Skip to main content

obligation and ought.

  Difference between obligation and ought. 

Obligation can be understood as commitment to a person or a group of persons to do or or refuse to do an action which one could justifiably be coerced into doing or punished for failing to do so. Obligations are relational concepts and  are although supported by, but however not derived from, the fear and  threat of coercion.There are three major forces of obligation: interpersonal commitment, legal rule, and moral rules or principles.

Ought can be understood as  an indication to what is expected of you, no coercion of any kind can be detected here, however if one fails to fulfil their ought, they could be subject to some degree of criticism although not as serious or binding as obligation. 

For instance, a citizen of India residing within the nation is obligated to uphold the constitution and refrain from violating any fundamental rights, however this citizen ought to follow the directive principles of state policy, these directive principles aren’t legally binding to the citizen but it is still expected that these duties are dutifully followed by. 

Ought is prescriptive and advisory whereas obligation demands compulsion and necessitation to be fulfilled. Another instance could be drawn when  Ram, a well established business man  is asked by his close friend who suffered great financial losses due to the pandemic, from the village to lend him some to pay for his daughter’s school textbooks, in this situation since Ram and Sham are close friends, it is somehow expected of Ram to be helpful to his close friend. In this case Ram is ought to lend him money and even if de decides not to no one can force him into lending money. However if in another situation, had Ram had  refused to pay back money he had earlier borrowed  from Sham. The terms of the contract states that Ram needs  to pay it back exactly in a years time as stipulated, then Ram is under obligation to pay back the money to Sham or else he would face legal consequences . Previous committing action is important to understand obligation. This emerges out of the way we speak our obligation, we assume and undertake on one hand and meet and discharge on the other. the moment we undertake to pay, it assumes a prior committing action. Commit to do or forbear from doing something. Obligation is always between two parties (individuals, groups). It is a relational concept. Contracts, marriages, etc. Ought claims are based on the content of the statement. Jones ought to pay Smith, there is no previous committing action. Jones hasn't borrowed the money that he is obliged to pay. X ought to honest is morally prudent but honest towards whom is an open ended situation. One ought to eat healthy food is ethical and not compulsory to eat healthy food. X has not undertaken to be honest to everyone similarly one hasn't undertaken to healthy food. In contrast to obligation, ought has no previous committing action. 

Therefore as a citizen one ought to know the laws and regulations of the country however we are obligated to obey the law irregardless of whether we know the laws or not. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more