Essay about Legal Case Study

The Civil Liabilities Act 2002 defines negligence as a failure on the part of the defendant which results in the harm of the plaintiff which could have been prevented by taking reasonable care. The breach of duty must be foreseeable, Sullivan v Moody. The risk must be not insignificant, and a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have taken precaution against the harm. In this case

The Tort of Negligence put the claimant in the position to prove that the defendant owed to them a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty and the claimant must have suffered damages as result of that breach (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC562).

The defendant, Kingston High School, is negligent under the Ontario Occupants Liability Act against the plaintiff, Mary. The defendant failed to uphold a duty of care against the plaintiff, which resulted in general and special damages. The plaintiff is owed compensation for medical care and treatment expenses, the economic loss from failing to attend the remainder of the semester of business school, and a loss in prospective wages from future employment.

There are four remedies for breach of contract under UCC Article 2. Categorized as remedies of law; the first is compensatory damages, which cover direct losses and costs. Compensatory damages are an attempt to put the non-breaching party in the same position it would have been had they not suffered the breach. Second are consequential damages, which are to cover indirect and foreseeable losses not covered by compensatory damages. Third is restitution to prevent the unjust enrichment of one party in the agreement. Fourth, liquidated damages are provisions agreed to by the parties when drawing up the contract in the event of a default or breach of contract by either party (Melvin, 2011).

In the aforementioned scenario, the courts are likely to award remedies in the form of compensatory and consequential monetary damages. Compensatory damages are awarded to Chou for direct losses caused by BTT’s breach of contract and failure to perform as agreed. This failure to perform also results in consequential damages for indirect future

A) Negligence is a situation in which a person acts in a negligent manner which leads to some other person getting hurt or someone's property being damaged. A negligent person after being proved so in court is legally liable to pay for any damages caused due to his/her careless attitude/actions. However, to prove that a person was negligent the plaintiff must provide evidence that the defendant had a Duty--the defendant was dutiable to the plaintiff because of which he had an obligation to act in a particular manner(not to fire his gun at an unseen target); was there a Breach of duty-- whether he failed to fulfill his obligation to act dutifully; what was the Proximate cause— were the defendant's actions the cause of the plaintiff's injuries; and what were there Actual damages—did the defendant's actions

If all these four steps are found, he can be sued by a plaintiff for the economic loss stemming from that negligence. The key case of Tepko Pty Ltd v Water board(2001) 206 CLR 1（High Court) can demonstrate the duty of care. In this case, the majority held the board owed no duty of care to Tepko at last. Two factors seemed critical to their decision. First, the board did not know, and there was no reason why it should have suspected, that the estimate would be relied on by a bank to make such an important decision(that is, whether to place Tepko into receivership). Second, in all the circumstances it was not reasonable for Tepko to rely on the rough estimate; The board was reluctant to provide the estimate, the estimate was never intended to

being careless thus he will not offer any compensation. This may need some arbitration, but with both sides taking a hard line, the matter will eventually lead to court. Legal representation becomes indispensable in this case.

Conclusion: A person is always liable for his or her own torts. Since Arthur accepted and began the act, but performed it in a negligence way that reflected badly towards the principal, he is

Oscar was in a written agreement with Newton University to teach two business classes on Tuesday and Thursday at 9:00 to 10:15 AM and 11:00 AM to 12:15 PM. However, 7th March 2009 at 10:55 AM, when Oscar collided with Rosa and Lucia, was on Saturday. This means that Oscar was not working in the interests of the employer, but on his own interests. Despite being within the stipulated time and environment, Oscar was not working within the agreement of the contract. In this case, Oscar can be said to be negligent and is personally liable for his activities.

The example suggests that computer professionals were immune from suit before 2011. Moreover, it can be disputed that the shield of immunity was abused by the Mr Callaghan as he changed his statements, which subsequently caused Mr Stanton a loss of money. It can also be argued that the “expert is instructed as a professional and is paid for his work” (Brown, 2010), therefore if their job is done negligently, then the claimant should be entitled to some compensation.

Ltd. (1991) 65 ALJR 334 Causation – “common sense” test 47. Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 310 Causation 48. Harris Scarfe Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liq) v Ernst & Young (Reg) [2005] SASC Causation 49. Unit 11 Pty Ltd v Sharpe Partners Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 635 Causation 50. The Wagon Mound (No. 1) [1961] AC 388 Remoteness 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 The Wagon Mound (No. 2) [1967] 1 AC 617 Remoteness Sayers v Harlow UDC [1958] 1 WLR 623 Contributory negligence Insurance Commissioners v Joyce (1948) 77 CLR 39 Voluntary assumption of risk Caltex Oil (Aust.) Pty. Ltd. v The Dredge "Willemstad" (1976) 136 CLR 529 Purely economic loss Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v Heller & Partners Ltd. [1964] AC 465 Duty of care in purely economic loss cases L. Shaddock & Associates Pty. Ltd. v Parramatta City Council (1981) ALJR 713 Duty of care in purely economic loss caused by negligent misstatement cases San Sebastian P/L v The Minister (1986) 61 ALJR 41 Duty of care in purely economic loss caused by negligent misstatement cases Esanda Finance Corp. Ltd. v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (1997) 142 ALR 750 Duty of care in purely economic loss caused by negligent misstatement cases

The two legal cases I studied involved sexual harassment. Both cases were similar, in that each involved multiple people and the plaintiffs were terminated in retaliation for reporting the alleged violations.

Legal Case Study Tom agrees to give Ellen private tuition for her Law of Contract

Legal Advice Case Study Late one Saturday night Chris, who is a fanatical Manchester United