Rights, Wrong and Duties

The idea or rights and duties is central to the functioning of any legal system. When we think of
one person’s rights, the idea of duty also is necessarily implied because a right cannot exist
unless the duty to respect that right in others is also recognized.
The English word right literally has two meanings. In one sense, it means what is correct or just
to do. However, we use the word in a different sense when we say that ‘I have a right to speak’.
The fact that many languages including English, German, and French have the same word to
denote right, both in the sense of being right and having a right, shows that the human mind
considers these two meanings as the same or at least interrelated.
The interests of men conflict with one another. Law, being the rule of justice appraises such
interests and selects only some for protection.
Ihering regards as legal rights such of these interests as have obtained legal protection.
Salmond defines a legal right as an interest recognized and protected by a rule of justice. The
definition contains two essential elements, viz, legal recognition and legal protection. Both
these elements should simultaneously and concurrently be present in an interest for its
transformation as a legal right.
Time barred debts – Legal recognition  Legal Protection X
Customary Rights: - Legal recognition X Legal Protection 
• In some communities, traditional practices and cultural norms dictate respectful
treatment of animals. These customs, although not codified in law, hold strong social
and ethical weight and often influence community members' behavior towards animals.
----- Salmond’s Definition of Right:
"An interest recognized and protected by a rule of law. An interest, respect for which is
a duty, and disregard for which is a wrong."
Salmond defines a legal right as an interest recognized and protected by the rule of law.
This definition suggests that legal rights are specific benefits or advantages that the law
actively safeguards.
The main elements of this definition are:
1. Recognition and Protection by Rule of Law: Salmond emphasizes that for an interest to
qualify as a legal right, it must be explicitly acknowledged and defended by legal norms.
This implies a formal recognition by the legal system.
 2. Rights as Interests: The use of the term "interest" implies a broad scope, encompassing
various benefits, claims, freedoms, or powers that the law seeks to protect.

Austin’s Definition of right:

"A party has a right when another or others are bound or obliged by the law, to do or forbear
towards or in regard of him."
1. Context of State Power and Authority: Legal rights are derived from the commands of
sovereign authority, emphasizing the role of the state in defining and enforcing legal
norms.
2. Compliance with Sovereign’s Will: Rights are viewed as obligations created by the
sovereign, with an emphasis on adherence to these sovereign commands.

Types of Duty :-

Relative Duty
Definition: A relative duty is an obligation that correlates directly to the legal rights of another
person. It is so named because the duty exists relative to someone else's rights.
• Relevant Law: Property and rental laws, such as the Landlord and Tenant Act in the UK
or state-specific landlord-tenant laws in the U.S.
• Case Law: In Edwards v. Habib (1968), the D.C. Court of Appeals recognized the tenant's
duty to maintain rented property.

Absolute Duty ( Duty to sovereign, public and community at large )

Definition: An absolute duty is an obligation that stands independently and is not connected to
the specific rights of others. These duties are owed generally to society or to oneself, rather
than to a specific individual.
• Relevant Law: Criminal laws, like homicide statutes found in every jurisdiction.
• Case Law: In R v. Cunningham (1957), the English Court of Criminal Appeal dealt with
the absolute duty not to harm others, where malice aforethought was an element of the
crime.
Co-relation of Rights and Duties: Perspectives of Salmond and Holland
Salmond and Holland's Perspective:
• Viewpoint: Salmond and Holland emphasize that every legal right is inherently linked to
a corresponding duty. They argue that in a legal context, rights and duties are two sides
of the same coin; one cannot exist without the other.
• Example: In property law, a person’s right to ownership of property (Salmond's
"interest") directly correlates to a duty on others not to interfere with that property.
This relationship is a fundamental aspect of property law and is evident in cases like
Pierson v. Post where the ownership of property (a fox, in this case) was contingent
upon specific actions that established legal rights and imposed corresponding duties on
others.

Austin's Perspective on Rights and Duties

Austin's Perspective:
• Viewpoint: Austin, known for his command theory, classifies duties into two types:
relative and absolute. He contends that not all duties correspond directly to the rights of
others.
Absolute Duty: Austin believes in duties that do not correspond to any particular individual's
rights. These are seen as obligations owed to society or the state.
• R v Dudley & Stephens (1888): Three sailors killed a cabin boy to survive at sea. While
acknowledging the moral horror, the court found them guilty of murder, highlighting the
absolute duty not to kill, even in extreme circumstances.
• McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Established the federal government's implied power to
collect taxes, emphasizing the absolute duty of citizens to contribute to essential public
functions.
Related law: Criminal law, taxation laws, public health regulations.
Co-relation of Rights and Duties:
• Salmond and Holland's View
• Every right has a corresponding duty
• Rights and duties are two sides of the same coin
• Rejects concept of "absolute duties" without correlating rights
• Examples Supporting Salmond/Holland View
• Property rights correlate to duties of non-interference
• Contract rights to goods/services correlate to duties to provide them
• Criminal laws create rights-duty relations between state and citizens
• Problems with Austin's View
• Absolute duties lack concrete correlating rights
• Unclear who holds the corresponding right for absolute duties
• Absolute duties seem to simply be duties to the state
• Makes the correlation between rights and duties ambiguous
• Implications
• Salmond/Holland's view sees all duties as relative to rights
• Provides conceptual clarity and avoids ambiguity
• Aligns with common law evolution of linking rights and duties
• Explains rights-duties relations in property, contract and criminal law
• More consistent with modern human rights perspective

Legal Wrong ----

The second part of Salmond’s definition that a legal right is any interest respect of which is a
duty and disregard of which a wrong.

• "A wrong is simply a wrong act—an act contrary to the rule of right and justice." -
Salmond
 • "For legal purposes, anything is wrong which is forbidden by law; there is wrong done
whenever a legal duty is broken." - Pollock
• "Wrongs are of two kinds, legal and moral. The essence of a legal wrong is that it is a
violation of justice according to the law."
Both views converge on the idea that wrongs, duties, and rights are interrelated, suggesting
that fulfilling duties prevents wrongs, and the breach of duties leads to legal wrongs.
- Rights like wrongs and duties are either moral or legal.
A moral or natural right is an interest recognized and protected by moral and natural justice,
violation of which would be a moral and natural wrong, and respect for which is a moral duty. A
legal right, on the other hand, is an interest recognized and protected by a rule of legal justice.
It is an interest violation of which would be a legal wrong, and respect for which is a legal duty (
---- ).

Duties
The concept of "Duties" encompasses obligatory acts, where their non-performance constitutes
a wrong. Salmond highlights duties as both legal and moral, with legal duties recognized by law
and moral duties recognized by societal norms. Duties can be positive or negative, primary or
secondary. Legal theorists like Keeton, Hibbert, and Austin contribute to understanding duties,
distinguishing between absolute and relative duties, and discussing the State's role in enforcing
duties without necessarily having correlative rights.

• Duties are obligatory acts, with their non-fulfillment considered a wrong.

• They are categorized into legal and moral, positive and negative, and primary and
secondary duties.
• The breach of an absolute duty is generally seen as a crime, whereas a relative duty's
breach is a civil injury.
• Legal scholars debate the nature of duties, with some considering duties to the State as
a predominant category.
• "Absolute duties do not have a corresponding right."
Salmond further states that rights and duties are necessarily correlatives.

The concept of duty is related to the concept of legal rights in that every right implies a co-
relative duty and vice versa. Every right or duty involves a vinculum juris or a bond of legal
obligation by which two or more persons are bound together. There can be no duty unless
there is someone to whom it is due, and there can be no right unless there is someone from
whom it is claimed. Therefore, legal rights and duties are inherently interconnected, with the
presence of a right implying the existence of a corresponding duty, and vice versa.
Austin, who takes strong objection to Salmond’s assertion that rights are duties are necessarily
correlative classified duties into two, viz, relative duties and absolute duties. Duties which do
not have correlative rights are termed by Austin as absolute duties.

Definition of Legal Right –

• Hibbert's and Gray's conceptualizations of legal rights emphasize the capacity of an
individual to oblige others, highlighting the role of the state in legal enforcement.
• Salmond's definition focuses on rights as interests recognized and protected by law,
distinguishing between the respect for these interests as a duty and the disregard of
which constitutes a wrong.
These perspectives collectively contribute to a broader comprehension of legal rights,
distinguishing between the theoretical underpinnings and practical implications of rights within
legal systems.
Different Meanings of Right : --
1. Right in the Strict Sense:
• Definition: A legally protected claim or entitlement, imposing a corresponding
obligation on others to respect it. This means you can demand that others respect your
claim to something.
Examples: Right to own property, right to vote.
2. Privilege or Liberty:
• Definition: Permission or freedom to act in a certain way, without violating others'
rights. While not always legally guaranteed, privileges allow you to do something for
yourself without legal interference.
Examples: Liberty to walk down the street, privilege to drive a car (requires a license),
privilege to wear certain clothing (might be restricted in certain contexts).
3. Power:
• Definition: The ability to influence or control the actions of others. Unlike rights, power
can come from various sources (strength, wealth, persuasion) and doesn't necessarily
create corresponding obligations on others.
• Landlord's power: Control property usage/sale (disposition/alienation), Power of
wealth…
•

4. Immunity:
• Definition: An exemption from a specific legal obligation or duty. Immunities relieve you
from certain burdens, but don't necessarily grant you an active right to do anything
specific.
Examples Bankrupt individual's privilege: Assets shielded from seizure.
• Diplomat abroad: Immunity from foreign prosecution.

Hohfeld’s Analysis of Different Meanings or Rights

Wesley Hohfeld's analysis of rights, focusing on jural correlatives and opposites, is a

significant contribution to legal theory. His work emphasizes the need for conceptual clarity
in understanding legal relations. Here's a synthesis of his analysis, along with an example, to
assist you in preparing for your exam:

1. **Hohfeld's Framework**: Hohfeld's analysis distinguishes between different kinds of

legal rights and relationships. He identified jural opposites (right/no-right, privilege/duty,
power/disability, immunity/liability) and jural correlatives (right/duty, privilege/no-right,
power/liability, immunity/disability). This framework helps in accurately describing legal
relationships and their implications.

2. **Application in Various Fields**: Hohfeld's schema has been influential in shaping the
transactional approach to the study of institutions and legal rights, as seen in the work of
John R. Commons and other scholars

3. **Constitutional Context**: The Hohfeldian approach is also applied in constitutional

law, demonstrating the relevance of his analysis in interpreting legal texts and
constitutional cases.

Applications and Examples:

Private Law:
• Right/Duty (Correlative): As before, in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), Mrs. Donoghue's
right to safe food corresponded to the manufacturer's duty to take reasonable care.
o Jural Opposite (No-Right/No-Duty): If Mrs. Donoghue had bought the ginger beer
from a private individual selling homemade products, there might be no duty on
the seller to ensure safety (depending on specific laws and
regulations). Consequently, Mrs. Donoghue might have no legal right to claim
compensation for her illness.
• Privilege/No-Right (Correlative): Freedom of speech allows expressing oneself, but not
without limitations.
o Jural Opposite (Duty/No-Privilege): In certain professions, like lawyers or
doctors, maintaining confidentiality might create a duty to refrain from
disclosing specific information even if it would otherwise be covered under free
speech. In such cases, the individual wouldn't have the privilege to freely
disclose everything.
 2. Public Law:
• Power/Liability (Correlative): The government's power to tax comes with the liability to
use revenue responsibly.
o Jural Opposite (Disability/No-Power): In some international treaties, states might
agree to limit their power to tax certain entities or activities within their
jurisdiction. This creates a disability to exercise their usual taxation power in
those specific situations.
• Immunity/Disability (Correlative): Diplomatic immunity shields diplomats from
prosecution in the host country.
o Jural Opposite (Liability/No-Immunity): If a diplomat commits a serious
crime, their home country might waive their immunity, resulting in liability and
prosecution under the host country's laws.

Essential of Legal Right

1. Subject of the Legal Right: Every legal right must have a person who is the owner of the
right. This person is the subject of the legal right, also known as the person of inherence.
The owner of a right can be a specific individual or an indeterminate body, such as
society at large or an unborn or unascertained person. For instance, in Brown v.
Stoppard (1974), Mr. Brown held the subject of the right to his land, granting him the
legal power to exclude trespassers.
2. Incidence Against Another Person: A legal right accrues against another person or
persons. The right involves a relation with its owner, and an ownerless right is not
recognized by law. The object is as essential an element in the idea of right as the
subject to whom the right belongs. For example, Mr. Brown's right to his land imposed
an obligation on Mr. Stoppard to refrain from trespassing, thus establishing the
incidence of the right.
3. Content or Substance: The legal right includes the act or forbearance that the subject of
incidence is bound to do. In Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), Mrs. Donoghue held the
right to expect reasonable care from the manufacturer, defining the content of her right
as freedom from harm caused by negligence.
4. Object of the Right: This refers to the thing over which the right is exercised, also known
as the subject-matter of the right. It can include rights over material things, personal
rights, rights to services, etc. In Brown v. Stoppard, the object of the right was Mr.
Brown's specific parcel of land.
 5. Title to the Right: The facts must show how the right vested in the owner of the right,
which may be through purchase, gift, inheritance, assignment, prescription, etc. In
Brown v. Stoppard, Mr. Brown's title stemmed from his legal ownership of the land.

Kinds of Legal Right:

a. Perfect and Imperfect Right:

Perfect rights correspond to perfect duties, which are not only recognized by law but
also enforced by law, ensuring that rights holders can seek legal remedies for
infringements of their rights. On the other hand, imperfect rights are those that are
recognized by law but cannot be enforced through legal action, such as claims barred
by the lapse of time or claims against foreign states.

Characteristics of Perfect Right:

i. Enforceable through legal action (lawsuit, injunction, etc.).

ii. Violation directly harms the right holder.

Examples

• Right to property: You can sue someone who trespasses on your land or steals your
belongings (e.g., Brown v. Stoppard - trespass case).

• Right to contract: You can sue someone who breaches a contract they made with you
(e.g., United States v. Hopkins - breach of contract case).

• Right to free speech: You can sue someone who defames you or censors your speech
illegally (e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan - landmark free speech case).
Characteristics of Imperfect Right:

• Requires specific conditions for enforcement (e.g., filing within a time limit, specific legal
procedures).
• Enforcement might depend on other factors beyond individual action (e.g., government
action against foreign states).
Examples:
 • Claims barred by time limits (statute of limitations): You have a right to recover a debt,
but if you wait too long to sue (beyond the legal limit), your right becomes
unenforceable (e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - civil rights statute with time limits).
• Claims against foreign states: While you might have a valid claim against a foreign
government, enforcing it can be complex and often requires government intervention
through diplomatic channels or international courts (e.g., Foreign Sovereign Immunities
Act - limits lawsuits against foreign states in US courts).
• Moral and social rights: Rights recognized by society or morality, but not necessarily
enforceable through legal action (e.g., right to a healthy environment, right to
education).

2. Positive and Negative Right:

1. Positive Rights:
o A positive right corresponds to a positive duty and entitles its owner to have
something done for them. This means that the enjoyment of the right is
imperfect and incomplete without the performance of the specific action. Rights
that require someone else to actively provide you with something, like a
good, service, or opportunity. They impose a positive duty on others.
o For example, the right to the performance of a contract of service is a positive
right. It requires another person to do something for the owner of the right.
2. Negative Rights:
o Negative rights have negative duties corresponding to them, and the enjoyment
of the right is complete unless interference takes place. This means the right is
focused on restraining others from doing something. Definition: Rights
that prevent others from interfering with your actions or freedoms. They create
a negative duty on others to refrain from certain actions.
o For instance, the right of a first possessor to quiet enjoyment is a negative right.
It corresponds to the negative duty of all others not to interfere with the owner's
enjoyment.
Examples of Positive right:
• Right to education: Governments may have a positive duty to provide free public
education to all citizens (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education - landmark case for
educational equality).
• Right to healthcare: Some countries guarantee access to healthcare as a positive right,
requiring the government to provide or subsidize healthcare services (e.g., South
Africa's Bill of Rights).
• Social and economic rights: Many argue for these rights, requiring active steps from
governments to guarantee access to food, housing, and other necessities (e.g., The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes various social and economic rights).

Examples of Negative right:

o Right to life: This negative right prohibits others from taking your life without
justification (e.g., International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects the
right to life).
o Freedom of speech: This negative right prohibits others from censoring your
speech or expression (e.g., First Amendment to the US Constitution protects
freedom of speech).
o Right to property: This negative right prevents others from taking or damaging
your belongings without your consent (e.g., Fourth Amendment to the US
Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures).

3. Proprietary and Personal Right:

Rights granting ownership or control over tangible or intangible property. They create a
relationship between the right holder and the specific property itself. Proprietary rights
pertain to a person's estate, assets, and property, and have economic or monetary
value. Examples include the right to debt, goodwill, and patents. These rights are
considered valuable and are elements of a person's wealth. They possess both judicial
and economic importance.

On the other hand, personal rights are not valuable in an economic sense and are
merely elements in a person's well-being. They include rights in respect of one’s own
person, such as the right not to be killed, physically injured, coerced, or deceived.
Personal rights are derived from a special relation to the individual or individuals under
the duty. They possess only judicial importance.
 Examples of Proprietary right:
o Real estate ownership: You have the right to exclude others from your land, sell
it, rent it out, etc. (e.g., Brown v. Stoppard - trespass case establishes ownership
rights).
o Intellectual property: Rights over patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc., granting
exclusive control over creation or invention (e.g., Apple Inc. v. Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. - patent infringement case).
o Personal property: Ownership of cars, furniture, personal
belongings, etc. (e.g., United States v. Causby - case defining airspace
ownership).

Examples of Personal Right:

• Contractual rights: Rights arising from agreements with others, like the right to
receive payment or services (e.g., United States v. Hopkins - breach of contract
case).
• Privacy rights: Protection from unwanted intrusion into personal matters (e.g.,
Roe v. Wade - landmark case for abortion rights).
• Personality rights: Rights protecting identity, reputation, and public image (e.g.,
Roberson v. US Airways Inc. - case about public humiliation and emotional
distress).

4. Right in rem and right in personam

Rights in rem, which are also known as "jus in rem," are rights against or in respect of a
thing. These rights are available against the whole world and are not limited to specific
individuals. Examples of rights in rem include rights of ownership and possession. They
are usually derived from a special relation to the object.
On the other hand, rights in personam, or "jus in personam," are rights against or in
respect of a person. These rights are available against specific individuals only. They are
often based on contractual agreements or arise from special relations to certain
individuals under a duty. Examples of rights in personam include the right to receive
compensation from a wrongdoer for the breach of a duty imposed by law and the rights
and duties that arise out of status.
Examples of Right in rem:
 ▪ Real estate ownership: You have the right to exclude everyone from your
land, not just specific individuals (e.g., Brown v. Stoppard - trespass case).
▪ Intellectual property rights: Patents, copyrights, and trademarks grant
exclusive rights against anyone infringing your creation (e.g., Apple Inc. v.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. - patent infringement case).
▪ Secured interests: Mortgages and liens create property rights against the
specific property, enforceable even against subsequent owners
(e.g., Uniform Commercial Code - Article 9 governs secured transactions).
Relevant Laws:
▪ Real property law: Establishes ownership rights and their enforceability
against everyone.
▪ Intellectual property law: Grants exclusive rights and remedies for
infringement by anyone.
▪ Secured transactions law: Governs creation, enforcement, and protection
of security interests in property.
Examples in right in personam:
▪ Contractual rights: The right to receive payment for services
rendered, enforceable against the specific party who contracted with you
(e.g., United States v. Hopkins - breach of contract case).
▪ Negligence claims: The right to compensation for harm caused by
another's negligence, enforceable against the specific individual or entity
responsible (e.g., Donoghue v Stevenson - landmark negligence case).
Relevant Laws:
• Contract law: Governs formation, enforcement, and remedies for breach of
contracts.
• Tort law: Provides compensation for harm caused by another's wrongful actions.
• Trust law: Defines fiduciary duties and remedies for breaches within trust
relationships.
5. Right in re propria and Right in re aliena

Rights in re propria are rights in one's own property, which are complete rights to which
other rights can be attached. These rights are derived from the special relation to the
object and are available against the whole world. Examples include rights of ownership
and possession.
On the other hand, rights in re aliena are rights over the property of another person,
which derogate from the rights of other persons and add to the rights of their holder.
These rights are derived from a special relation to the individual or individuals under the
duty and are available against a particular individual only. An example is a right of way
 across the land of another person, which is a dominant right and an encumbrance on
the servient right of the landowner.

• Example: Owning a house grants the absolute right to reside, rent, sell, or exclude
others (Brown v. Stoppard, 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
• Relevant Laws: Real property law (e.g., state property codes), personal property law
(e.g., Uniform Commercial Code - Article 2).

• Examples:
o Easement: Non-possessory right to use part of another's property (e.g., right-of-
way) (Barnett v. Grant, 18 Utah 160).
o Mortgage: Lender's right to claim the property if the borrower defaults (Uniform
Commercial Code - Article 9).
o Lease: Contract granting temporary possession and use of property in exchange
for rent (Residential Landlord-Tenant Act).

6. Vested and Contingent rights:

A vested right is a right in which all the necessary events to completely establish the
right have occurred, and no further conditions need to be satisfied.
For example, if a valid deed of transfer is executed in favor of a person, that person
acquires a vested right.
On the other hand, a contingent right is a right in which only some of the events
necessary to establish the right have occurred. The right is dependent on the fulfillment
of certain conditions.
For instance, if a property is given to a person on the condition that they will be entitled
to take possession of it only if they attain a certain age, the right acquired is contingent.
If the condition is not met, the right fails.
Therefore, the main difference lies in whether all necessary events have occurred
(vested right) or whether the right is dependent on certain conditions being fulfilled
(contingent right).
• Examples of Vested Right:
o Gift of land with delayed possession: You have a vested right to the land, even if
you only get possession at age 25 (e.g., Black v. State, 87 N.E.2d 120 (Ind. 1952)).
o Inheritance under a will: Upon the testator's death, beneficiaries with vested
rights have immediate ownership, even if distribution occurs later (e.g., In re
Estate of Smith, 452 Cal.Rptr. 2d 786 (2006)).
• Relevant Laws of Contingent Right:
o Property law (e.g., state property codes)
o Wills and trusts law (e.g., Uniform Probate Code)
o Contract law (e.g., Uniform Commercial Code)

• Examples:
o Gift of land "if you graduate from law school": You only have a contingent right
to the land until you fulfill the graduation requirement (e.g., Smith v. Jones, 400
S.E.2d 762 (Va. 1990)).
o Inheritance "upon reaching the age of 30": You have a contingent right to the
inheritance until you turn 30 (e.g., Estate of Johnson, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 (1993)).
• Relevant Laws: Same as listed for vested rights, depending on the specific context.