Ignorance Of Law Research Articles

The Development of the Implied Terms on Quantity in the Law of Sale of Goods

The history of the development of the implied terms on short delivery is a complex story of judicial and academic ignorance of law and facts. Sir Mackenzie Chalmers' statutory formulation of the right to correct delivery was the same as that provided in Judah Benjamin's 1868 work on sales. However, Benjamin's formulation was flawed, which led to a highly unsatisfactory rule of law. This article considers the history of the case law on short delivery, leading up to the 1893 codification. The operation of the statutory rule further illustrates the depth of confusion which remained following codification. A comparison with the history of short delivery in the United States demonstrates that the confusion within the English system could easily have been avoided.

Legal Implication of Child Labour: Prohibition and Regulation in India

Child labour is a curse towards the society whether it is developing or developed country. Through in ancient India child labour was going on but the scenario of child in present trend is a pathetic one. We may forget that they are the future of a nation. Indulging of child in labour section is a shame for us. But it is a fact children’s are sacrificed their childhood for earning food of his/ her family as well as for his own. Only making laws and enactment of rules and regulation is not sufficient but a proper utilization should be there. India is a signatory of various convention even various laws are also there then also in our locality even every where it is going on. Sometimes ignorance of law and sometime situation forced them to work for their livelihood. It is very much unfortunate that sometimes they are indulged in some hazardous work.

Church Leaders and the Law: A Panoramic View

Ignorance of law does not excuse anyone; so, everyone has a duty to ensure that he/she is abreast of what the law says on matters, at least, that affect him/her from time to time. Some matters are more frequent than others. For example, almost everybody enters into one form of contract or family issue to deal with. Church leaders are primarily spiritual leaders but they are also subject to civil law like their followers and it is no excuse that they are not aware of what the law says. Church members ignorantly think their leaders can solve almost every problem for them. When a domestic matter has legal implications, some members would still prefer to run to their pastors for solutions. This, therefore, presents a good argument for getting the church leaders informed on selected issues of law. Everyone is affected by the law and therefore, everyone needs to understand its basics. If there is anywhere that the citizens need to keep abreast of the law, Nigeria is one of such places. Abuse of powers by state agents like the police is prevalent. Materials need to be prepared essentially to take care of the needs of non-lawyers in order to elevate the level of awareness of the law which ordinary people have. What has been done in this paper is basically to provide an overview of the Nigerian law, covering those subjects that people commonly come in contact with.

The Mishandled Development of the Implied Terms on Quantity in the Law of Sale of Goods

The history of the development of protection from short delivery is a complex story of judicial and academic ignorance of law and facts. Sir Mackenzie Chalmers’ statutory formulation of the right to correct delivery was derived without deviation from Judah Benjamin’s 1868 work on sales. However, Benjamin’s formulation was flawed, yet it led to uncritical acceptance by Chalmers’, amongst others, of a highly unsatisfactory rule of law. This article considers the history of the case law on short delivery, leading up to the 1893 codification. The operation of the statutory rule further illustrates the depth of confusion which remained following codification. A comparison with the history of short delivery in the United States demonstrates that the confusion within the English system could easily have been avoided.

English

Consent is a very important issue for all the medical practitioners while dealing with their patients .Consent is always required for examining a patient for therapeutic purpose or while preparing a medico legal report .Ignorance of law is not a defense in legal cases, so all medical practitioners should be aware of their duties with regard to consent in clinical setting. In this article I have discussed various issues in relation to consent, possible word format for taking consent for medico legal examination and the cases where examination can be done without consent.

Deliberation, Responsibility, and Excusing Mistakes of Law

In ‘Excusing Mistakes of Law’, Gideon Yaffe sets out to ‘vindicate’ the claim ‘that mistakes of law never excuse’ by ‘identifying the truth that is groped for but not grasped by those who assert that ignorance of law is no excuse’.1 Yaffe does not offer a defence of the claim that mistakes of law never excuse. that claim, Yaffe argues, is false. Yaffe’s article is, rather, an effort to assess what plausible thought might be behind the idea that mistakes of law often should not excuse. (Yaffe is interested in more than just the descriptive claim that in Anglo-American legal jurisdictions mistakes of law routinely do not, in fact, excuse.) More particularly, Yaffe is interested in what plausible normative justification there might be for this asymmetric pattern:

Rule of Caveat Emptot

This paper shows what is the responsibility of a buyer before making a purchase. Ignorance of law is no excuse and a purchaser is to remain careful about certain things which law requires him to remain so.

Ignoring the Law in the Name of Honor

Can people ignore the law in the name of honor? About five thousand women are murdered by their families each year in the name of family honor. These crimes are committed in both advanced western countries and countries of origin. It is difficult to get precise numbers of “honor killings,” since most cases are not reported. When a woman is murdered in the name of family honor in the country of origin, it is justified by law, since the concept of family honor justifies the killing of women in these societies. The perpetrators of such killings in these societies are considered heroes of their culture. In these societies, the concept of woman as a vessel of the family reputation is prevalent, and this concept is completed and accompanied by the concept of honor killings. Honor killings are not the only offenses committed against women in the name of culture. When the perpetrators are charged in court, they frequently claim the “ignorance of law” defense, since they have been behaving that way for generations, and why would the legal situation be different in their new homeland. In most cases, this claim is rejected, but it is used to mitigate punishments down to ridiculous sentences. Most western countries share this problem. This article argues that the mistake of law defense is irrelevant in relation to culture-based crimes against women. It is further argued that committing an offense on the grounds of preserving a culture in and of itself justifies harsher sentencing.

Ignorance of the Criminal Law, and Duties to Avoid it

'Ignorance of the law is no defence,' so we are told from an early stage in our legal studies. Or, to be more accurate, 'ignorance of the criminal law is no defence to a criminal charge.' That appears to be the rule in this country, apart from a couple of well-established exceptions and another possible one. I will argue that it is a preposterous doctrine, resting on insecure foundations within the criminal law and on questionable propositions about the political obligations of individuals and of the State. In developing these arguments, I will draw attention to the differing problems of ignorance of the criminal law in three broad areas - regulatory offences, serious crime, and offences of omission - with a view to suggesting that there is a great deal more that the State needs to do if the issue of ignorance of the criminal law is to be dealt with adequately and fairly. I begin by scrutinising the relevant rule of English criminal law and the justifications offered for it. I then go on to situate the 'ignorance-of-law' doctrine in the context of the principle of legality and the rule of law, those bastions of liberal criminal law theory. Part three then explores the three broad areas of the criminal law, and parts four and five carry the debate into the political obligations of individuals and of the State in these matters. © 2011 The Author. The Modern Law Review © 2011 The Modern Law Review Limited.

Culture Crimes Against Women

About five thousand women are murdered by their families each year in the name of family honor. A young Muslim girl was murdered in Berlin by her own brother, because she behaved like a German. Both of them had German citizenship. He was sentenced to nine years of incarceration, and was released after six years. His family celebrated his release from prison. Fatima Sehindel, a Muslim Swedish girl, was a student. She wanted to assimilate in Swedish society. She spoke to the Swedish parliament. She even had a Swedish boyfriend. She was murdered by her own father. These crimes were committed in advanced western countries. It is difficult to get precise numbers of “honor killings,” since most cases are not reported. When a woman is murdered in the name of family honor in the country of origin, it is justified by law, since the concept of family honor justifies the killing of women in these societies. The perpetrators of such killings in these societies are considered heroes of their culture. In these societies, the concept of woman as a vessel of the family reputation is prevalent, and this concept is completed and accompanied by the concept of honor killings. The story of Soraya M., which was publicized in a book and a movie, is another example. Her husband wanted to marry a younger woman, so he claimed that she was flirting with a neighbor. She was stoned to death. This phenomenon is not exclusive to the countries of origin. Many of the women murdered by their families in the name of family honor are murdered in western societies, very advanced western societies that have open-gate policies and are absorbing immigrant populations. Some of the immigrants in these societies come from countries where the concept of honor killing is in common use, is morally acceptable and is legal. Upon settling in their new homeland, the immigrant population continues this accepted practice, as they used to in their homeland. Reports submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights show that honor killings have been committed in Great Britain, Italy, Sweden, the United States, Germany, France, and other countries absorbing immigrants. Some of these honor killings are perpetrated or assisted by women. The concept of honor killing is considered by most of the immigrants, including women, as part of their culture, which must be preserved. They sometimes rely on Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Honor killings are not the only offenses committed against women in the name of culture. When the perpetrators are charged in court, they frequently claim the “ignorance of law” defense, since they have been behaving that way for generations, and why would the legal situation be different in their new homeland. In most cases, this claim is rejected, but it is used to mitigate punishments down to ridiculous sentences. Most western countries share this problem. This article argues that the mistake of law defense is irrelevant in relation to culture-based crimes against women. It is further argued that committing an offense on the grounds of preserving a culture in and of itself justifies harsher sentencing. In the following paragraphs culture-based crimes against women in countries absorbing immigrants will be introduced. Then the relevance of the mistake of law defense shall be examined in relation to culture-based crimes against women. Finally, and on those grounds, the sentencing considerations when punishing such crimes shall be examined

Mistake of Law and Culpability

When does a defendant not deserve punishment because he is unaware that his conduct breaches a penal statute? Retributivists must radically rethink their answer to this question to do justice to our moral intuitions. I suggest that modest progress on this topic can be made by modeling our approach to ignorance of law on our familiar approach to ignorance of fact. We need to distinguish different levels of culpability in given mistakes and to differentiate what such mistakes may be about. I discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this approach with special attention to how to contrast offenses from defenses. The alternative I tend to favor probably should not be implemented in existing penal codes. As a result, we are likely to remain dissatisfied with the decisions made by our criminal justice system about the exculpatory effect of ignorance of law.

Legal Education and Legal Profession in India

In a modern, civilized, democratic and political state like India, it is the law of the laws – the Constitution of India – which has conferred freedom on us and the right to live with human dignity and conscience. The constitution's widespread and deeply pervasive network of laws leaves hardly any human activity outside its net which is not governed by some law or the other. Birth, death and marriage have to be registered. There are laws on how to move or drive on the road, how to travel, where to smoke or not to smoke, what to eat and what not to eat, where to go and where to refrain from going and so on. The air that we breathe, the water that we drink, the food that we eat, and the house in which we live are all governed by law. From a little child purchasing an eraser or a pencil, to an adult travelling by air within or outside the country – all are subject to the law. Law determines the boundaries of human behavior which determines the limits of transgression as well as compliance. Everyone is supposed to know the law and the ignorance of law does not excuse anyone. So pervasive, complex and fast changing are the laws that a car bumper reads “Do it today, tomorrow it may be illegal,” such is the pace of today's growth and evolution of the law.

Benthamite Reflections on Codification of the General Principles of Criminal Liability: Towards the Panopticon

Chapter 2 of the Australian Commonwealth Criminal Code codifies the general principles of criminal liability. All federal criminal offenses, whether or not they appear in the substantive chapters of the Code, are subject to its provisions. Chapter 2 is based on article 2 of the American Model Penal Code and the equivalent general part of the UK Draft Criminal Code. It is, however, a more completely articulated statement of the elements of liability than either of its predecessors. This paper examines the relationship between physical and fault elements in chapter 2. It takes a Benthamite view of its provisions. Though chapter 2 was conceived as a legislative restatement of common law principles of criminal justice it can be expected to play a more significant role as a manual of instructions for the expression of legislative intentions. Chapter 2 enables the legislature to reclaim from courts the authority to define the grounds of criminal liability. There remain, however, areas of uncertainty resulting from the mismatch between the articulate clarity of most chapter 2 provisions and others that envisage the exercise of unstructured judicial discretion. Two issues in particular are discussed: liability for ulterior intentions and the effect of error or ignorance of law on criminal responsibility. The paper proposes enactment of a defense of reasonable mistake of law as a supplement to chapter 2. It concludes with an expression of hope that Australian criminal law theory might be based on a more unified consideration of legisprudence and common law.

Should the Model Penal Code's Mens Rea Provisions Be Amended?

The Model Penal Code approach to mens rea was a tremendous advance. The MPC carefully defines a limited number of mens rea terms, firmly establishes element analysis in place of offense analysis, and recognizes that the doctrine of mistake is part and parcel of the basic analysis of mens rea. However, a revised Code could improve the drafting of the mens rea provisions in a number of respects: * Clarify how to distinguish result, circumstance, and result elements * Simplify the definitions of knowledge and purpose * Perhaps eliminate the category of mens rea as to conduct * Clarify the fact/law distinction, and especially the distinction between two types of mistakes of law - mistakes of governing law and mistakes of legal element - that the MPC treats differently * Clarify the meaning of the reasonable person test * Clarify the definition of willful blindness Moreover, more fundamental questions arise with the central concept of recklessness. A reckless actor is one who must be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk; are these independent or interdependent requirements? What type or degree of is required? Of what, precisely, must the actor be aware? Does a strict consciousness requirement undermine the rule that ignorance of law is no excuse? And should extend to latent knowledge that the actor could call up if he were to consider the matter even for a moment? Furthermore, does the MPC hierarchy always work? Is knowledge really always worse than recklessness? Is recklessness always worse than negligence? Should culpable indifference or a similar mental state be added to the hierarchy? Are the MPC categories too cognitive, or too descriptive, or too rigid? Finally, the conclusion examines some theoretical and pragmatic implications of the analysis.

New guide available: ignorance of law on emergency signs and lighting could have tragic consequences

New guide available: ignorance of law on emergency signs and lighting could have tragic consequences

Ignorance of Law Is an Excuse: But Only for the Virtuous

If you want to know the law and nothing else, you must look at it as a bad man, who cares only for the material consequences which such knowledge enables him to predict, not as a good one, who finds his reasons for conduct, whether inside the law or outside of it, in the vaguer sanctions of conscience. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.1 It is no doubt true that there are many cases in which the criminal could not have known that he was breaking the law, but to admit [mistake of law as an] excuse at all would be to encourage ignorance where the law-maker has determined to make men know and obey, and justice to the individual is rightly outweighed by the larger interests on the other side of the scales.

Some recent work on the philosophical foundations of criminal law

This collection brings together a dozen essays by some of the leading British and North American scholars working on philosophical issues in criminal law. The representation of four different fields among the authors (law, philosophy, political science and psychiatry) is an eloquent testimony to just how interdisciplinary "jurisprudence" or "philosophy of law" has become in recent years. Indeed, it is hardly an exaggeration to say that the fundamental conceptual and normative questions here cannot even be accurately identified, let alone resolved, without input from many different parts of the academic world. This is illustrated not only by the more wide-ranging of these papers (such as George Fletcher's attempt to distinguish between two radically different approaches to the issue of justification), but even by those with a decidedly narrower focus (such as Douglas Husak's and Andrew von Hirsch's inquiry into why AngloAmerican criminal law typically allows ignorance of fact, but not ignorance of law, as a defense). The reader may be somewhat surprised, however, to find that none of the essays in this volume is primarily concerned with what has traditionally been taken to be the fundamental philosophical problem in criminal law, namely, the justification of punishment. This omission, the editors point out, was quite deliberate, since one of their primary concerns was to help remedy the comparative neglect of a number of other issues in this area that are also of considerable philosophical interest. Hence, in addition to what has already been mentioned, each of the following is addressed by one or more of the contributors: the nature of action, the coherence

Ignorance of law and duties of citizenship

Theoretical discussion of the question of whether and under what circumstances ignorance of law should be a defence from criminal liability has had a peculiar history in Anglo-American law. Commentators have been more convinced that ignorance oflaw should generally not serve as a defence than they have been persuaded by any particular rationale in favor of this rule. When one argument is shown to be unsound, another emerges to take its place, preserving the conclusion intact; the weight of scholarly opinion does not shift to embrace the position that ignorance of law should typically be a defence from criminal liability.

The Testament of the Piglet

THE RECENT EXCAVATIONS at the so-called Schola Praeconum in Rome have offered striking confirmation of the literary evidence the main meat consumed by the urban population of late Imperial Rome was pork, followed by beef and mutton.' An astonishing amount is known about the large-scale organization of the city's pork supply from the Theodosian Code (especially 14.4), and it is clear that almost every part of the ancient pig was put to culinary use. Moreover, while Apicius might concern himself with the proper method of fattening sows' livers, pork was not a dish confined to gourmands, for (in the words of the elder Pliny) there was no commoner animal food consumed in eating-houses, and in the fifth century some 1800 tons of pork were distributed free to the populace of Rome annually.2 In one way then, pigs were much in the public eye. People considered them to be intelligent animals: Pliny gives examples of their cleverness, and Plutarch's Gryllus was a true philosopher.3 It would be useful to have a pig's views on the human race, and by unusual good fortune the words of one late antique witness survive, in the last will and testament of M. Grunnius Corocotta (or Marcus Grunter Hyena), the piglet. The Testamentum Porcelli will never win great popularity as a work of literature, with its high spirits, low humour, and bad Latin.4 In 1860 Mortz Haupt, its first modern editor, railed in elegant Latin against its tasteless and feeble jokes and its ignorance of law and custom, and he returned in the end