NEGLIGENCE According to common law‚ “negligence is defined as a conduct that fall below the standard of care necessary to protect other from unreasonable risk of injury”. The legal issue is whether […….] can successfully sue […….] for negligence. In order to know whether the defendant commit negligence or not‚ 4 elements must be satisfied‚ including 1) Duty of care (DoC)‚ 2) Breach of the DoC‚ 3) Causation and 4) Remoteness. 1) DUTY OF CARE Case 1: PHYSICAL INJURY: The first element to be proven
Premium Contract
Discussion Question 1. On 1 Jan 2009 a V and P entered a standard form contract for sale of property in SYD‚ with special condition that the “sale is subject to P completing the sale of his existing home in Brisbane by 1 June 2009” but no time for completion is specified and clause 29 of 2005 Standard Form is deleted. (Standard Form: completed with in 42 days of existing contract/ exchange of contract? Hence the qtn scenario means it’ll be deleted.) Is there a binding contract for SYD before
Premium Contract Contract law
COMMERCIAL LAW FEEDBACK EXERCISE The issue in this case is whether there is misrepresentation or breach of contract. The distinctions between the two legal issues of misrepresentation and breach of contract are dependent on whether the pre-contractual statement was made on the basis of a representation‚ or on a promise or obligation to be fulfilled. Breach of contract is a legal cause of action in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties
Premium Contract Breach of contract
INDIAN CONTRACT ACT 1. S. 124 - Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar v Moreshwar Madan Mantri (Indemnity) (Plaintiff‚ at the request of the defendant‚ executed two mortgages in favour of Mohandas. Defendant wrote a letter promising to indemnify the plaintiff against any suits by the mortgagee‚ along with executing a third mortgage in place of the previous two. Plaintiff prays that the defendant obtains a release of liability from Mohandas; Issues: 1) Can the indemnified ask for performance of the contract
Premium Contract Legal terms Contractual term
LGEAL PERSONALITY Foss v Harbottle (1843) 67 ER 189 is a leading English precedent in corporate law. In any action in which a wrong is alleged to have been done to a company‚ the proper claimant is the company itself. This is known as "the rule in Foss v Harbottle"‚ and the several important exceptions that have been developed are often described as "exceptions to the rule in Foss v Harbottle". Amongst these is the ’derivative action’‚ which allows a minority shareholder to bring a claim on behalf
Premium
belief. B) (i) Ethics involves rules that define right and wrong conduct especially in business. (ii) Law is a set of rules administered and enforced by the state. (iii) Morality involves rules that define acceptable behaviour for members for a society. C) (i) Civil Law is only concerned with the wrong doing between individuals/parties. Ex‚To recover a debt. Criminal Law is only concerned with individuals/parties committing a crime as this is a breach of
Premium Law
According to the Australian Constitution‚ the power to make laws vested in the parliament ‚ whilst the power to interpret laws and to judge whether they apply in individual cases‚ vested in the High Court and other federal courts. In fact‚ one of the major function of the high court is to interpret the Constitution. For instance‚ the High Court of Australia may rule a law to be unconstitutional‚ that is beyond the power of parliament to make‚ and therefore of no effect. Such a circumstance would
Premium Separation of powers Law Constitution
COMMERICAL LAW EXAM Agency Definition Agency may be defined as a relationship between the principal (P) and the agent (A) whereby A has the authority to create a legal relationship between P and the third party (T). The purpose of agency is that two people can enter a valid contract with one another without having to deal with each other personally. Instead‚ the contract or other transaction is brought about through A who when dealing with T acts or purports to act‚ on behalf of P. Authority
Premium Contract
The scenario of this case a very complex matter in terms of the law‚ on the one hand you have the breach of gun/firearms laws and criminal negligence and on the other hand you have involuntary harm to another person. In order to hold the correct person liable‚ we must first examine the core facts and issues of this case which will enable the application of the law to these facts‚ allowing the DPP to be advised in the most suitable and accurate manner. The first and foremost issue to be noted in
Premium Criminal law Tort Reasonable person
March 15‚ 2010 Issues: 1.Whether petitioner is doing or transacting business in the Philippines in contemplation of the law and established jurisprudence; 2.Whether respondent is estopped from invoking the defense that petitioner has no legal capacity to sue in the Philippines; Facts: Petitioner Cargill‚ Inc. (petitioner) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware‚ United States of America. Petitioner and Northern Mindanao Corporation (NMC) executed a contract
Premium Corporation Jurisdiction Legal terms