Abstract
Ignorance of is no excuse, but of fact is sufficient for exculpation if what was done would have been lawful had the facts been as they were reasonably supposed to be. This, like any other statement which seeks to compress large field of into the confines of single sentence, is entirely too broad for certain specific situations. It indicates the result of the ordinary case, but its scope and limitations can be understood only in the light of important exceptions which have been recognized. A study of these problems may well be prefaced by brief reference to two words repeatedly encountered in this field. It has been said that the words and do not import the same significance and should not be confounded. Ignorance implies total want of knowledge in reference to the subject matter. Mistake admits knowledge, but implies wrong conclusion. 1 For the most part, however, this distinction has not been recognized.2 Some courts have brushed it aside as a refinement too subtle to be applied to the every-day business of life,3 or one which rests on no solid foundation.4 Most of them have merely ignored it. Frequently these words have appeared in the phrases ignorance of law 5 and mistake of fact.6 At times the word 7
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
