beached that duty of care AND 3. The victim has suffered resulting damage Duty of care: The “Neighbor Principle” to establish whether or not a duty of care is owed in the context of the Tort of negligence. First one has to establish that there was factual foreseeability of damage resulting from the negligent act. Factual foreseeability: if the tortfeasor was careless in the way that he went about his affairs‚ the victim would suffer damage from such carelessness. Secondly‚ the must be sufficient proximity
Premium Contract Tort
CASE TOPIC AREA RESULTING LAW [CASE DETAILS] "Whitely v Chapel " "Interpretation of Statute " "literal rule - words given dict’ meaning [voted under dead person’s name. Cannot impersonate a dead person] " "Re Sigsworth " "Interpretation of Statute " golden rule - above disregarded if absurd/repugnant situation [son due to inherit from his mother after murdering her] "DPP vs Bull / Corkery v Carpenter " "Interpretation of Statute " "mischief rule - interpret for intended effect [law referrign
Premium Contract Tort Contract law
NEGLIGENT ADVICE To prove that negligence exists‚ three elements must be established. DUTY OF CARE Two factors must be established‚ relationship proximity and reasonable foreseeability. According to Hedley Byrne principle(Hedley Byrne v Heller & Co Ltd [1964] AC 465)‚ there was a relationship of circumstantial proximity between a professional financial adviser and client‚ which gave rise to Denise owing Charlie the duty of care because Charlie would rely on Denise with the intention
Premium Financial services Tort Negligence
*44 Cehave N. v. v Bremer Handelsgesellschaft M.B.H. The Hansa Nord Court of Appeal 16 July 1975 [1975] 3 W.L.R. 447 [1976] Q.B. 44 Lord Denning M.R. ‚ Roskill and Ormrod L.JJ. 1975 June 10‚ 11‚ 12‚ 13‚ 16; July 16 Contract—Condition or warranty—Intermediate stipulation—Whether breach goes to root of contract—Carriage by sea—Stipulation for "shipment... in good condition" Sale of Goods—Description—Merchantable quality—Citrus pulp pellets for use in cattle food—Substantial part damaged—Rejection
Premium Contract Breach of contract
to accept goods Section 56 states that‚ where the buyer wrongfully neglects or refuses to accept and pay for the goods‚ the seller may sue him for damages for non-acceptance. Section 56 of the local Act has no provision corresponding to sections 50(2) and (3) of the English Sale of Goods Act 1979 which lay down the rules for the assessment of damages for non-acceptance. In their absence‚ the local court will most likely apply the common law principle derived from the leading case of Hadley v. Baxendale
Premium Contract Common law Breach of contract
Question 1 Issue: The issue of this question is to discuss the offences committed by the three China bus drivers who went on strike. Apart from going on a strike‚ these bus drivers also threatened their fellow colleagues and will be charged for disrupting essential services of the country. Rule of Law: The first offence is the Breach of Contract. It means failing to perform any term of contract‚ written or oral‚ without a legitimate excuse.1 A party may commit this offence by repudiating his
Premium Tort Law Damages
okay and the explosion was caused by the service by C - breach of s13 not taking reasonable care and skill (see if the service was defective) Discuss remedies unliquidated damages - note the rules on remoteness Jeremy cannot sue C for breach of contract as he is not a party to the contract - if W has to pay damages to Jeremy for the injuries then C should indemnify W b) Twenty months into the contract‚ Crankit is called upon by Widgets‚ which reports that a major mechanical
Premium Contract Breach of contract Contract law
suffer from any damage‚ injury or loss as a result. And in order to access the negligence of any individual as well as the liability that those individuals may encounter due to their act of negligent‚ it is important to know how negligence is determined in law. According to the Law of Negligence‚ the Panel is requested to examine the formulation of duties for Tom and the bar owner; the causation of Tom and the bar owner; the foreseeability of harm by the two parties as well as the remoteness of the risk
Premium Tort Law Tort law
carry out certain acts; second‚ should the conspiracy include lawful acts‚ then the main purpose of the conspirators must be to cause damage or injury to the plaintiff; if the conspiracy involves unlawful means‚ then such a main purpose is of no need. Thirdly‚ the acts must be performed in furtherance of the agreement and lastly‚ the plaintiff must have suffered damage: Wu Yang Construction Group Ltd v Zhejiang Jinyi Group Co Ltd (2006). Duress is
Premium Tort Reasonable person Duty of care
Seminar 9 – Remedies for Breach of Contract Reading: George Shenoy and Loo Wee Ling (eds)‚ Principles of Singapore Business Law (“PSBL”)‚ (Cengage 2013)‚ Chapter 18. We will concentrate in class mainly on Damages. Note that PSBL chapter 18 addresses the topics in a different order from this Outline; we will in general follow the order of the Outline Note: References below to Poole are to Jill Poole‚ Casebook on Contract Law (10th ed‚ 2010)‚ which is available at Course Reserve in the
Premium Contract Law Breach of contract