BL Tutorial 2 - man without legal justification refused to...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Tutorial 2 1. In March 1964, defendant handed a diamond ring that costs $400 to plaintiff with no express condition accompanied. Then in June 1964, when both parties went to counsellor for the state of affairs that each had a quick temper and had frequent quarrel. They both never met since December 1964. The plaintiff said the defendant refused to marry her but on the other hand, defendant told, plaintiff was the one who broke the engagement with emphatic words. Then, the defendant was the one who was found out to be breaking the promise, not the plaintiff. 2. Jury decided to issue the plaintiff a compensation of $500 as special damages and $1000 and general damages. 3. The precedent used was the already cited cases of Locker Vs Simmons where in that case, if the lady refused to marry the man she must return the gifts given to her in contemplation of marriage. 4. Basically, in correct legal view, if the woman refuses to fulfil the condition of the gifts, she must return it and if the
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: man without legal justification refused to carry out his marriage promise, he cant demand for the gift back. That was the ratio decedendi. 5. The statement which shows Obiter Dicta was If the engagement to marry be dissolved by mutual consent, then in the absence of agreement to contrary the engagement ring and the like gifts must, I think be returned by each party to the other. . If the marriage does not take place either through the death of, or through disability recognised by law on the part of the person giving the ring or other conditional gift, then I take the view that in such case the condition is to be implied that the gift shall be returned. This was an Obiter Dicta because its a statement thats not based on facts as found or something that has no final decision of the case. 6. Main functions of judiciary are ultra vires and unreasonableness. 7. 8....
View Full Document

Page1 / 3

BL Tutorial 2 - man without legal justification refused to...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online