By Akash Pandey :
Ratio Decidendi
The meaning of ratio decidendi is Latin for “the reason,” or “the foundation for” a decision. For example, ratio decidendi in the field of law refers to the moment or principle in a case that ultimately determines its outcome. Ratio decidendi is a legal rule regarding the legal reasoning behind the judgment of the judge or jury. Ratio includes all of the principles a court relies on – be they moral, political, or social – to justify their reasoning for coming to a decision in a case. A ratio is comprised of the legal points made by all the parties to a case. An example of ratio decidendi is the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932), otherwise known as the “snail in the bottle case.” This case is a good ratio decidendi example because it explores the idea that a person can owe a duty of care to another person whom he can reasonably foresee will suffer effects as the result of his actions.
Obiter Dicta
The Latin term obiter dicta means “things said by the way,” and is generally used in law to refer to an opinion or non-necessary remark made by a judge. In a legal ruling, made by a higher court, the actual decision becomes binding precedent. Remarks about such things as how the court came to its decision are not binding, and it is to these that the term refers. Obiter dicta may be as short as a brief aside or a hypothetical example, or as long as a thorough discussion of relevant law.
For example:
Julia, who purchased an Acme washer and dryer set, was disappointed when only a month later the washing machine stopped working. Having been told that the appliance had a one-year warranty against manufacturer defects, she attempted to make a claim to have her washing machine repaired or replaced.
The Acme company denied her claim, saying that she had not responded with a message saying she had accepted the company’s terms and conditions for warranty service, and she was therefore not eligible. Julia filed a civil lawsuit in her attempt to hold the company responsible to fulfil the warranty.
In the court’s decision, which was rendered in favour of Julia, the court explains:
“If I lost my dog, and advertised that I would pay $1,000 to anyone who brought the dog to my home, could I deny the reward to the neighbour who found and returned him, on the basis that he hadn’t written to me formally accepting my offer? Of course not.”
This case is about a defective appliance, and its warranty, not a dog. The court’s analogy is obiter dicta, as it is not crucial to the court’s ruling, but given only by way of explanation.
Difference between Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dicta
The main difference between ratio and obiter dicta is the information under scrutiny. For example, ratio decidendi refers to the facts of the case, those things that no one can debate. Obiter dicta, on the other hand, is everything in between. Obiter dicta translates to “by the way,” and refers to information that a person says, “in passing.”
In other words, difference between ratio and obiter dicta lies in the fact that, while ratio is binding in its facts, obiter dicta refer to persuasive statements only. For instance, obiter dicta may include the statements a lawyer tells the jury in a criminal case to convince them of his client’s innocence, in addition to the facts of the case.