1.As A Starting Note, Any Mention Of Concurrent Liability

Having established the purpose of strict liability, it is evident as to why it can be seen as a controversial area in law making and this essay will outline some of the arguments for and against it that are commonly put forward on the effective enforcement of the law and the maintenance of standards.

Describing and analyzing torts, crimes, and contract law will be very beneficial to any person involved in law. Providing a real-life or hypothetical examples of five kinds of intentional torts will be explained. Knowing the difference between a tort and crime is important and whether its possible for a violation to be both a crime and a tort. The conclusion will consist of the concept of “voluntary consent” as it relates to contract law and what impact does mistakes have on contract enforcement.

There are three theories of liability direct, vicarious, and enterprise. Direct liability has four types that are direct one of which is the principle in the 1st degree aka "the Perpetrator" which is someone who committed the crime willing on his own accord. The second is the principle in the 2nd degree aka "the Accomplice" which is someone who assisted the assailant with the delegation of the crime while also wanting to commit the crime at the same time he/she is also present during the scene of the crime. An accessory before the Fact is not present in the area of where the crime was committed, but helped by either counseling, encouraging, or urging the delegation of a crime. The Pinkerton Rule states that all accessories are liable for predictable actions that lead to being criminalized hence the violation of the criminal agreement. Even if the accomplice is not present at the scene of a committed felony crime they are still guilty. The two aspects are the specific resolve towards committing the crime the aiding of crime or encouragement towards the committing of a crime. A death penalty is only ever enforced on those who have committed the murder. The next type is the accessory after the fact which is someone who knows he/she has committed a crime and still aid with disturbing the case like hiding the assailant away from the police for example. They will also be charged with the felony since they know they committed the crime. Relations like with family is a type of

(1) The feasibility of apportioning fault on a comparative basis does not render an indivisible injury "divisible" for purposes of the joint and several liability rule. A concurrent tortfeasor is liable for the whole of an indivisible injury when his negligence is a proximate cause of that damage. In many instances, the negligence of a concurrent tortfeasor may be sufficient by itself to cause the entire loss. The mere fact that it may be possible to assign some percentage figure to the relative culpability of one negligent defendant as compared to another does not in any way suggest that each defendant 's negligence is not a proximate cause of the entire indivisible injury.

Arguments that an extension of liability for negligence would lead to a flood of litigation or to fraudulent claims were once granted greater credence than they are today. But other arguments, such as the possible commercial or financial consequences, the prospect of indeterminate liability, the possibility of risk-spreading (e.g., through insurance)

Prior to beginning my studies in law, tort law was the most mysterious and unknown of the fields of law I knew about. Much like most of the general population (due in great part to the television and movies) I had only heard the term in passing and never gave it much thought as to what it meant or what the subject covered. I thought it was some esoteric theory that would never really come into play in my life and therefore never thought to look it up or even really care what it meant.

This question relates to vicarious liability in essence of the motorcar owner and motorcar driver affiliation. This means that the owner allows someone else to drive his car (That does not work for him) negligently causes an accident and the owner of the car will be held liable for the loss.

This paper will be discussing the concept of strict liability along with the concept of absolute liability within the R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (1978). In doing so, this paper will explain how strict liability offences strike a good balance between the policy rationales for absolute liability in regulatory offences and the criminal law principle that only the morally blameworthy may be punished, and how the courts have interpreted absolute liability offence and their relationship with the Charter of Rights.

Cases of Strict Liability are cases where liability is imposed without any demonstrated culpability. Strict Liability crimes does not require a “mens rea” or “guilty mind” nor does it require the intent to break the law. Meaning, that these type of crimes do not require the intent to do something wrong or morally blameworthy. The defendant is held responsible regardless of their intentions. Although the defendant may not have a guilty mind, they are still held responsible for their actions. The purpose of these crimes are to protect the public from great harm. The question can be asked on how these crimes are justified, because in some cases there is an honest and reasonable mistake of fact. However, the justification for the enforcement

The provided fact is mainly concerned intentional tort but, in a case, also there are also some possible element of negligence. The answer will be based on Peter’s (P) probable liability under tort law against three plaintiffs; a man (A), Matildca(M) and Sara (S). The answer will also try to discuss P’s possible defences.

In summary the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] laid the foundations for Negligence as a Tort in its own right. The Neighbour principle provided by Lord Atkin is still fundamental in law to this day although there have been as we have discussed evolutionary changes to the law. Whilst the Neighbour principle defined by Lord Atkin has had its fair share of criticism as well as praise, it has been fundamental to the evolution of the concept of Duty of Care and the evolution of the law more generally in relation to Negligence.

The rules for construction of guarantees and indemnities have recently changed course creating significant judicial confusion and debate over the correct approach. The High Court decision in Andar Transport Pty Ltd v Brambles Ltd (‘Andar’) has reinstated the views in Ankar Pty Ltd v National Westminster Finance (Aust) Ltd ( 'Ankar '), that the liability of a surety is strictissimi juris and that ambiguous contractual provisions should be construed in favour of the surety. However, Andar’s application of guarantee construction principles to the interpretation of indemnities have created confusion and debate about the position of from the courts earlier commercial construction favoured in Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Aust Pty Ltd

In a departure from the traditional application of long standing case law, the close connection test was altered. The crucial change was to give rise to vicarious liability if the exchange involved a seamless chain of events . This development came following crucial developments in the Christian Brothers case. Where the vicarious liability relationship was extended to those analogous to employment . The other crucial development arose in Cox. In which Lord Reed extended vicarious liability for a person acting in their own interests. However he stressed the importance of the person acting in the scope of the activities assigned to him by the defendant. The defendant in assigning these duties generates a risk of the tort .

A contract is a legally binding agreement and a term is a component of a contract and it is crucial to determine the classification of term being adopted because if there is a breach of a term it will bring about conditions of breach of contract. Different terms carry more severe consequences in contrast to others, therefore the contract may be repudiated or damages awarded. However, terms in insurance contracts are treated differently and further to this, the law around terms in insurance contracts has undergone recent legislation. This essay will critically analyse and compare the differences between warranty terms in insurance contracts and non-insurance contracts, evidencing with case law, establishing the legal principles surrounding them and their components. Additionally, this essay will address the introduction of the Insurance Act 2015 and its effect on insurance contract warranties, which can be seen as a new initiative to make insurance warranties fairer.

The very indispensable component for the foundation of a contract is an offer. Nonetheless, it happens quite often that the parties in the daily business activities do not desire their statement to be binding on them once the other party accepts their offer. That is to say, the parties intend to begin negotiations by making certain statements or declarations, which are not to be regarded as offer. That is an invitation to treat. According to Andrew Burrows, an invitation to treat is defined as an expression of willingness to negotiate. A person making an invitation to treat does not intend to be bound as soon as the person to whom the statement is addressed accepts it. It is obvious that an invitation to treat is not an offer. The four vital elements of contract: offer, acceptance, intention, and consideration must be examined, to the extent of determining whether or not the parties were legally bounded by contract. Without those four vital elements, no contract is concluded between two parties, in wit, the contract is said to be void . Hence, there is not any liability arose between both of the parties.