Fundamentals of Common Law

7. The Taylors bought an ocean front lot in Oregon. The next year, Staley bought an ocean front lot south of the Taylors and built a home on it. Over the years, Staley often expressed concern that when the Taylors built their house, they could block her view. They said they would not. When they began planning their home, they asked Staley to submit a letter in support of a setback variance they sought. She said she would as long as her view wasn’t blocked. They again told her it wouldn’t be blocked. When the house was built, it partially blocked her view. She sued for breach of an

The Plaintiff contests that orders to restrain the Plaintiff’s land use [8] by Pain J in the Land and Environment Court of NSW in 2005 constituted the ‘violation of correct legal procedures’ [14] and hence professional negligence, because the case was previously dismissed by Lloyd J [5].

obtaining land for public use, but was to prevent harm to the public. The Court

In the summer of 2002, the two large hickory trees were damaged by a lightening strike and subsequently cut down by the defendant, which promoted the plantiff to go into a rage and order Crockett off the property. Crockett refused to leave claiming he was the owner of a parcel of land.

Rules: The majority of jurisdictions in the United States allow for recovery in cases of trespass to land, and in this case Farmer would have grounds to file a claim for intentional tort against Pilot, as his privately owned land was trespassed on, with the action resulting in quantifiable damage to Farmer's valuable crops. The courts must decide whether or not Pilot's landing of the plane in Farmer's field constitutes an intentional act, or simply an act of negligence on Pilot's part. To do so, they must examine the three elements of trespass to land: Voluntary Act, Intent, and Damages. Another aspect of this case that the courts would consider is that of liability, as according to an article published by the Harvard Law Review, "cases of liability are those in which the defendant generates a disproportionate, excessive risk of harm, relative to the victim's risk-creating activity ... (and) a pilot or an airplane owner subjects those beneath the path of flight to nonreciprocal risks of harm" (Fletcher, 1972).

Facts: John Peck sold a piece of land to Robert Fletcher. Since the original sale from Peck was invalid, Peck committed a breach of contract.

While the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench and the Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the case because they found there was not a contractual relationship between Winnipeg Condominium and Bird Construction and because there was no evidence of damage to property or person, the dismissals were overturned at the Supreme Court level. The Supreme Court ruling written by Justice

“A private nuisance is a substantial and unreasonable invasion of the private use and enjoyment of one’s land.” (McAdams, 2009)

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

The organisation, Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd, claimed a dairy farm in New South Wales. The Husband, in his ability as executive of the organisation, exchanged title of the land to both himself and his wife as joint occupants in like manner. The spouse later moved his enthusiasm for the property to his wife for $1. An Application was brought by the organisation against the spouse and wife in the New South Wales Supreme Court looking for that the property be exchanged back to the organisation because of fraudulent activities of the spouse. The trial judge requested that the spouse pay remuneration to the organisation, however dismissed the procedures against the wife as she herself was not a knowing party to the fraud.

Equity has been described as a ‘mysterious creature’ that lies distinctly alongside the common law. In considering the statement, there is an almost linear reversal in which the remedies in equity procure a type of right not necessarily available in the common law. This peculiar jurisdiction has created consistent controversy especially in regards to the fusion of the common law and equity. To understand further, this essay will consider the relationship between equity and the common law. The development of equity alongside the common law through its history and intention, and application in case law will be imperative in the discussion of the statement. In conjunction with an analysis of fusion, it will become apparent that equitable damages were enlivened, separate to, in unfair circumstances where no rights/damages existed within the common law. In trying to tread the murky waters of the distinction yet the procedural fusion of equity and common law, the contention of this essay becomes apparent. Effectively, this essay aims to highlight that the history, intention, application and fusion fallacies regarding equity, all which point to an assertion that rights in equity are indeed the product of its remedies. Whether they are merely ‘two streams of jurisdiction, though they run in the same channel, run side by side and do not mingle their waters’, is yet to be seen.

I: Should the Plaintiff be allowed to claim a easement by implication , even though the Plaintiff sold the land to the defendants (Larry Manns & others) upon which the easements is claimed?

The landlord granted the tenant a lease of a disused mine, for the tenant’s use as an explosives’ magazine(warehouse). Afterwards the landlord granted a lease of the adjoining land to other tenants, which permitted the opening of mine shafts and the working of materials.

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.

Rylands v Fletcher (R v. F) is based on the doctrine of Strict Liability. This means that the defendant is liable for all damages caused by engaging in hazardous of dangerous activities. Blackburn J at 279 states “We think that the true rule of the law is, that the personal who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there