Explain with suitable examples that legal damage is neither identical with actual damage nor is it necessarily pecuniary.

It is not every damage that is a damage in the eye of law. It must be a damage which the law recognizes or invasion of the legal right. In the absence of an infringement of a legal right an action does not lie. Also, where there is infringement of a legal right, an action lies even though no damage may have causes. Therefore, legal damage is neither identical with actual damage not is it necessarily pecuniary. Two maxims explain this proposition. A. Damnum Sine Injuria - This maxim means, a man may have suffered damage and yet have no action in tort, because the damage is not to an interest protected by the law of torts. Eg. if I own a shop and you open a shop in the neighbourhood, as a result of which I lose some customers and my profits fall off, I cannot sue you for the lose in profits, because you are exercising your legal right. B. Injuria Sine Damnum - According to this maxim, where there is no damage resulted yet it is an injury or wrong in tort, i.e. where there is infringement of a legal right not resulting in harm but plaintiff can still sue in tort. Eg. The act of the act of trespassing upon another's land is actionable even though it has not caused the plaintiff even the slightest harm.