaintiff ought to be allowed to recover,
because the right to vote is a common law
right and thus, an obstruction of that right
should give rise to a cause of action.

9.  Fact:
 Defendant lowered prices and offered incentive in an
attempt to drive Plaintiff from the market. Plaintiff sued
Defendant for unfair competition.
 Issue:
 Is there a cause of action for unfair competition when that
competition complained of consists of a price confederation
that wants to control shipping of goods by lowering prices?
 Held:
 No.
 “Competition, however severe and egotistical, if
unattended by circumstances of dishonesty, intimidation,
molestation, or such illegalities gives rise to no cause of
action at common law.”