Skip to main content

Historical School of Jurisprudence

 


Historical school advocated that law is developed from social custom , economic needs, convention religious principle , and relations of the people living in a state. The advocates of this school argued that law is not made but is advanced from the pre-existence materials like customs and religious principles , unlike the natural school , which believed that law originates from superior authority or sovereignty .


Historical School Of Jurisprudence- Concept and Meaning

The jurist of this school believed that law should be changed with the changing need and nature of the person and they followed concept of man-made laws. Therefore, It would be seen that historical school developed as a stimuli to legal theories propounded by analytical positivists and the natural law philosophers. The latter states that the law was founded on the abstract notion of the human conscience and reason.


The school rejected the idea of formation of law by judges and the origin from some divine relevance. Historical school banished ethical consideration from jurisprudence and rejected all creative participation of judge and jurist or law-giver in the making of law. Fredrick Pollock was one of the supporter of historical school , he believed that morals, as such were out of the domain of judge or jurist.


Background

The revolutionary ideas that were born by positivistic legal thinking had a devastating effect as they failed to meet the needs of the people due to which new approach was propounded, known as Historical conception of law. The advocates of this school believed that law has biological growth and it has not evolved in an arbitrary and prompt manner.


Montesquieu (1689-1755) was the first jurist to adopt historical method of pursuing the study of legal institutions and came to the conclusion that �laws are the creation of climate and local situation�. He did not briefed further into the co-relation of between law and society but certainly pointed out that law must keep pace with the changing needs of the society.


 





James Carter, an American jurist argued that law came to the existence even before the political revolution or consciousness , therefore , it has to be traced and identified with the customs followed in a given society. And so he focused on the historical evolution and development of law. However, identifying law with custom alone will not be a correct proposition. Custom at its best can be one of the many source of development of law.


As per English Legal Historian Holdsworth pointed two major factor that are responsible for the emergence of historical school of jurisprudence namely , i) The French Revolution and its aftermaths ,and ii) Darwinian theory evolution which altered the character of scientific speculation during that period concerned. This was even supported by apex court of India, i.e. Supreme Court of India in case Byram Pestonji Vs. Union Of India 1991, where court quoted justice Thomen as, Indian legal system is the product of history. It is rooted in our soil , nurtured and nourished by our culture , languages and traditions , fostered and sharpened by our genius and quest for social justice , reinforced by history and culture.


Comments

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

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

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