Business law 122 class 3 fact scenarios Fall 2023 J

.pdf

School

Toronto Metropolitan University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

122

Subject

Law

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

2

Uploaded by DoctorHedgehogPerson930

Report
1 Business Law 122 - Class 3 Fact Scenarios Fact Scenario 1 Derry v. Peek , [1889] UKHL The defendants were directors of a company that published a statement in its company prospectus that it had obtained government authorization to use a new technology – steam. In fact, they had not yet received authorization, although they believed that they would. Relying on the statement in the prospectus, the plaintiff, Derry, invested in the company. Authorization for the company to use steam ultimately was denied and the company went bankrupt. Derry sued for the tort of deceit. The House of Lords determined that the elements for the tort of deceit were not satisfied because the directors honestly believed that the company would receive authorization to use steam. Although the directors may have been careless, that is not sufficient to meet the legal test for deceit. It requires knowledge that the statement is not true. Fact Scenario 2 Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto , [1995] SCC The Church of Scientology and its lawyer, Morris Manning, publicly accused Casey Hill, a crown attorney, of breaching judicial orders sealing certain documents belonging to the Church. They brought a motion for contempt and sought a fine or his imprisonment. The allegations against Hill were found to be without foundation, and he brought a defamation action against the Church. The evidence indicated the Church had a long-standing vendetta against Hill, and despite clear evidence that he had not been in contempt of court, the Church continued to defame him. In this instance, the Supreme Court upheld an award of $800,000 in punitive damages against the Church. - Injurious falsehood - The offending party makes a false statement about the affected party ’ s business, causing the affected party to suffer a loss. - Required elements: o False Statement: to a third party about the affected party ’ s business or property. - Malice: the offending party must have had intent to hurt the affected party or knew, or was reckless about, the truth of the false statement. - Loss: the affected party must have suffered a loss.
2 Fact Scenario 3 The Oxbridge Rowing Association (ORA) arranged to hold a race on the river running through the city of Camford. It received the city’s permission to use a section of the riverbank to erect a grandstand at which it could charge an admission fee to the public. On the day of the race the ORA, with the city’s permission , used a barricade to block off a section of the footpath that normally allowed the public to stroll along the riverbank. Shortly before the race was to start, Regina, a member of the ORA, noticed that Henley, who was in the regular habit of strolling along the river in the morning, was climbing over the barricade. Regina explained the situation to him and informed him that a detour had been set up that would allow members of the public to walk along another portion of the riverbank. Henley objected, saying that he wanted to follow his usual route. When he tried to press forward, Regina politely but firmly stood her ground. At that point, Henley declared “You have no right to hold me here. I will stand here all day if you force me to do so, but mark my words I will get through eventually.” Regina responded by saying “You can stand here if you want to, or you can use the detou r if you want to, but I will not let you through until the race is over.” True to her wor d , Regina continued to block Henley’s way until the race finished. At that point she stepped aside and allowed him to proceed along his usual route. Henley has now sued Regina for false imprisonment. He insists that she detained him when she would not allow him to walk where he wanted to walk. 1. What are the facts and legal criteria to be considered in determining if Henley’s claim of false imprisonment is correct? - An action for false imprisonment would not be sustainable. - A reasonable alternative route was available
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help