Skip to content

CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Law of Torts

Ramesh, a shopkeeper in Indore, lawfully set up a new store next to Suresh's old shop. Suresh lost many customers to the new store and suffered heavy financial loss, but Ramesh broke no legal rule. Which statement best reflects the law of torts?

Suresh has no remedy. Loss caused by lawful competition is damnum sine injuria, meaning damage without violation of a legal right, and it is not actionable in tort. A tort needs infringement of a legal right, not merely financial loss.

  1. ASuresh can recover damages because he suffered actual loss
  2. BSuresh has no remedy because loss without violation of a legal right (damnum sine injuria) is not actionableCorrect
  3. CSuresh can recover because Ramesh's act caused him harm
  4. DSuresh can recover only if he proves Ramesh acted with bad motive

Explanation

Damnum sine injuria means actual loss without infringement of a legal right, and it gives no cause of action. Lawful competition infringes no legal right of Suresh. Option 0 is wrong because loss alone is not enough in tort.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Law of Torts shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Law of TortsFree diagnostic mock

More Law of Torts questions