The law of negligence has the potential to impose wide liability on defendants. The approach of the courts has traditionally been to try control the scope of allowable claims in negligence and to limit their bounds while balancing the rights to compensation of plaintiffs and the rights of defendants not to be disproportionately burdened. Elias CJ’s quote raises an interesting question about the emphasis of the courts in the formula they have developed to test actionable negligence. Similarities
Premium Negligence Law Plaintiff
1. The decision in Williams v Roffey moved away from the actual technicalities of finding traditional consideration‚ to actually looking at the factual benefit which a promisor may gain. In this sense it was stated that the duty to perform an existing contract could be good consideration so long as some kind of benefit went to the promisor‚ whereas previous to this performance of an existing contract was in fact no consideration‚ (as stated in Stilk v Myrick). This decision developed the doctrine
Premium Money Contract Plaintiff
February 20th‚ 2014 at 9:00 a.m. 3. Number of department is Dept. 2‚ and the name of the judge is Patricia M. Lucas. 4. John V. Komar is the attorney for the plaintiff (Malaysia Venture Capital Management Berhad) and Chris Kao is the attorney for the defendant (Mobifusion‚ Inc) 5. Nature of dispute: a) The plaintiff‚ MavCap‚ filed the case against Mobifusion‚ Inc. In exchange for a securing three million dollar investment from MavCap; in 2010‚ Mobifusion agreed in the Note Purchase Agreement that MavCap
Premium Contract Plaintiff Defendant
loss. Where the claimant suffers no loss‚ the damages awarded will (‚in‚most‚circumstances‚)be nominal. This situation can be seen in Surrey County Council v Bredero Homes Ltd. In this case‚ the defendants purchased a land from the plaintiffs‚ the councils‚ for a housing estate development. The defendants covenanted with
Premium Plaintiff Contract Defendant
and demurrage of Rs46‚800 whereas the defendant (the textile mills) says they never asked the plaintiff to buy the coal which makes him a seller himself. Issues of the case The issues involved in this particular case were:- *If buying of the coal makes the plaintiff a middle man according to sale of goods act‚ 1940 a buyer after purchasing a good tries to sell it further he is the part agreement to sale hence making him a unpaid seller? *Is the defendant not liable to pay any amount to the
Premium Defendant Pleading Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF 1st CLASS CIVIL JUDGE‚ LAHORE The Aga Khan Hospital and Medical College Foundation VERSUS Mr. Bashir Ahmad WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT Respectfully Sheweth: Preliminary Objections 1. That the Plaintiff has not properly authorized Mr. Sherali Razwani S/O Ferozeali Razwani and Mrs. Shagufta Shamsuddin Hassan W/O Shamsuddin Sadruddin Hassan to file this suit. Hence‚ the Plaint is liable to be dismissed. 2. That the plaint is defective on the grounds
Premium Plaintiff Civil procedure Pleading
In Lang v James Morrison & Co Ltd (1912) 13 CLR 1‚ an action was brought by an English company‚ James Morrison & Co Ltd‚ against three defendants‚ J McFarland‚ T Lang and W Keates. The plaintiffs carried on the business of receiving and disposing of frozen meat from abroad. They alleged that the three defendants carried on business in Melbourne as partners under the names ‘T McFarland & Co’ and on occasions ‘McFarland‚ Lang and Keates’. Before the action commenced‚ J McFarland and W Keates became
Premium Plaintiff Complaint Pleading
In order to take legal action against Samseng under assault‚ the issue must first be fulfilled the elements of assault. The first element of assault is the mental state of the defendant. In this case‚ the defendant has the intention to commit the assault on Nona. The intention of the defendant is specific as when the defendant acted‚ he intended to cause apprehension of harmful or unwanted contact which is the act of pointing a gun to Nona’s head while threatened to blow off her head. This element
Premium Legal terms Violence Assault
It should be seen that the courts do not always mark out the bounds of duty to limit the responsibility of the defendant‚ they sometimes do it to protect the interests of someone who has suffered a loss. However it is important for the courts to limit the responsibility of the defendant due to the ‘floodgates problem’. What is more‚ the courts sometimes treat certain groups of defendants leniently by limiting their liability in some cases. On one hand‚ the courts draw a line to mark out the bounds
Premium Tort Plaintiff Duty of care
against Dr. Dyer as defendant. Facts: The defendant attempted to pass the plaintiffs car on the highway several times‚ during which‚ the plaintiff prevented the defendant from re-entering the traffic lane by increasing his speed. After being followed for 16 km‚ the plaintiff stopped his car on the paved portion of the highway to block the defendants’ passage. The plaintiff then emerged from his car shaking his fist and walked towards to the defendants’ vehicle. The defendant got out of his car and
Premium Legal terms Plaintiff Defendant