The word ‘Jus’ means the legal authority to do or

demand something, and the word ‘remedium’ means the right of action in a Court of law.

Literal meaning of this maxim is that whenever there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy .

Sometimes it is expressed that there is no wrong without a remedy .

Ubi jus ibi remedium

In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall

endorsed the common law requirement mandating a remedy for every wrong:

It is a general and indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law, whenever that right is invaded.

For it is a settled and invariable principle in the law, that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.

This maxim literally means that an action does not

arise from an immoral cause.

According to the law of torts , the damage sustained by the plaintiff must be a legal damage or the injury must be a legal injury.

When the damage or injury is sustained in any immoral manner no cause of action arises in favourof the plaintiff .

Ex Turpi Causa Non OriturActio.

Hegarty v. Shine, L. R. 4 Ir. 288 (1878), where the

plaintiff, who was the defendant's mistress, sought to recover in trespass for assault and battery for venereal infection, claiming that though she had consented to intercourse, her consent was procured by the defendant's fraudulent concealment of his disease, and therefore the act of intercourse was an assault upon her.

The case was complicated by the fact that the relations

between the parties were immoral and that there were no false statements made of existing fact but merely concealment of a fact which, in view of the illegal relation of the parties, there was no duty to disclose.

But the opinions of the majority of the judges in the Court of Queen's Bench and of all the judges in the Court of Exchequer Chamber proceeded on the broad ground that a fraud, which induced consent to an act, had whose nature was known/(unknown), did not vitiate consent so as to make such an act an assault.

In Regina v. Clarence, 16 Cox C. C. 511 (1888), it was

held that a husband could not be convicted of a criminal assault upon his wife, by having intercourse with her while to his knowledge he was infected with venereal disease, she being ignorant of his condition.

The maxim ‘ qui facit per alium facit per se ‘ means that

he who does an act through another does it by himself .

This maxim is the origin of the principle of vicarious liability which says that the master or principal is responsible for his servant’s or agent’s act .

Or in other words the master or principal is held liable for his servant’s or agent’s work .

When a servant is entrusted by his master to do some kinds of works , on behalf of or in absence of the master , the servant is left to determine everything arise according to the circumstances .

Qui facit per alium facit per se .

The servant is entrusted the manner in which the work is

to be done . So the master is answerable for the wrongs or omissions of his servant , so entrusted to do the act .

According to this maxim , the master or principal is held liable either for the manner of doing such work by his servant or the work ought not to have been done by his servant under such circumstances .

But it is to be kept in mind that the master is not held liable , if the servant does the act under sudden desire , during the course of his employment , without being entrusted at all .