Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Although Edward Law, 1st Baron Ellenborough (pictured) rejected a categorical application of the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus for English courts in the year 1809, the doctrine survives in some American jurisdictions. [1] Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is a Latin [2] maxim [3] meaning "false in one thing, false in everything". [4]
Mistake of law is a legal principle referring to one or more errors that were made by a person in understanding how the applicable law applied to their past activity that is under analysis by a court. In jurisdictions that use the term, it is differentiated from mistake of fact. There is a principle of law that "ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Mistake of law is when a party enters into a contract without the knowledge of the law in the country. The contract is affected by such mistakes, but it is not void. The reason here is that ignorance of law is not an excuse. However, if a party is induced to enter into a contract by the mistake of law then such a contract is not valid. [3]
The law of mistake comprises a group of separate rules in English contract law. If the law deems a mistake to be sufficiently grave, then a contract entered into on the grounds of the mistake may be void. A mistake is an incorrect understanding by one or more parties to a contract. There are essentially three types of mistakes in contract:
(2) The power of the state serves all citizens and can be only applied in cases, under limitations and through uses specified by a law. (3) Every citizen can do anything that is not forbidden by the law, and no one can be forced to do anything that is not required by a law. The same principles are reiterated in the Czech Bill of Rights, Article 2.
Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine whereby a sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution, strictly speaking in modern texts in its own courts. State immunity is a similar, stronger doctrine, that applies to foreign courts.
The Tipsy Coachman doctrine is a rule of law that upholds in a higher court a correct conclusion, despite flawed reasoning by the judge in a lower court. In other words, the lower judgment was right but for the wrong reason. The colorful "tipsy coachman" label comes from a 19th-century Georgia case, Lee v.
In law, ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"), [1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat ("ignorance of law excuses no one"), [2] is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content.