Points of distinction between question of law and question of fact

Points of distinction between question of law and question of fact

1. Introduction:
 2. Question Of Law:
According to Salmond, the term question of law is used in three distinct, thought related senses.
I. In The First Sense
Questions Authoritatively Answered By Law:
 II. In The Second Sense
Interpretation Of Statutory Provision:
 III. In The Third Sense
Questions To Be Answered By Judges:
 (i) General Rule:
 (ii) Exceptions:
3. Question Of Fact:
The term question of fact is also two different senses:
I. Wider sense
II. Narrow sense
I. Wider Sense:
 According to Salmond:
A question of fact means any question
(i) Which is not previously determined by a rule of law.
(ii) Other than question as to what the law is.
(iii) Which is to be answered by the jury and not the judge.
II. Narrow Sense:
 Illustration:
 4. Mixed Question Of Law And Fact:
5. Transformation Of Questions Of Fact Into Law:
 6. Difference Between Question Of Law And Fact:
 (i) Relation:

(ii)As to Proof:

(iii)As to conversion:
 (iv) Duty of Judge:
 (v) As to Authoritatively Answered:
 (vi) Nature:

7. Conclusion:
 

‘The answer to a question of fact (a "finding of fact") is usually dependent on particular circumstances or factual situations.”

To illustrate the difference:

·         Question of fact: Did Mr. and Mrs. Jones leave their 10-year-old child home alone with their baby for 4 days?

·         Question of law: Does leaving a baby with a 10-year old child for 4 days fit the legal definition of child neglect?

Child neglect is a form of child maltreatment

In jurisprudence, a question of law (also known as a point of law) is a question which must be answered by applying relevant legal principles, by an interpretation of the law.  Answers to questions of law are generally expressed in terms of broad legal principles, and are capable of being applied to many situations, rather than being dependent on particular circumstances or factual situations. An answer to a question of law as applied to the particular facts of a case is often referred to as a "conclusion of law".

To illustrate the difference:

·         Question of fact: Did Mr. and Mrs. Jones leave their 10 year-old child home alone with their baby for 4 days?

·         Question of law: Does leaving a baby with a 10-year old child for 4 days fit the legal definition of child neglect?

An issue that involves the resolution of a factual dispute or controversy and is within the sphere of the decisions to be made by a jury.

A question of fact is a factual dispute between litigants that must be resolved by the jury at trial. It is an issue that is material to the outcome of the case and requires an interpretation of conflicting views on the factual circumstances surrounding the case.

A question of fact is best understood by comparing it to a Question of Law. Whether a particular issue in a civil case is a question of fact or law is significant because it can determine whether a party wins the case on Summary Judgment. Summary judgment is a judgment on the merits of the case without a trial. A civil respondent may move for summary judgment at any time after the suit has been filed, but a plaintiff generally must wait a short period after filing the suit (for the defendant to respond) before moving for summary judgment. In determining whether to grant a motion for summary judgment, a court may consider admissions by the parties in their pleadings, answers to interrogatories and depositions, and affidavits of personal knowledge of facts.

A court will order summary judgment in a civil case if there is no genuine issue of fact and, based on the undisputed facts, the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a Matter of Law. If a case does not involve any questions of fact, the only issues are questions of law, so the fact-finding process of a trial is not needed.s

To illustrate, suppose that a plaintiff files suit to enforce an agreement to buy a plot of real estate. The respondent declares in her answer that the agreement was oral, and the plaintiff does not deny that the agreement was oral. The court could then order summary judgment in favor of the respondent because a contract for the sale of land must be in writing to be enforceable. Assuming that no other issues are involved, the admission that the agreement was oral eliminates the only material question of fact in the case. The only issue the court would have to decide would be a question of law: whether an oral agreement for the sale of land is enforceable. It is not, so the plaintiff would lose the case without the benefit of a trial because there are no material facts for a fact finder to decide.

At any stage in a proceeding, before or during trial, a judge may have to determine whether to let a jury decide a particular issue. In making this determination, the judge considers whether the issue is a question of law or a question of Fact. If the question is one of fact, it should be decided by the jury at trial. If the question is one of law, the judge may decide it without affording the parties the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses to the jury.

An issue may be characterized on appeal as” a mixed question of law and fact.” A mixed question occurs when the facts surrounding the case are admitted and the rule of the applicable law is undisputed; the issue then is whether the Rule of Law was correctly applied to the established facts. In a criminal case, for example, assume that a trial court, over the objection of the defendant, allows the prosecution to present evidence that the defendant was identified as the perpetrator. If the defendant is found guilty and challenges the identification procedure on appeal, the question is one of both law and fact. The appeals court must decide whether the trial court correctly applied the law on due process in identification procedures to the particular identification procedure used in the case. In such a case, the appeals court will scrutinize both the facts and the trial judge's rulings on questions of law.

Question of fact

n. in a lawsuit or criminal prosecution, an issue of fact in which the truth or falsity (or a mix of the two) must be determined by the "trier of fact" (the jury or the judge in a non-jury trial) in order to reach a decision in the case. A "question of fact" may also be raised in a motion for summary judgment which asks the court to determine whether there are any questions of fact to be tried, allowing the judge to rule on the case (usually to dismiss the complaint) at that point without a trial. "Questions of fact" are distinguished from "questions of law," which can only be decided by the judge.

It is basically what it sounds like. A question of law is when one side sights a law or case law that will show his claim has merit as this law or case law applies. So, a question of law is when the ruling judges decide if their sights really do apply to their case or if it has been misapplied. It mainly goes to the interpretation of the laws.

Whereas a question of fact is when in a case facts are disputed. Lets say one side claims this a certain pattern or sequence of events and the other side claims a completely different sequence of events. Then, the questions of facts are in dispute. Facts of the case are just that, but they have to be proven before they can be placed or submitted and accepted as the final facts of the case.