Case List

This memo is intend to present appropriate treatment of the ARO estimation problem experienced by the Lack of Information (LOI) based on the findings from interviews with all 50 of the warehouse managers and on-site visits at each of the 50 locations of its warehouses countrywide. The onsite observations search for any evidence of damages in both the on-site property like the roof, walls, floors and general conditions. The interview with the managers obtains information about the characteristics of the warehouses that are not readily observable. The information obtained is very important in the preparation of the fiscal

On the evening of January 5, 1993, Tracie Reeves and Molly Coffman, both twelve years of age and students at West Carroll Middle School, spoke on the telephone and decided to kill their homeroom teacher, Janice Geiger. They agreed that Coffman would bring rat poison to school the following days so that it could be placed in Geiger 's drink. After that , they would steal Geiger 's car and drive to the Smoky Mountains. On the morning of January 6, Coffman placed a packet of rat poison in her purse and board the school bus. Coffman told another student, Christy Hernandez, of the plan and show her the poison. Hernandez went and informed her homeroom teacher, Sherry

This essay will briefly explain negligence and its elements and will further critically analyse the UK compensation culture and discuss whether it exist, or whether it is a perception created by the media. This essay will further discuss whether the UK laws encourage people to blame and claim and what the UK law has done to prevent an increase in the compensation culture.

2. List the questions raised about this situation or that you think that the investigators should ask of the

Case Comment: John Michael Malins v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2017] EWHC 835 (Admin) 2017 WL 01339062

NOTE: In addition to the in-chapter and end-of-chapter exercises which serve as short cases you will find the following short cases arranged by course title that can also be utilized as short cases that require the student to access the authoritative literature to address the issue presented in the case. Solutions to the cases below are available to instructors on the Weirich Accounting & Auditing Research 8e instructor website at www.wiley.com/college/weirich. Other excellent sources of longer and more detailed cases include the Deloitte Trueblood cases and cases provided by various other firms.

It was decided that if the “representor gave information-or advice which was negligent he would be liable for any pecuniary or personal damage-caused”5. However the appeal was dismissed due to the fact that with “the absence of a contract or fiduciary relationship” the defendant that used a disclaimer would owe no duty of care.6 The case was significant in that claims on negligent misstatement could work if; there is a special affiliation among parties, the information provided by a party has a voluntary assumed risk, the plaintiff has to deem the information reliable, and finally the reliability of the information must be applicable. 

Jacquelyn Young hired the law firm of Becker & Poliakoff to represent her in her federal employment discrimination lawsuit against her employer. The firm associate that filed the action made a mistake by attaching the wrong U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) right-to-sue letter. The court dismissed the claims. The law firm did not try to re-file using the correct attachment, or try to dismiss the motion. Thirteen months later, the law firm informed Young that the claims had been dismissed, and that the firm was withdrawing from representing her further with the case.

Odishelidze v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 668 F. Supp. 94 (D.P.R. 1987) Tri-Continental Leasing Corp. v. Cicerchia, 664 F. Supp. 635 (D. Mass. 1987)

This paper examines the development and scope of accessory liability under the second limb of Barnes v Addy as it stands in both England and Australia. As to the law in England, the focus will be on the rearticulation of the principle of accessory liability under the second limb as stated in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan. In particular, it will consider the extent to which the decision has reconciled inconsistencies in earlier authority and remedied those issues propounded to be inherent in the traditional formulation of the principle. At this stage, this traditional principle remains good law in Australia. However, as suggested in Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, there is potential for the

Ragnarr, must prove to the court that due to the states negligent actions he will consequently experience economic loss. Causation refers to whether the defendants conduct (or omission), in this case The State Of Victoria, caused the resulting harm or damage. The common law of negligence obliges instigation of causation for the purposefulness of attaching legal accountability. Another element that must be proven is that it is applicable for the scope of the negligent persons liability to extend to the harm so caused (scope of liability ). As it is a case of negligence the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, is weighed upon our client, the plaintiff Mr. Ragnarr. Even if the ‘but for’ test is applied to the current situation in the case, the outcome would be that the loss suffered by the plaintiff would have only occurred if the defendant acted negligently, which they did, and therefore if they hadn’t have acted in that way, then our client would not have been publicly humiliated by the State Of Victoria as a result. The court must deliberate whether it is suitable to extend the scope of the defendant negligence to the harm caused to the plaintiff and our client, Mr. Ragnarr. The harm that occurred, or similar harm, must have been foreseeable in order for it to reach within the scope of liability upon the

BIBLIOGRAPHYCASES•Balmain New Ferry Co v Robertson (1906) 4 CLR 379•Myer Stores v Soo [1991] 2 VR 597•Meering v Grahame-White Aviation, Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988] 1 WLR 692•Platt v Nutt (1988) 12 NSWLR 231•Bird v Jones (1845) 115 ER 668•Burton v Davies [1953] QSR 26•R v Macquarie (1875) 13 SCR 264•Lamb v Cotogno (1987) 164 CLR 1•Henry v Thompson [1989] 2 QdR 412•R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359•Bunyan v Jordan (1937) 57 CLR at 12•James v Campbell (1832) 5 C & P 372•Ball et Uxor v Axten (18

Moore v. Midwest Distribution, Inc., 76 Ark. App. 397, 65 S.W. 3d 490 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002)

Hence, this paper aims to discuss in greater depth the reasoning and outcome of the two judgments i.e. the judgment of the Court of Appeal in The Miss Jay Jay [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 32, and of the Supreme Court judgment in The Cendor MOPU [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 560, to see if they are an arguably sufficient justification for the view that the English marine insurance system rules on proximate causation should be repealed and replaced by a system similar to that used in the Nordic Marine Insurance Plan.

The case of Donoghue v Stevenson created a definition of a ‘neighbour’ towards a duty of care in negligence within the bounds of an indirect causal link without the added implication of a willful act or inherently dangerous goods. This provided a mechanism for a third party to go beyond the doctrine of privity and sue even if not a direct party to a contract.