วีดีโอ

Dear, Thank you for asking clarifications. Let me 1st clear the meaning of both the law of torts and law of tort- See, the "Law of Torts" suggests that there is a predefined list of specific torts (like negligence, trespass, defamation, etc.), and only wrongful acts that fit into these categories are actionable. This approach does not limit the number of wrongful acts that can be considered, but it does limit the types of torts recognized. However, the "Law of Torts" approach allows for some flexibility to recognize new forms of torts 'within the existing categories', although it primarily relies on predefined types of wrongful acts. On the other hand, the "Law of Tort" does not restrict either the number of torts or the consideration of actionable wrongful acts. It allows for the creation of new types of torts if a wrongful act does not fit into the existing categories, making it ‘more flexible’ and adaptable to societal changes. See for example traditionally, trespass involved unauthorized physical entry, but it has evolved to include indirect interference, like air pollution, which is now a form of nuisance. Similarly, Negligence, once confined to clear elements like duty of care, now spans areas like medical and product liability. Defamation has expanded from spoken and written statements to online statements on social media and blogs. The "Law of Torts" provides a structured framework, while the "Law of Tort" allows flexibility to recognize new wrongful acts as society changes. Now, let us come to the question - see the statement 1 i.e. The "Law of Torts" approach suggests that there is a well-defined list of actionable wrongs. The "Law of Torts" does provide a structured framework with a recognized list of specific torts (such as negligence, trespass, and defamation etc). However, the term "well-defined list" might imply that this list is entirely fixed and inflexible, which is not accurate. The "Law of Torts" approach allows for some flexibility to recognize new forms of torts within the existing categories, although it primarily relies on predefined types of wrongful acts. While the statement is partially true, it does not mean that the list is entirely fixed or inflexible. Therefore, this statement is not fully accurate. Also, see the statement 3 i.e. According to the "Law of Torts," new forms of torts cannot be recognized unless they fit into existing categories. The "Law of Torts" suggests a structured list of recognized torts, but it allows for the recognition of new forms of torts if they align with the principles of the existing categories. While the list is structured, it is not entirely inflexible. Considering this, statements 2 and 4 correctly represent the essence of the debate, while statement 3 oversimplifies the flexibility of the "Law of Torts" approach. I hope this has clarified your doubt. If you have more questions or need further clarifications, feel free to ask! 😊👍

@THELEGALRESEARCHER-bi5zj thankyou for such detailed explanation!

Yes, I'm currently in India. Regarding your question about legal structures, it's important to note that while treaties between countries can influence certain legal principles or agreements, each country typically maintains its own distinct legal system. India's legal system is influenced by its colonial past under British rule, which means it has a lot in common with the common law system found in the UK and the US. However, India has also developed its own unique legal framework tailored to its diverse cultural and social context. India does not have multiple legal structures based on caste or location; it has a single unified legal system that applies across the country. However, there are personal laws that apply to different religious communities, such as Hindu, Muslim, Christian, and others, particularly in matters of marriage, divorce, and inheritance. These personal laws are a significant aspect of India's legal system and reflect the country's commitment to accommodating its diverse population. Interestingly, the Constitution of India does aim to develop a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India, as outlined in Article 44 of the Directive Principles. However, this has not been implemented yet due to various social, cultural, and political factors. I hope this clarifies things! If you have any more questions or need further details, feel free to ask. 👍

Thank you so much for your kind words and support! 😊❤ Let's keep learning and growing together! 📚