References: Books NeethlingJ‚Potgieter JM (2010) Law of Delict‚ 5th Edition‚ LexisNexis‚ Durban Pattern v Caledonian Insurance Co. 1962 (2) SA 691 (D) Randbank BPK v Santamverserkeringsmaatskapy 1965 (4) SA 363 [ 3 ]. 1987 (2) 82. [ 4 ]. 1986 (1) SA 117 (A). [ 8 ]. 1991 (1) SA 1. [ 9 ]. Neethling J‚ Potgieter JM‚ Visser PJ‚ Knobel JC (2006) Law of Delict‚ 5th Edition‚ LexisNexis Butterworths‚ Durban. [ 11 ]. 2004 (4) SA 220 (C). [ 12 ]. 2004 (4)
Premium Tort law Vicarious liability Legal terms
statutes substantially similar to the English Occupiers Liability Act 1957. Barbados: Occupiers Liability Act‚ Cap. 208 Jamaica: Occupiers Liability Act 1969 (Vol. Xiii‚ Laws of Jamaica) All other jurisdictions apply the common law rules‚ but it has been said that the Occupiers Liability Acts could be regarded as simply applied common law negligence. Occupiers Liability or Negligence- New Zealand Ins. Co. v Prudential Assurance Ltd. [1976] Occupiers’ liability may extend to cover conduct which causes
Premium Tort law Common law Tort
1.1 The Parol Evidence Rule Oral evidence may not be adduced to add to‚ contradict or controvert a written document. The rule is part the law of evidence and applies not only to contracts but all kinds of documents. The rule grew up in the context of arguments about when parties would be allowed to place oral evidence before a jury. Much of the early case law involves wills. Wikipedia note on Parol Evidence Goss v Lord Nugent (1833) 5 B & Ad 58 “Verbal evidence is not allowed to be given...so
Premium Contract Law Parol evidence rule
interested in pursuing a career in the hospitality industry? Has this changed from the beginning of the class? Please respond to two of your classmates postings. Main posts I really learned lot of things from this class. Also‚ it has been helped me learn more things in the industry in the hospitality tourism‚ and leisure industry. I have gained some knowledge of the opportunities of career in the industry and I also gained some the skills from the hospitality‚ tourism‚ and leisure industry
Premium Psychology Learning Hotel
or awareness that one does not have lawful access. In the case of Jorge Ramirez‚ New Hampshire’s criminal trespassing law uses broad language that makes it seem applicable to immigration‚ stating that a person is guilty "if‚ knowing he is not licensed or privileged to do so‚ he enters or remains in any place." Where this law uses the phrase “any place”‚ most states’ trespass laws refer specifically to private property and would be difficult to apply to immigration. Georgia’s
Premium Criminal law Tort law Crime
with the sub-contractor under German law Baranca industries is held responsible. In Germany‚ when a sub-contractor performs an illegal action‚ it is under the assumption that the company hiring the subcontractor had full knowledge of the character committing the conference and would be held liable. Those that would be held responsible are the highest-ranking officials in Germany and at that time it was Harold Johns. I can understand the reasoning behind the law‚ to eliminate the possibility of outsourcing
Premium Business Law United States
Product Liability Theories of Recovery and Defense In my opinion Wood would most likely win the law suit against either the peanut or the jar manufacturer on the basis of strict liability or negligence‚ which allows a person injured by an unreasonably dangerous product to recover damages from the manufacturer or seller of the product even in the absence of a contract or negligent conduct on the part of the manufacturer or seller (Bagley‚ 2013). Therefore‚ Wood should recover damages even if the
Free Product liability Tort Negligence
Without this case serving a vital purpose when it comes to American law I can only imagine the amount of breach of contracts that would hold people liable for things they had no clue were even possible or that could take place. This is why the case of Baxendale v. Hadley was such a huge impact. The case let it be known for future cases that when it comes to the law many things are circumstantial especially when it comes down to who is held responsible. Had Baxendale
Premium United States Contract Tort
INTRODUCTION The law of delict is a branch of private law falling under the law of obligations. It deals with civil wrongs as opposed to criminal wrongs. The essential purpose of the law of delict is to afford a civil remedy‚ usually by way of compensation‚ for wrongful conduct that has caused harm to others. A delict is the breach of a general duty imposed by law which will ground an action for damages at the suit of any person to whom the duty was owed and who has suffered harm in consequence of
Premium Tort Tort law
How does the law justify imposing strict liability for some criminal offences? ‘actus non facit nise men sit rea’ means an act alone cannot constitute guilt without the proof of a guilty mind‚ for most criminal cases. Strict Liability is the legal responsibility for injury or damages even if the person was not at fault or negligent; this contradicts the above Latin maxim as it places sole responsibility upon a defendant without the proof of ‘mens rea.’ Strict liability is a topic that has both its
Premium Law Criminal law Negligence