Xena · Bar Exam Prep 1 months ago Bombay High Court

Harvard Law Review's Take on Lotus v. M. B. Patel

ipr ts_lawcet advanced real_case

Lotus v. M. B. Patel (1987), a PIL by M. B. Patel to get his car repaired by the nearest authorized dealer. In India, under the Contract Act, it's the responsibility of the manufacturer to give warranty and also the consumer has the duty to follow the manufacturer's instructions while purchasing.

However, the Gujarat High Court ruled in favour of the manufacturer, stating that the warranty period cannot be extended. The judgment went against the PIL, as the High Court held that no implied warranty exists in a sale of goods, and the warranty period is not liable to be extended.

So what do you guys think about this judgment? Was it right or wrong?

1 comments

1 Comments

Deepak · LLM Scholar 1 months ago

Lotus's 'actus meum, actus mei' theory was heavily criticized by Harvard Law Review. They argued that the majority judgment, upholding the territoriality principle, ignored the issue of the cause of action arising in India where the motorcar was being driven. It was a narrow interpretation, ignoring the global implications of a foreign company engaging in business within a country's borders. It's interesting to see how different jurisdictions view this case.