{"id":1315,"date":"2021-09-19T17:32:31","date_gmt":"2021-09-19T17:32:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/yuvasadan.org\/?p=1315"},"modified":"2021-09-21T17:30:31","modified_gmt":"2021-09-21T17:30:31","slug":"ratio-decidendi-obiter-dicta","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/yuvasadan.org\/index.php\/2021\/09\/19\/ratio-decidendi-obiter-dicta\/","title":{"rendered":"Ratio Decidendi &#038; Obiter Dicta"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>By Akash Pandey<\/strong> : <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Ratio Decidendi<\/strong><strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The meaning of&nbsp;<em>ratio decidendi<\/em>&nbsp;is Latin for \u201cthe reason,\u201d or \u201cthe foundation for\u201d a decision. For example,&nbsp;<em>ratio decidendi<\/em>&nbsp;in the field of law refers to the moment or principle in a case that ultimately determines its outcome.&nbsp;<em>Ratio decidendi<\/em>&nbsp;is a legal rule regarding the legal reasoning behind the judgment of the judge or jury.&nbsp;&nbsp;<em>Ratio&nbsp;<\/em>includes all of the principles a court relies on \u2013 be they moral, political, or social \u2013 to justify their reasoning for coming to a decision in a case. A&nbsp;<em>ratio&nbsp;<\/em>is comprised of the legal points made by all the parties to a case. An example of ratio decidendi is the case of&nbsp;<em>Donoghue v. Stevenson<\/em>&nbsp;(1932), otherwise known as the \u201csnail in the bottle case.\u201d This case is a good&nbsp;<em>ratio decidendi<\/em>&nbsp;example because it explores the idea that a person can owe a&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/legaldictionary.net\/duty-of-care\/\"><u>duty of care<\/u><\/a>&nbsp;to another person whom he can reasonably foresee will suffer effects as the result of his actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Obiter Dicta<\/strong><strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Latin term&nbsp;<em>obiter dicta<\/em>&nbsp;means \u201cthings said by the way,\u201d 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.<em>&nbsp;Obiter dicta<\/em>&nbsp;may be as short as a brief aside or a hypothetical example, or as long as a thorough discussion of relevant law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>For example:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Acme company denied her claim, saying that she had not responded with a message saying she had accepted the company\u2019s terms and conditions for warranty service, and she was therefore not eligible. Julia filed a&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/legaldictionary.net\/civil-lawsuit\/\"><u>civil lawsuit<\/u><\/a>&nbsp;in her attempt to hold the company responsible to fulfil the warranty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the court\u2019s decision, which was rendered in favour of Julia, the court explains:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cIf 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\u2019t written to me formally accepting my offer? Of course not.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This case is about a defective appliance, and its warranty, not a dog. The court\u2019s analogy is&nbsp;<em>obiter dicta<\/em>, as it is not crucial to the court\u2019s ruling, but given only by way of explanation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Difference between Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dicta<\/strong><strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The main difference between&nbsp;<em>ratio&nbsp;<\/em>and&nbsp;<em>obiter dicta<\/em>&nbsp;is the information under scrutiny. For example,&nbsp;<em>ratio decidendi<\/em>&nbsp;refers to the facts of the case, those things that no one can debate.&nbsp;<em>Obiter dicta<\/em>, on the other hand, is everything in between.&nbsp;<em>Obiter dicta<\/em>&nbsp;translates to \u201cby the way,\u201d and refers to information that a person says, \u201cin passing.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In other words, difference between&nbsp;<em>ratio&nbsp;<\/em>and&nbsp;<em>obiter dicta<\/em>&nbsp;lies in the fact that, while&nbsp;<em>ratio&nbsp;<\/em>is binding in its facts,&nbsp;<em>obiter dicta<\/em>&nbsp;refer to persuasive statements only. For instance,&nbsp;<em>obiter dicta<\/em>&nbsp;may include the statements a lawyer tells the jury in a criminal case to convince them of his client\u2019s innocence, in addition to the facts of the case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By Akash Pandey : Ratio Decidendi The meaning of&nbsp;ratio decidendi&nbsp;is Latin for \u201cthe reason,\u201d or \u201cthe foundation for\u201d a decision. For example,&nbsp;ratio decidendi&nbsp;in the field of law refers to the moment or principle in a case that ultimately determines its outcome.&nbsp;Ratio decidendi&nbsp;is a legal rule regarding the legal reasoning behind the judgment of the judge [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1315","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/yuvasadan.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1315","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/yuvasadan.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/yuvasadan.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yuvasadan.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yuvasadan.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1315"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/yuvasadan.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1315\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1385,"href":"https:\/\/yuvasadan.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1315\/revisions\/1385"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/yuvasadan.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1315"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yuvasadan.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1315"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yuvasadan.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1315"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}