G. W. F. Hegel

Abstract

This paper seeks to present the well known philosopher G.W.F. HEGEL, who is related to the Historical Law School. He said that at the level of morality a right and wrong is nothing else, but it is matter of individual conscience. He describes his philosophy with the three concepts of will, freedom and rights and he described that what is free will? the paper presents the relevance of his philosophy with the help of Indian Contract Law and the cases that is decided by the courts with the application of his philosophy i.e. the ‘Philosophy of Rights’. In Atlas v Kafko, the court held that it is case of the undue influence and by it the consent is not a free consent. It is not contract and the appeal was rejected by the court. Relevance in world is introduced in India with the help of Indian Contract Law and by the cases in which the Hegelian philosophy has been mentioned. As the Hegel talked about the contract, the Indian legal system has also mentioned about the contract law and Hegelian theory has importance not only with the Indian legal system but in English legal system also. Hegel has mentioned ‘consent’ to the contract especially ‘free consent’; it has great importance in both Indian contract Law and English Legal System. The English legal system has given a lot of emphasis on the consent in terms of contract to save the individuality. In Atlas v Kafko , carrier A agreed to carry B’s certain goods at a certain rate, which was calculated by A on the basis that x cartons of B’s goods could be carried per load. Finding that the calculation was wrong and knowing that B’s survival in the business depended on the goods reaching an important customer, Woolworth Plc, A told B that A would not carry B’s goods to W unless B paid twice rate. B was unable to find an alternative carrier within time and promised to pay the new rate. But later B refused to pay the difference money. A’s action to recover that sum failed because B had agreed to pay under compulsion and under protest. The court held that it is a case of undue influence.