Memorandum of Oral Pleading

The Motion to Dismiss should be allowed because Stacey Smith’s (“Plaintiff”) conduct does not constitute expression and the Board of Education of the Town of Douglassville’s (“Douglassville”) dress code is constitutional. Nonverbal conduct constitutes expression when there is intent to convey a particularized message through the conduct, and that particularized message is likely to be understood by others. Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 410 (1974); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 401 (1989). In the present case, Plaintiff has established that she intended to convey a message of support for her friend, Fatima Ahmed, and the religion of Islam by wearing the

Furthermore, Aloe could also make a strong argument by imposing strict liability in tort on Toys R Us for personal injuries that result from selling a defective product with design defect that is unreasonably dangerous to the consumer without proper testing and compliance with Federal safety standard for such products. Aloe could also appeal for both compensatory and punitive damages for the loss which could be economic (such as lost income, medical expense) or non economic (such as pain and suffering and loss of consortium, meaning the loss of someone’s active presence and enjoyment in their life).

BUGusa Inc. knew about the defect but made a conscious decision not to “redesign” the product because it would cost too much money. Sally may have a successful case claiming intentional tort, negligence, design and manufacturing defect, causation and damages and strict liability.

App. 1986). The defendant in Felix pressed a nasal inhaler against his victim 's back, declaring that he had a gun. Based on what he felt, the victim perceived that a gun was pressed against his back. Id. On these facts, the court had no difficulty in finding that the defendant had simulated a deadly weapon. Id.

BUGusa, Inc. could also be found liable for negligent or intentional torts of employees when the employer had reason to know that the employee had reasonable cause to do harm within his course of his employment. This would be contingent on Walter’s past employment history with the company as well as the information obtained by BUGusa, Inc. at his background check for employment.

Regarding negotiations & settlement and the decision to litigate this claim. Harco made several attempts to settle this loss throughout the 2015 calendar year. On 01/26/15 the plaintiff made a policy limit demand of $5,000,000 with Harco making an initial offer of $725,000. Thereafter, six more attempts were made to settle this loss with no success. On 11/24/15 the plaintiff’s served a Statutory Offer of Settlement requesting $2,125,000, Harco responded with an offer of $1,800,000, to which the plaintiff did not respond leading to trial. Harco’s opinioned, with damages (medical, lost wages & pain & suffering) being capped in Colorado excluding damages for disfigurement/impairment, they did foresee the value awarded by the jury. Further noting the injury did not prevent the plaintiff from conducting normal activity (contrary to defense counsels’ 10/22/15 report). During trial proceedings, Harco suggested a Hi –Low of $2,250,000 - $1,250,000, however the plaintiff’s never responded to their

Businesses could be held liable for negligent tort if their product injury, harms consumers or is falsely represented. Nonetheless, when the circumstances warrant, parties that are not guilty of negligence or an unintentional tort can still be subjected to compensations when their products injure customers (Seaquist, 2012) Recall Negligence is an unintentional tort wherein one party is injured result to some actions of another. There are certain factors that must be considered to determines whether a corporation acted negligently. The elements are the following: a breach of that duty, legal duty to use due care, a reasonable close causal connection between the breach and the plaintiffs resulting in injury, and the actual loss or damage to the plaintiff. This paper is going to discuss a negligent tort due to a company’s recall of its product. The company may be considered liable for negligence if there was no recall on their product and the product caused bodily harm to a consumer (Benjamin, 2015). Throughout the paper will discuss the reason of Toshiba recalling their laptop computer battery packs due to burn and because of its potential to catch fire on March 30, 2016 and the recall number is 16-131. If the company did not make the decision to recall their laptop computer battery could have been diligent. To prove the negligent tort the consumer must prove factors such duty to care and defenses of negligence (Seaquist, 2012).

If the rule applied is based on the risk utility analysis, the defendant may be liable for a design defect even if the product complied with all the existing levels of technological advances at the time the design was done. The plaintiff should then use evidence based on the risk-utility factors to establish a design defect and a prima facie case. The trial court must permit the jury to consider whether the risks of injury outweighed the utility of the product’s design so that it can be rendered defective.

Barnes, separately, had commenced proceedings in the District Court of NSW. Both proceedings were transferred to the Federal Court and heard with the proceedings issued by the ACCC. The judgment on this case was delivered on February 27, 1998 six years after Australia passed a statutory code dealing with defective goods in 1992 sixty years after the verdict on the Donoghue v Stevenson’s case.

Based on the scenario the most fitting tort in relation to this case would be that of negligence. In this category “one party fails to act reasonably.....causing damages to the other party as a result of the unreasonable conduct”. By law, certain factors need to be proven in order to attribute liability to BUGusa. These elements include the establishment of duty, breach of duty, cause in fact, proximate, and actual damages. If

The objective of this unit is to learn the correct form and elements of a formal pleading.Your pleading is the most important element in the. It represents you, defines the facts issues and damages to be adjudicated or disputed during the civil action. In short, your pleading should be direct, concise and worded in a way that is believable or plausible. Although Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15. allows the plaintiff to amend or correct your pleading within 21 days of serving the defendant.However, it best to present clear and comprehensive information and facts in the initial complaint. Guidelines for formal pleadings are outlined in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8.

House of Lords found that there was evidence that claimant had volunteered for the risk of injury

Cases of false affirmation occurred where the buyer was convinced to buy something by the false statements of the seller;

Goods are sold by description where the purchaser is relying on the description the seller the seller is providing since he has not seen the goods.

L & Co dispatched the goods on credit to Blenkarn, who resold 250 dozen to Cundy. Blenkarn did not pay for the goods. L & Co sued Cundy to recover the handkerchiefs. It was held that the contract between L & Co and Blenkarn was void for unilateral mistake. L & Co intended to deal with Blenkiron & Co, not Blenkarn. Cundy was liable to return the handkerchiefs to L & Co because no right of ownership had passed to him.