Ex dolo malo non oritur actio
Latin: No action arises from fraud
A person cannot found a legal claim on his own fraud or deceit. Courts will not help a party enforce rights that arise out of his own fraudulent conduct.
Explained
The maxim states that no right of action arises from fraud (dolus malus, wilful deceit). A court will not lend its aid to a person whose claim depends on a fraud he has committed or joined. It is closely related to ex turpi causa non oritur actio, which bars actions founded on an illegal or immoral cause; ex dolo malo is the narrower form, aimed at deceit.
In Indian contract law the maxim works through the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Section 17 defines fraud. Under Section 23, the consideration or object of an agreement is unlawful if it is fraudulent, and every agreement with an unlawful object or consideration is void, so neither party can enforce it. Illustration (e) to Section 23 makes an agreement to divide gains acquired by fraud void, and Illustration (g) makes void an agreement by an agent that implies a fraud by concealment on his principal. Section 24 extends the result to agreements whose object or consideration is unlawful in part.
The maxim restrains the wrongdoer, not the victim. Where one party's consent is caused by the other's fraud, Section 19 makes the contract voidable at the option of the defrauded party, who may rescind it or insist on performance. The party who practised the fraud cannot rely on it to claim a benefit. Where both parties knowingly joined in the fraud, the court leaves them where it finds them, the position expressed by in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis.
Examiners test the difference between a fraudulent object under Section 23, which makes the agreement void, and fraud inducing consent under Section 19, which makes it voidable, and the relationship between this maxim and ex turpi causa non oritur actio.
What the law says
The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless—
it is forbidden by law; or
is of such a nature that if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; or
Fraudulent object or consideration makes an agreement void
“Fraud” means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto of his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:—
(1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;
(2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;
Defines fraud
When consent to an agreement is caused by coercion,*** fraud or misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.
A party to a contract whose consent was caused by fraud or misrepresentation, may, if he thinks fit, insist that the contract shall be performed, and that he shall be put in the position in which he would have been if the representations made had been true.
Exception.—If such consent was caused by misrepresentation or by silence, fraudulent within the meaning of section 17, the contract, nevertheless, is not voidable, if the party whose consent was so caused had the means of discovering the truth with ordinary diligence.
Contract induced by fraud voidable at the option of the deceived party
If any part of a single consideration for one or more objects, or any one or any part of any one of several considerations for a single object, is unlawful, the agreement is void.
Illustration
A promises to superintend, on behalf of B, a legal manufacture of indigo, and an illegal traffic in other articles. B promises to pay to A a salary of 10,000 rupees a year. The agreement is void, the object of A’s promise, and the consideration for B’s promise, being in part unlawful.
Agreement void if object or consideration unlawful in part
Example
Illustration (e) to Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act: A, B and C enter into an agreement for the division among them of gains acquired or to be acquired by them by fraud. The agreement is void, as its object is unlawful.
For the exam
- Meaning: a person cannot base a claim on his own fraud.
- Fraudulent object or consideration makes an agreement void (Section 23, Contract Act).
- Fraud inducing consent makes a contract voidable at the victim's option (Section 19).
- The maxim bars the wrongdoer; the defrauded party keeps his remedies.
- Narrower than ex turpi causa non oritur actio, which covers any illegal or immoral cause.
Related terms
- Ex turpi causa non oritur actioA court will not lend its aid to a person whose cause of action is founded on an illegal or immoral act.
- FraudUnder Section 17 of the Contract Act, specified acts by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent, done to deceive the other party or induce him to contract.
- VoidHaving no legal effect. Under Section 2(g) of the Contract Act an agreement not enforceable by law is void, and under Section 2(j) a contract becomes void when it ceases to be enforceable.
- Voidable contractAn agreement enforceable by law at the option of one or more of the parties but not at the option of the other or others. Section 2(i) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
- ConsiderationAn act, abstinence or promise done or made at the desire of the promisor by the promisee or any other person, which is the price for the promise (Section 2(d) of the Contract Act).
- MisrepresentationAn untrue statement or a breach of duty that misleads a party into a contract without intent to deceive. It makes the contract voidable (Sections 18 and 19 of the Indian Contract Act).
Further reading
Checked 12 November 2026. Statutory text is quoted from the Bare Acts library, taken from India Code. See the full glossary.