Obiter Dicta

Obiter dicta can be described as thoughts or observations stated in a case that are not directly relevant
to the outcome of the case. It somehow can help or guide in future court decisions. Regarding to the case
Emile Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate company, it was laid down that the observations of Lordship
in the Appeal Court were made obiter. For instance, Lord Penzence, one of the judges in the case has
mentioned about the maxims of equity that somehow can be related to the case. He stated that how
maxims of equity can help determined judgment in the case. The lord mentioned about on how Courts of
Equity have given protection and relief against the pressure of unfair advantage resulting from the relation
and mutual position of the parties to those relations such as principal and agent, trustee and the
beneficiary of trust, parent and child, guardian and ward, priest and penitent and others.

Next, Lord Hatherly gives some analogy regarding on how term fraud can precedence to the discussed
case. He gives several case can lead to fraud. The first is between vendor and purchaser. He stated that
vendor cannot do what was at one time asserted by this bill, namely, disclose what he has paid in effecting
his own anterior purchase before asking an enhanced price from him to whom he seeks to sell the
property. Next, between partner and co-partner. The lord stated that partners must have a good faith in
each other so that they can avoid fraud happened between them. If good faith is absence in making the
decision, then it can lead to fraud. Last, between an agent for a purchaser receives a gratuity from the
vendor. Agent for purchaser should aware by not receiving any gratuity from the vendor as it will be seen
as bribe and soon it can question the validity of the contract.