According to Professor Ernest J. Weinrib, corrective justice is the idea that liability rectifies the injustice inflicted by one person on another. This idea is based on the fact that the parties are considered to be in an initial equilibrium stage before entering the contract but when this contract is breached one party (usually the defendant) gains while the other (usually the plaintiff) suffers from the contract. Corrective justice is the notion of correcting this inequality by giving back to the party that has suffered and taking away from the party that has wrongfully gained, thereby restoring the initial equality that the parties were in before entering the contract.
Considering this theory of Weinrib’s corrective justice, and the trial …show more content…
Distributive justice deals with the sharing of a benefit or burden; it compares the parties to the distribution in terms of a distributive criterion. Unlike corrective justice, distributive justice involves more than two parties and links all parties through the benefit or burden they all share. Weinrib draws a clear distinction between corrective and distributive justice as categorically different structures of justification, but in my opinion, there is no clear distinction between the two. To explain this further take the example of the Bhopal gas tragedy case. Union Carbide v Union of India was a landmark case where about 41 metric tonnes of methyl isocyanate (MIC) was accidentally released from the Union Carbide India Limited pesticide plant. This gas spread slowly southward from the plant site during the early morning hours of December 3, 1984. Of the 9,00,000 population within the city, over 2,00,000 people were exposed to MIC tainted air. Documented death counts are listed at 3,787. The number of undocumented deaths will never be known, but estimates are over 10,000. Union Carbide was held absolutely liable for the tragedy and was to compensate to the victims of the tragedy. The was a blanket compensation i.e. the compensation was equally distributed among the victims of the disaster, indicating that there was no corrective justice but an equity based distributive justice given to the victims. This …show more content…
In the civil litigation process, if there are multiple people involved in the case, then it becomes difficult to determine what right has been infringed upon and by whom. It makes the issue uncertain and unclear, thereby making the delivery of justice uncertain and
Considering this theory of Weinrib’s corrective justice, and the trial …show more content…
Distributive justice deals with the sharing of a benefit or burden; it compares the parties to the distribution in terms of a distributive criterion. Unlike corrective justice, distributive justice involves more than two parties and links all parties through the benefit or burden they all share. Weinrib draws a clear distinction between corrective and distributive justice as categorically different structures of justification, but in my opinion, there is no clear distinction between the two. To explain this further take the example of the Bhopal gas tragedy case. Union Carbide v Union of India was a landmark case where about 41 metric tonnes of methyl isocyanate (MIC) was accidentally released from the Union Carbide India Limited pesticide plant. This gas spread slowly southward from the plant site during the early morning hours of December 3, 1984. Of the 9,00,000 population within the city, over 2,00,000 people were exposed to MIC tainted air. Documented death counts are listed at 3,787. The number of undocumented deaths will never be known, but estimates are over 10,000. Union Carbide was held absolutely liable for the tragedy and was to compensate to the victims of the tragedy. The was a blanket compensation i.e. the compensation was equally distributed among the victims of the disaster, indicating that there was no corrective justice but an equity based distributive justice given to the victims. This …show more content…
In the civil litigation process, if there are multiple people involved in the case, then it becomes difficult to determine what right has been infringed upon and by whom. It makes the issue uncertain and unclear, thereby making the delivery of justice uncertain and