Case Study: Hollis V Vabu Essay

Further area left unanswered by Sprod bnf v Public Relations Oriented Security was highlighted in McCracken v Melbourne Storm Rugby League Footbal Club (2005)[16]. This case stated that employer is imposed vicarious liability upon employer for animosity act or criminal act by employees. The case also stated that there must be closely connection within the authority of employees and act by which their employer was considered to be vicariously liable. This case may resolve the entire issues rise in Sprof bnf v Public Relations Oriented Security.

Although the Health and Safety at work etc. Act 1974 provides criminal legislation for employers, there are various key health and safety requirements that identify a duty of care owed to an employee by an employer, that have been set via precedents. This essay aims to identify the key health and safety requirements owed by an employer to an employee, deriving from common law, including the principle of vicarious liability

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.

This essay will explain the concepts of separate personality and limited liability and their significance in company law. The principle of separate personality is defined in the Companies Act 2006(CA) ; “subscribers to the memorandum, together with such other persons as may from time to time become members of the company are a body corporate by the name contained in memorandum.” This essentially means that a company is a separate legal personality to its members and therefore can itself be sued and enter into contracts. This theory was birthed into company law through the case of Salomon v Salomon and Co LTD 1872. This case involved a company entering liquidation and the unsecured creditors not being able to claim assets to compensate them. The issue in this case was whether Mr Salomon owed the money or the company did. In the end, the House of Lords held that the company was not an agent of Mr Salomon and so the debts were that of the company thus creating the “corporate Veil” .

The case of Ruddock v Vadarlis is fundamental when it comes to understanding the rights of an individual or human rights more broadly and how they are protected by public law in Australia, however this is an extremely complex issue, and this case outlined many of the protections that ensure human rights but also was one of the defining moments for human rights and public policy in the contemporary era, this cases influence stretches far, but this essay will explain how this case enshrined how Australian public law protects people’s rights. This essay will focus on the individual rights of Australians, this in itself generates a great deal of discussion and viewpoints, different ideas on exactly what rights were protected, and which rights

A medium-sized firm Clean fabrics Inc in United States has increased the company’s revenues strategically about $350 million dollars per year. The company struggles to meet the objectives of expanding the company along with the cost control. The vision of the company is to provide the right choice to the clients and supplying the support services for the cruise ship industry in the different parts of the world operating in the areas of hotel and travel. The services are supplied to major hotel chains and cruises including linen services in the south east area of United States. Comparatively, the cruise ship industry provides the company with an

Please give the facts and significance of the two cases, mentioned on your weekly page, involving school searches: NJ v. TLO and Redding v. Safford School District. What is the difference between searches conducted in schools and those conducted in public? NJ v. TLO case was about a female who was caught smoking in her school bathroom. When she was searched money was found on her and list of people who owed her money and weed. In another case Redding v. Safford School District, “Savana Redding, an eighth grader at Safford Middle School, was strip-searched by school officials on the basis of a tip by another student that Ms. Redding might have ibuprofen on her person in violation of school policy” (Safford Unified School District v. Redding,

This paper describes the impact of the decision made in the case of Tesco Stores Ltd v Brent LBC on the law and its effects on the corporate world, and the comparison between the doctrine of vicarious liability that it outlines and the doctrine of identification that was used earlier to determine the liability of corporations in cooperate crime.

The relative nature of the work test is “essentially an economic and functional one, and the determinative Criteria [sic] not the inconclusive details of the arrangement between the parties, but rather the extent of the economic dependence of the worker upon the business he serves and the relationship of the nature of his work to the operation of that business.” Marcus v. E. Agr. Ass'n, Inc., 58 N.J. Super. 584, 603 (App. Div. 1959), rev'd. Marcus v. E. Agric. Ass'n, Inc., 32 N.J. 460 (1960). There are two fundamental questions that have to be explored: (1) is the work an integral part of the regular business, and (2) is the employee economically dependent on the

The court verified that a person is a partner and jointly liable with others in the firm “if his agreement with them is that he should be paid by the firm a fixed sum, irrespective of profits, for work done by him”.

As a starting note, any mention of concurrent liability should be assumed to mean concurrently liability in tort and contract. Traditionally the distinction between contract and tort was that contract concerns the improvement of the claimant 's position, whereas tort is concerned with dealing with their position worsening. There has been dispute around concurrent liability and its ambiguity has led to varying decision in cases and statute making as Taylor puts it “the basis of concurrent liability uncertain”. This essay will argue Tort has and is extending itself beyond its traditional role due to judges presumption of morality leading to the unclear concurrent liability we see today. Whilst this concurrent liability shows some

The impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration.

A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Before going any further one should briefly understand the doctrine of Consideration. Despite the vast amount of content written, the doctrine of consideration is still to this day unclear due to the inconsistency of the courts and its application of necessary rules. Consideration refers to that which the law deems as valuable in that the promisor receives from the promise that which was promised. In other words, it is the exchange of something of value between the parties in a contract. One should be mindful that in English law, every promise may not be legally enforceable; it requires the court to distinguish between are enforceable and non-enforceable obligations. This brings us to the controversial cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v the Roffery brothers. Many argue that that the case of Williams was wrongly decided leading to impairments in the rule initially established in Stilk v Myrick. This essay seek to analyse and critique the cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey Brothers and also highlight whether or not the new rule of Practical benefit lead to serious impairments in later cases.

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 .

Perhaps the greatest insight provided by my colleague's discussion is the deconstruction of the process by which the concept of negligence did ultimately emerge as a new tort standard. Here, the discussion illustrates the challenge before a judicial body when a legal conflict appears to bring about a new and previously unforeseen point of contention. In this case, as my colleague highlights so effectively, the charge of fraud would be the only theretofore existent way of legally addressing liability for a business or organization such as the defendant in this case. The great insight provided by my colleague is in acknowledgement of the exhaustive review of existing legal documents engaged by the ruling parties and arguing parties. This process demonstrates well that even where no precedent existing for what would become the charge of negligence,