No injury is done to a willing person.
The legal maxim is of latin origin meaning those who voluntarily agree to danger cannot ask remedy for the same. In literal meaning the maxim means that when a person agrees to danger then he cannot file a complaint for any damages suffered by him during the process. Here, it is necessary the consent was taken freely and voluntarily by the person and was not obtained by illegal means, and that the person was aware of what he might be subjecting himself to.
If a person decides to jump into the cage of the lion in the zoo voluntarily, then he can’t sue the zoo for damages.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gonti Eliza David, (1984 ACJ8)
The Bombay High Court held that if the driver had suffered the injury due to his rash and negligent driving, following the maxim of“volenti non fit injuria” a claim could not have been maintainable.
The literal meaning of the maxim is "Agreements must be kept".
The literal meaning of the maxim is "Agreements must be kept". It is the principle used in the International Law, which means "all the signatories should uphold international treaties". The rule is based upon the principle of "Good Faith". The Good faith indicates that a party cannot invoke the provisions of the domestic law as justification for a failure to perform. The only limit to the maxim is peremptory norms of general international law known as “jus cogens” which denotes the meaning “Compelling law”.
Let the buyer beware
It is a Latin term of principle which implies that the buyers must be be aware and warned of the integrity of the product that they are about to purchase.
The act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty mind.
It is a Latin maxim, which means that for any act to be illegal in nature it must be done with a guilty mind. Hence, act done without any intention cannot be punished. Not only is the act of the accused important but also the intention of the accused to do the specific act is equally important to prove the guilt of the accused. Hence, it can be said that mere breach of law is not sufficient to constitute a crime.