Talk:Paradine v Jane

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment on "Judgment" section:

Under the "Judgment" section in the article, the more important distinction the court is making is between laws created by the state versus "private laws" created by individuals in a contract. In the former case, the "law of waste" is an ancient common law where tenants can be held liable to treble (triple) damages and injunctions for causing changes (usually negative) to the property, for example neglecting to repair a roof or intentionally chopping down trees. The judges were saying that in the event of a storm or of enemies causing such damage, the tenant would be excused. In contrast, a party would not be excused from contractual obligations, because it freely enters into them and has the ability to specify in the contract what is to happen should a natural disaster or foreign invasion act with relation to something that is the subject of the contract.