Talk:Paradine v Jane
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Comment on "Judgment" section:
Under the "Judgment" section in the article, the more important distinction the court is making is between laws created by the state versus "private laws" created by individuals in a contract. In the former case, the "law of waste" is an ancient common law where tenants can be held liable to treble (triple) damages and injunctions for causing changes (usually negative) to the property, for example neglecting to repair a roof or intentionally chopping down trees. The judges were saying that in the event of a storm or of enemies causing such damage, the tenant would be excused. In contrast, a party would not be excused from contractual obligations, because it freely enters into them and has the ability to specify in the contract what is to happen should a natural disaster or foreign invasion act with relation to something that is the subject of the contract.
Start a discussion about improving the Paradine v Jane page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Paradine v Jane" page.
