Skip to content

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

Which statement about the role of motive in determining liability for a wrongful act in tort is correct in general?

Motive is generally irrelevant when an act is lawful and violates no legal right. A bad motive does not turn a lawful act into a tort, as held in Bradford Corporation v Pickles, though motive matters in specific torts like malicious prosecution.

  1. AA lawful act becomes a tort whenever done with a bad motive
  2. BMotive is generally irrelevant if the act is lawful and no legal right is violatedCorrect
  3. CMotive is the sole test of liability in negligence
  4. DA good motive always excuses an act that violates a legal right

Explanation

As a general rule, a lawful act does not become unlawful merely because of a bad motive, as in Mayor of Bradford v Pickles. Equally, a good motive does not excuse violation of a legal right. Motive matters only in limited torts such as malicious prosecution.

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