Question

Principle: Damage without the violation of a legal right is not actionable in a court of law. If the interference with the rights of another person is not unlawful or unauthorized, but a necessary consequence of the exercise of defendant's own lawful rights, no action should lie.

Facts: There was an Established School ('ES') in a particular locality. Subsequently, a New School ('NS') was set up in the same locality, which charged lower fees, on account of which people started patronizing the new school. Because of the competition, 'ES' had to reduce its fees. 'ES' filed a case against 'NS' saying that 'NS' had caused it ('ES') financial loss and thus claimed compensation. Which of the following derivations is correct?

Options

• Since no legal right of 'ES' had been violated, therefore, as such no compensation could be granted

• Since, damage is caused to 'ES', therefore, it should be awarded compensation

• 'ES' should be awarded compensation, as opening of school in competition is not good

• No compensation could be granted, as reduction in fees is good for the public

Answer 1

Since no legal right of 'ES' had been violated, therefore, as such no compensation could be granted

Explanation:

According to the Law of Torts, there is a legal maxim  'damnum sine injuria' which means causing damage without the violation of a legal right.  In the given situation, no legal right of 'ES' has been violated by establishing a New School (NS) in the same locality which charged low fees. So, no compensation could be granted.