Jus in personam – Right against a specific person (or party).
Meaning of Jus in Personam
Jus in personam is a Latin term that literally means “a right against a person”.
It refers to a legal right that a person (the creditor or claimant) has against a specific individual (the debtor or obligor).
It is personal in nature, meaning the right exists only against a particular person, not against the world at large.
This contrasts with jus in rem, which is a right enforceable against everyone regarding a property or thing.
Key Features of Jus in Personam
Against a Specific Person: Only enforceable against a designated individual or party.
Arises from Obligation: Usually arises out of contract, tort, or personal obligation.
Personal Remedy: The remedy is directed at the specific person to perform, compensate, or refrain from doing something.
Not Against the World: Unlike property rights, jus in personam is not enforceable against strangers.
Examples
Contractual Obligation:
A owes B ₹50,000 under a loan agreement.
B has jus in personam against A to recover the money.
Tort Claim:
If X injures Y in an accident, Y has jus in personam against X to claim damages.
Service or Performance:
An artist contracted to paint a portrait for a client has jus in personam to demand payment, and the client is obligated to pay.
Legal Context in India
Indian Contract Act, 1872:
Most contractual rights are jus in personam, as they bind only the parties to the contract.
Example: Section 73 – Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract.
Tort Law:
Rights to damages for personal injury are jus in personam because the right is against the specific wrongdoer.
Difference Between Jus in Personam and Jus in Rem
| Feature | Jus in Personam | Jus in Rem |
|---|---|---|
| Against Whom | Specific person | Everyone in the world |
| Nature | Personal right | Property/right in rem |
| Example | Contractual debt | Ownership of land |
| Remedy | Specific performance, compensation | Possession, injunction, property recovery |
Case Law Examples
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893) 1 QB 256
The court recognized that Mrs. Carlill had a jus in personam right against the company to enforce the promise.
This right existed only against that specific company, not the world at large.
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
Right to claim damages for breach of contract is personal to the parties involved.
Indian Case – Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1866) LR 1 Ex 109
Right to claim refund for a contract was jus in personam, enforceable only against the party who breached.
Summary
Jus in personam = personal right against a specific person.
Arises mainly in contracts, torts, and personal obligations.
Remedy is directed only at the person liable, not enforceable against everyone.
Contrasts with jus in rem, which is a universal right against all.
RELATED Blog
0 comments