Strong V Woolworths Ltd.

The plaintiff, Stella Liebeck, is represented as the “Individual Responsibility Narrative,” alluding to the fact that the spilling of the McDonald’s coffee was her doing, and therefore should be liable for the damages caused by the spill. Meanwhile McDonald’s, the defendant, narrative is named “Defective Products Liability.” In short, it takes a counteractive stance; though the initial cause was Ms.Liebeck’s fault, their faulty product and lack of warning makes them responsible for her injuries.

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

In accordance to the annual report of Woolworths Limited 2016, the current accounting practice that is applied to the business regarding its inventory disclosure includes; a perpetual inventory system which continually updates the information by increasing or decreasing inventory from reports throughout the year to verify accounting records (Bragg 2016). A perpetual inventory system in comparison to a periodic inventory system is more efficient and effective for larger corporations. With entities like Woolworths, many transactions occur between themselves and other stakeholders, so by utilising a perpetual inventory system, it saves time and also money (Woolworths 2016)

The case Caparo Industries v Dickman is a leading case that identifies a test to determine whether or not an employer owes a duty of care within a negligence case. In this case Caparo Industries had taken over a company called Fidelity and they seud Dickman for negligence in the preparation of accounts. Sir Neil

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.

If the contract for the sale of business stated that the price of the business goodwill was predominant and outweighed all of the goods, I still think the contract would be enforced. Goodwill is a type of personal property, but not a good under the UCC. Therefore, the contract would not fall under the scope of Article 2 of the UCC. This contract would require the application of common law to determine its existence. Although it remained oral, both parties admitted to its existence and proceeded to perform based on the agreed upon terms. The defendants taking possession and tender of partial payment, along with the plaintiff’s tender of business assets, makes clear that the parties had entered into an agreement and that they sought to perform.

Police officers including approximately six armed members of the “Special Emergency Response Team” forcibly entered the appellants’ (Bulsey & Anor) house. Bulsey was taken from his bed, placed on the floor, handcuffed and dragged out to the street and later charged with riotous assembly and destruction of a building. In subsequent committal proceedings, the respondent conceded it did not have a case against the first appellant. He was discharged. Bulsey (the first appellant) sued the respondent for damages for trespass to the person (assault, battery and false imprisonment). Anor (the second appellant) sued the respondent for damages for assault and false imprisonment. The trial judge dismissed the appellants’ claims with costs, with judgments in favour of the respondent.

Plaintiff and Appellant: the person bringing the case against another person in the court of law (Clarkson, Miller, Frank, Cross chapter 1). Yun Tung Chow will be referred to in this analysis as “YTC” from here on forward.

Vicarious liability is a doctrine where a company is held liable for the negligent acts of the employees while the doctrine of identification supposes a situation where the crimes committed by the company can be directed towards the directors or managers of the company who are the directing mind and will of the company and can be held liable for the acts committed by a separate legal entity namely the company. In the case of Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass, the Appellant was offering a discount on washing powder and this was advertised on posters displayed in stores, but the Defendant did not find the packet of washing powder at the reduced price, as advertised. The Defendant therefore filed a complaint under the Trade Descriptions Act, 1968 for falsely advertising the price of washing powder. In defense

Renee McDonald (“Plaintiff”) allegedly sustained personal injuries on October 8, 2015 while shopping at a store owned and operated by Costco (“Defendant”) in Brooklyn Park, Maryland. According to the plaintiff, while walking through the store, she tripped on mop water which caused her to fall to the ground and suffer “severe bodily injuries.” The Plaintiff claims that her fall was caused by the mop water. The mopped area had been secured with a yellow caution sign that warned customers of the wet floor. At the time of the Plaintiff’s fall, however, the sign had fallen down and was lying on the floor. Plaintiff alleges that the store did not have proper signage to warn of the hazardous condition.

For a negligence claim to be successful, it must be proven that the State Of Victoria owed our client such

This paper will consider the facts associated with the case of Stella Liebeck versus McDonald’s, resulting from Ms. Liebeck’s efforts to collect for damages sustained when she spilled extremely hot coffee into her lap in 1992. The issues, applicable laws and the conclusion the jury reached will also be covered as well as the subsequent impacts on American tort law following this decision.

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

Tort law is a very prevalent aspect of conducting business and daily life in the twenty first century. According to the textbook, The Legal Environment of Business, tort law provides “remedies for the invasion of various protected interests.” (Cross & Miller, 2012) In this essay about tort law, I will talk about a tort case that has personally impacted me. To do so, I will provide a background of the event, apply facts of the case to applicable law, summarize lessons of the week as they relate to this case and provide a plausible argument for the parties involved.

The purpose of this assignment is to discuss the creation and application the case law resulting from the decision in Donoghue v Stevenson . This decision is often cited in relation to the tort of negligence and a duty of care. As such it could be misunderstood as being the preeminent case for the principles of negligence or duty of care alone. It is however the landmark precedent case for the tort of negligence outside of a contract when taking into account ‘duty of care’ and the ‘neighbour priciple’.