An incidental remark or opinion by a judge that is not binding.
The legal maxim is of latin origin meaning “said in passing” or an “incidental statement”. The maxim roughly translates to “by the way” and it refers to a statement a person said in passing. While talking in legal terms this maxim refers to a persuasive statement only and it is an unnecessary passage in a judicial opinion. Such statements are not supported by the force of precedent but may be significant to the case.
The acknowledgment of the salary of the accused in the case of trespass was “obiter dictum” to the case.
Mohandas Issardas v. A.N Sattanathan, (AIR 1955 Bom)
While answering a few questions about “whether an obiter dictum of the Supreme Court was as much binding upon the High Court as an express decision given by the Supreme Court”, the court observed that: Obiter dictum was an expression of opinion on a point, which was not necessary to the decision of the case.
Against the morals or customs
This legal maxim is of latin origin meaning against morals, or customs, or good way of life. All contracts are considered illegal if they are contra bonos mores. These can be reduced to several classes: (1}Incentive to crime, which is a claim that cannot be sustained, therefore, on a bond for compounding a crime or for procuring a pardon. (2}Indecent consideration, or mischievous consideration, is an obligation or engagement which is either prejudicial to the feelings of a third party, or offensive to decency or morality, is void.
Statement of falsehood
The legal maxim is of latin origin meaning a statement of falsehood or, in simpler words, a false statement. Suggestio falsi is feeding someone lies intentionally to benefit out of it and put the other person in loss. This act amounts to a fraud when the party was bound to disclose the truth in the first place to keep the fairness of the contract. Suggestio falsi is a ground to rescind an agreement or to avoid carrying it to execution.
A delegate cannot further delegate.
This Latin maxim means that a person to whom a power is delegated cannot further delegate that power. That person cannot sub-delegate that power to someone else. No sub-delegation can be done in a contract of principle-agent without the knowledge and consent of the principle. This principle is often used in administrative or constitutional law.