The attitude of early English commentators towards the maximum of the law was an unmixed admiration. In Thomas Hobbes, Doctor and Student (p. 26), they are described in the law as having the same force and effect as the laws. Not only, notes Francis Bacon in the preface to his collection of maxims: the use of maxims “will consist in deciding doubts and sustaining the soundness of judgment, but also in assessing arguments, correcting unnecessary subtleties and reducing them to a more solid and substantial sense of law, reappropriating vulgar errors and, in general, to change to some extent the nature and hue of the whole law.” [1] [2] An established principle or proposal. A legal principle that is generally accepted as a correct statement of law or as compatible with natural reason. Coke defines a maxim as the ” conclusion of reason ” and says that it is called ” quia maxima ejus dignitas et certissima auctorir tas, et quod maxime omnibus probetur “. Co. Litt. Lancaster. He says elsewhere: “A maxim is a proposition that must be known and granted by all peoples without evidence, arguments or speeches.” Id.
67o. The maxims of the law, in Latin, French, and English, are disseminated by this book in their correct alphabetical order. Maxime paci sunt contraria vis et injuria. The greatest enemies of peace are violence and injustice. Co. Litt. 1616. Maximus erroris populus magister.
Bacon. People are the greatest masters of error. In interpreting public statutes, the term “MAY” must be interpreted as a “must” in all cases where Parliament wishes to impose a positive and absolute duty and not merely grant discretion. Minor v. Mechanics` Bank, 1 pet. 415, 64, 7 L. ed. 47; New York v. , 3 Hill, N.Y. 612, 615.
Legal maxims are more frequently used in international law, where their breadth and implicit universal acceptance are more attractive. Later, the maxims of the law were less valued, because the development of civilization and the increasing complexity of trade relations showed the need to qualify the sentences they formulated. But both historically and practically, they must always have interest and value. This maxim means that a party suing in equity can recover what it seeks, not financial damages as compensation. This maxim is the remedy for specific performance. A legal maxim is an established principle or legal statement that is generally recognized as just and consistent. These are principles and authorities and form part of the general customs or customary law of the country. Most Latin maxims were developed in the Middle Ages in European countries that used Latin as the language for law and courts. PRINCIPLE.
An established principle or proposal. A principle of law universally recognized, as just and in conformity with reason. 2. Maxims in law are something like axioms in geometry. 1 Bl. Komm. 68. These are principles and authorities and form part of the general customs or customary law of the country; and have the same force as the Acts of Parliament, when the judges have determined what a maxim is; which belongs to the judges and not to the jury. Conditions do Ley; Doctor. & Stud.
Dial 1, c. 8. The maxims of the law are bound by the law, and all other cases that may be applied to them are taken for granted. 1 Inst. 11. 67; 4 Rep. See 1 Com. v.
68; Ploughed. 27, b. 3. The application of the maxim to the case pending before the court is usually the only difficulty. The true method of making the application is to determine whether the resulting maxim has arisen and whether the case to which it applies is of the same nature or whether it is an exception to an apparently general rule. 4. Changes to one of the maxims of the common law are dangerous. 2 Inst. 210.
Two maxims form the primary foundations of justice: equality will not suffer injustice, and equality acts in personam. The first explains the whole purpose of justice and the second emphasizes the personal nature of justice. Fairness takes into account the circumstances of the individuals in each case and provides for a remedy addressed to the defendant, who must act accordingly to provide the plaintiff with the appropriate remedy. Unless a law extends the powers of a court of law, it can only indirectly issue decrees concerning property and formulate them as judgments against persons. These are said to be the two oldest maxims of justice. Everyone agrees with them. Legal maxim, a broad phrase (usually formulated in a fixed Latin form), some of which have been used by jurists since the 17th century or earlier. Some of them date back to early Roman law.
Much more generally than ordinary legal norms, legal maxims generally articulate a legal policy or ideal that judges should take into account when deciding cases. Maxims do not normally have the dogmatic authority of laws and are not normally regarded as laws, except to the extent that they are applied in clear-cut cases. In California, certain maxims have been incorporated into the Civil Code; An example is: “Any person may renounce the benefit of a law intended exclusively for his own benefit. But a law created for public reasons cannot be violated by a private agreement. (For example, an agreement not to invoke the limitation period is binding, but an agreement not to rely on the fact that a particular contract constitutes an unlawful restriction on trade is not.) Another example is: “The law never requires impossibilities”: Lex non cogit ad impossibilia. (Thus, an actor who falls ill is exempt from representation, although his contract does not provide for it.) A confiscation is the total loss of a right or thing because something is not done properly. A total loss is usually a rather severe punishment. If a sanction is not proportionate to the seriousness of the fault, it is too severe. In the interests of fairness and clear conscience, a fair court will reject unreasonable forfeiture. This maxim applies particularly strongly to land ownership, an interest that the law greatly respects. Ownership of land should never be lost for some trivial reason – for example, a delay of a few days in completing a transaction for the purchase of a home.
This maxim precludes redress for anyone guilty of improper conduct in this case. It prevents the person with “dirty hands” from receiving a positive recovery, no matter how unfairly the person`s opponent treated them. The maxim is the basis of the doctrine of pure hands. Its purpose is to protect the integrity of the court. Not only does it deplore illegal acts, but it also refuses to facilitate bad behaviour, which should be discouraged for reasons of public order. A court will ask if the misconduct was intentional. This rule is not intended to punish recklessness or error. It is possible that the illegal behaviour is not an act but an omission. For example, someone who hires an agent to represent him and sits silently while the agent misleads another party in the negotiations is just as responsible for false statements as if he had made them himself. Maxims were originally quoted in Latin, and many Latin expressions remain familiar to lawyers in the early 2000s. The maxims were not written into an organized code or promulgated by legislators, but they were passed down from generation to generation by judges.