![]() It is upon that ground the court goes not for the sake of the defendant, but because they will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff. If, from the plaintiff's own standing or otherwise, the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa, or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the court says he has no right to be assisted. No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. The principle of public policy is this ex dolo malo non oritur actio. It is not for his sake, however, that the objection is ever allowed but it is founded in general principles of policy, which the defendant has the advantage of, contrary to the real justice, as between him and the plaintiff, by accident, if I may say so. The objection, that a contract is immoral or illegal as between plaintiff and defendant, sounds at all times very ill in the mouth of the defendant. ![]() Lord Mansfield CJ held that the agreement could be enforced because the seller had himself done nothing unlawful. The claimant brought an action for non-payment, and the defendant contended that it could not be enforced because the contract was unlawful. The method of payment was meant to be by bills of exchange drawn in England. The claimant knew it was intended to be smuggled into England, though was not concerned with the smuggling scheme. ![]() The claimant, who lived in Dunkirk, sold tea to the defendant. ![]() It is also possibly the first case in English law where the court explicitly recognised that aspects of a claim before the court might be adjudicated according to foreign law. Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341 is an English contract law case, concerning the principles behind illegal transactions. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |