Mitigation Is Best Explained As An Aspect Of Causation

However, due to this idea of strict liability offences not requiring proof of fault leads to the simple moral claim of ‘is it right to punish a person who had no intent to commit a crime, and took precautions not to let anyone get harmed in any way, to still be convicted?’ This opens the argument against the use of strict liability as it suggests that no matter what the opposing says, strict liability is a criminal offence and it is not vigorously enforced. This in turn lowers the respect to law and the criminal justice system as it appears that the justice system cannot

In Rebecca & ‘Zorba’s’ Restaurant case, the main issue is whether negligence exists of the defendant? There are three prerequisites must be present before the tort of negligence can arise: a duty of care must be owed by one person to another; there must be a breach of that duty of care; and damage must have been suffered as a result of the breach of duty. (FoBL, 2005, p70) In addition, another element must be satisfied to prove negligence is the causation. This essay will analysis Rebecca v. ‘Zorba’s’ with these four issues.

(d) If allowance for recovery for lost foreseeable profits would create unfairly disproportionate results, the court may, in its discretion, limit recovery to reliance damages.

In part 1 of this essay, we will examine the difference between factual causation and legal causation. In part 2, we will examine the judgements in both cases and how the courts applied the material contribution test to both. In part 3, our analytical section, we will examine how both of these cases have blurred the distinction between legal and factual causation and argue that the material contribution test has changed the path of the law for future cases.

Causation refers to whether the defendant's conduct caused the harm or damage in a crime and it must be established in all result crimes. Causation in criminal liability is divided into factual causation and legal causation. Factual causation is the starting point and consists of applying the 'but for' test. In most cases, factual causation alone will be enough to establish causation. However, in some circumstances it will also be necessary to consider legal causation. Legal causation is when the result must be caused by a culpable act, the act of the defendant may not necessarily need to be the only cause, but must be more than minimal. Factual causation is

7. Locate a case that involves mitigating factors. Cite the case and explain why the case had mitigating factors.

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

Describing and analyzing torts, crimes, and contract law will be very beneficial to any person involved in law. Providing a real-life or hypothetical examples of five kinds of intentional torts will be explained. Knowing the difference between a tort and crime is important and whether its possible for a violation to be both a crime and a tort. The conclusion will consist of the concept of “voluntary consent” as it relates to contract law and what impact does mistakes have on contract enforcement.

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

Arguments that an extension of liability for negligence would lead to a flood of litigation or to fraudulent claims were once granted greater credence than they are today. But other arguments, such as the possible commercial or financial consequences, the prospect of indeterminate liability, the possibility of risk-spreading (e.g., through insurance)

This paper will be discussing the concept of strict liability along with the concept of absolute liability within the R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (1978). In doing so, this paper will explain how strict liability offences strike a good balance between the policy rationales for absolute liability in regulatory offences and the criminal law principle that only the morally blameworthy may be punished, and how the courts have interpreted absolute liability offence and their relationship with the Charter of Rights.

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 .

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.

Before unilateral contracts come into place, contract law is about a promise for a promise. Cases such as Carlill v Carbonic Smoke Ball Co. have shown how the contract law has adapted to accommodate this form of contract. Judges seek to identify consideration and acceptance in unilateral contracts whilst managing to achieve a balance between protecting reasonable expectation of an honest man and retaining respect for the sanctity of contract.

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,