Based on William’s case, we need to examine the law of tort and its’ terms. Tort is a civil wrong and it can be a negligent, nuisance or defamation not arising out of a contract. A tort can also be defined as “an act that injures someone in some way, and for which the injured person may sue the wrongdoer for damages” (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t032.htm).
There are several torts that are practiced, such as the tort of passing off, the tort of vicarious liability, tort of conspiracy, tort of confidence, and the most important of all, the tort of negligence. To briefly explained, the tort of passing off refers to enforcing unregistered trademark rights, while vicarious liability is liability in which a person can be held liable for the torts of another person. An example case of tort of vicarious liability would be Mattis v. Pollock (2003) when “a nightclub owner was held vicariously liable for the violent acts of an employed doorman” (http://www.lawteacher.net/tort-law/vicarious-liability.php).
The tort of conspiracy is defined as two or more persons agree on a course of conduct to harm another or commit an illegal act. A conspiracy may also “exist when the parties use legal means to accomplish an illegal result” (http://www.legalplayground.com/803-personal-injury-conspiracy-and-business-tort-cases.html), or achieve something through illegal means.
The tort of confidence is a common law tort that focuses on breach of confidence and protects private information. It can be defined as “essentially the misuse of illegitimately acquired information” (http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/breach%20of%20confid.htm).
The most important tort law of all, the tort of negligence, refers to a person doing something that he should not have done, as well as for not doing something he should have.
Under the Singapore Law, “the tort of negligence requires more than mere lack of care”....
Please join StudyMode to read the full document