Corrective Justice In A Nutshell Analysis

777 Words4 Pages
Register to read the introduction…This is explained very systematically in Professor Ernest Weinrib’s “Corrective justice in a nutshell”. According to professor Weinrib there are two ways in which justice prevails; one is corrective and the other being distributive. Corrective justice is based on restoration of equality. As explained by Aristotle, he likens the parties ' initial positions to two equal lines. The injustice upsets that equality by adding to one line a segment detached from the other. The correction removes that segment from the lengthened line and returns it to the shortened one. The result is a restoration of the original equality of the two lines. Corrective justice is on an individual transaction level, if one party gains by causing a loss to another in an illegitimate way, corrective justice rectifies it by restoring that gain to the losing party. This can be explained in a very simple way through this example: suppose A is playing cricket in the parking lot where B’s car is parked and A takes a shot causing damage to B’s car worth 5000 rupees, B happening to be present at the sight confronts A for the loss he has incurred. To “restore the equality” A decides to pay B rupees 5000 thereby, relieving B’s loss. This is a very simple example to explain corrective…show more content…
In The Merchant of Venice there is a contract signed between the famous merchant Antonio and the Jewish moneylender Shylock. Shylock lends Antonio money without interest on one condition that if he fails to repay he will have to give shylock a pound of his flesh from where he desires. This contract according to me is immoral and should not be legally validated. Shylock being an arch rival of Antonio decides to enter into a contract with Antonio to settle scores with him. This shows his bad intentions. Shylock very well knew Antonio’s weak financial conditions and need for money, hence taking undue advantage of the same he frames inhuman conditions in the contract knowing that they would be accepted. This shows the freeness of the consent, also the conditions to this contract were totally irrelevant. It talks about giving away a pound of flesh in case money is not returned; indeed this could lead to death. Such conditions are not only inhumane but also irrelevant as it would not monetarily restore the losing party. Hence this contract is immoral on all
Open Document