Write a 12 page essay on An Introduction to Law.However in this scenario, the court only considers the legal rules and principles decided in the earlier case. The court is not bound by the complete de

Write a 12 page essay on An Introduction to Law.

However in this scenario, the court only considers the legal rules and principles decided in the earlier case. The court is not bound by the complete decision of the previous case. It is the holding of the principle of the law on which the case gets decided. It is the Ratio-Decidendi that sets the precedent and it's binding on the courts in future and it should be considered in combination to their facts of the case1. Obiter dicta actually mean "outside words". While in law, it is measured as the extra comments made by the judges during the proceedings. These are usually some examples which are related and judge discusses them. It should not be misunderstood as a part of precedent like Ratio Decidendi.

The obiter dictum is the language in a decision that is not necessary to the decision. The guiding principles on which the judge and the court give the decision are the Ration of the case and other than this all the other statements made by the single judge or the bench is called the Obiter Dicta. Obiter Dictis is also known as the passing statements. A bench comprises of three judges, if one of the judge dissents against the judgment of the other two judges than the majority view would be called the Ratio Decidend.i Whereas, the dissenting judgment would be part of the obiter dicta of the whole judgment. Ratio Decidendi is binding on the lower courts as they act in the form of examples for them. Obiter Dicta can be just influential but not compulsory. It is also true that the part of the judgment that forms the part of Obiter Dicta are not wholly irrelevant and in some cases under the English legal system have espoused some important legal principles that have acted as a guiding force in a number of later decisions.

Obiter Dicta act as a persuasive statement under the English legal system which is not binding. Although, some cases have elaborated on this part of the judgment and have come up with extensive and thorough analysis that though part of the obiter dicta of the judgment have later on acted as persuasive statements and as a guiding light in a number of subsequent cases in the English legal system2.

Like in the case of 'Mama v. Flora Sasoon 55 IA360', the Privy Council's full judgment on the case of specific performance was obiter dicta as the Privy Council held 'there was no concluded contract at all'. However, the decision is binding on all courts as it settled the law on particular performance.

Similarly, in 'Lawson v. Commissioner of Patents (1970), 62 C.P.R. 101 (Ex. Ct.)'

The ratio decidendi or the decision was claiming straight to the "subdivided parcel of land" also does not fall within the description of "invention" in section 2. Especially, a sub-divided parcel of land is not represented as either an "art" or "manufacture" in section 2.

The Court gave this narrow ratio, but also discussed in an elaborated manner if a method of subdividing land might constitute an "art" under section 2 (concluding that it would not), even though no such method claim was put before the Court to be decided.

An ideal instance of both ratio decidendi and obiter dictum can be found in the judgment in the most famous of all insurance law cases, Castellain v. Preston (1883) in which the principle of indemnity in