Legal Maxims Part 10

1. Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea

Meaning: An act does not make a person guilty unless there is a guilty mind or intention.

Explanation: This principle is fundamental in criminal law. It means that to be found guilty of a crime, both a wrongful act (actus reus) and a guilty mind (mens rea) must be present. Merely performing an act is not enough; there must be intent or recklessness.

Illustration:

• A accidentally bumps into B, causing B to fall and get injured. A had no intention of hurting B, so even though an injury is caused to B , A is not guilty of a crime because there was no mens rea.
• However, if A intentionally pushes B out of anger, causing the same injury, A would be guilty because both the act (actus reus) and the intent (mens rea) were present.

2. Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet

Meaning: No one can give what they do not have.

Explanation: This maxim applies in property law and means that a person cannot transfer a better title to someone else than he himself possess. If the seller does not own the goods, he cannot transfer ownership to the buyer of such goods.

Illustration:

• A steals B’s car and sells it to C. Since A did not legally own the car, A cannot transfer ownership to C. Even though C purchased the car in good faith, B still has the rightful claim to it, and C will not gain ownership.

3. Res Ipsa Loquitur

Meaning: The thing speaks for itself.

Explanation: This maxim applies in law of  tort , particularly in negligence cases. It suggests that the facts of the case are so obvious that they imply negligence without needing further explanation or evidence.

Illustration:

• A is walking down the street when a heavy object falls from a building and injures A. The object was under the control of the building’s owner, B. Since such accidents don’t normally happen unless someone was negligent, the court may infer that B was negligent without requiring specific evidence of how the accident happened.

4. Volenti Non-Fit Injuria

Meaning: To one who consents, no harm is done.

Explanation: This principle means that if a person willingly places himself in a position where harm might occur, he cannot later claim to be injured. It is often used as a defense in law of tort, where the defendant argues that the claimant voluntarily accepted the risk.

Illustration:

• A participates in a boxing match with B. During the match, B punches A in the face, causing injury. Since A voluntarily entered the match, knowing the risks involved, A cannot sue B for the injury as A consented to the possibility of harm.

5. Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat

Meaning: Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Explanation: This maxim means that a person cannot escape liability for violating a law simply because he did not know about it. Everyone is presumed to know the law, and a lack of knowledge is not a valid defense.

Illustration:

• A moves to a new city and starts parking in a no-parking zone without reading the signs. A gets a parking ticket and claims he didn’t know about the parking rule. The court will reject this defense because ignorance of the law does not exempt A from following it.