Aspects of contract and negligence in business YOSHUA CASTAÑEDA GALLEGOS STUDENT ID: A4058935 TUTOR: Vincent Adon Edexcel Assessment Brief Front Sheet Assessor Name: Vincent Adon‚ Anthony Owusu‚ Rahki Rashmi Internal Verifier Name: Sherylann Ramsaran Date Issued: 02/02/2014 Hand in Date: 09/11/2014 before 11:59 pm Qualification: BTEC Higher National Diploma in Business Unit Title: Aspects of Contract and Negligence for Business Rules and regulations: Plagiarism is presenting somebody
Premium Contract
[1868]‚ decided by Blackburn J. In effect‚ it is a tort of strict liability “imposed upon a landowner who collects certain things on his land – a duty insurance against harm caused by their escape regardless of the owner’s fault”. The tort under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is described as one of strict liability. This means that liability may be imposed on a party without finding of fault such as negligence. The plaintiff need only prove that the tort occurred. The facts of Rylands v Fletcher were
Premium Tort Tort Complaint
ASPECTS OF CONTRACTS AND NEGLIGENCE FOR BUSINESS . MODULE CODE: Y/601/0563 LECTURER: MR. DALTON VINCENT STUDENT: HNDB 5366 CONSTANTIN VALENTIN IONESCU CONTENT: LO1. Understanding the essential elements of a valid contract in a business context…3 P1.1. Explain the importance of the essential elements required for the formation of a valid contract……………………………………………………………………………………….3 P1.2. Discuss the impact of different types of contract………………………………………3
Premium Contract
longer exists. The Court noted the dissatisfactory condition of the law in this regard and suggested for enacting appropriate legislation to remove the uncertainty in this area. The Supreme Court held that the State was liable vicariously for the negligence committed by its officers in discharge of public duty conferred on them under a statute. As regards the immunity of State on the ground of sovereign function‚ the Court held that the traditional concept of sovereignty has undergone a considerable
Free Common law Law Supreme Court of the United States
managers should examine liability obligations as well as laws protecting or defending their business. Applying a defense against negligence in a business managerial setting involves managers researching laws providing immunization against negligent allegations. According to the article‚ what is Negligence and how do I Defend against Negligence? Possible defenses against negligence include "(1) challenging the status of the plaintiff and the corresponding duty of care‚ (2) asserting that it acted in accordance
Premium Law Common law Civil procedure
death of Patricia Bandy. The plaintiff‚ executor of Patricia’s estate‚ brought a lawsuit against Lamm and the Premier Corporation Lamm was working for‚ stating that since Lamm was an employee of the Corporation‚ last one as well was liable for his negligence. Lamm answered that he wasn’t negligent. He was incapable of driving because of a sudden stroke. Also Corporation answered that they were not liable because Lamm was not their employee‚ and that he was working for them as independent contractor
Premium Law Appeal Jury
deficiencies of the Pinto made by Ford Motor Company and the company was knowledgeable of these deficiencies before launching it into the market for consumers. Richard Grimshaw and the surviving family members of Lilly Gray sued Ford Motor Company for negligence and strict liability. In the original verdict Richard Grimshaw was awarded $2‚516‚000 for compensatory damages and $125 million in punitive damages. The Gray’s were awarded $559‚680 in compensatory damages. Because of a motion filed by Ford Motor
Premium Ford Pinto Tort Negligence
the conductor’s negligence‚ whom she blames for pulling the commuter on the train. Which initiated the domino effect leading up to her injuries. Judge Cardoza ruled in favor of the Long Island Railroad because the conductor could not have known the passenger had fireworks. The action of the conductor was not a proximate-enough cause
Premium Plessy v. Ferguson Law New York
The two occupier liability acts are‚ the 1957 act covers liability of occupier for injury suffered by lawful visitors. The Duty of care under the 1957 Act is only for people who have permission to be on the site (invitees or licensees) there is no duty of care for trespassers under this act. The 1984 act offers defence for trespassers as to the lawful visitor’s act of 1957. The occupier of the land owes a duty if he knows or has a rational thought as to if the ground is dangerous. The 1957 Act is
Premium Law Tort Tort law
shopping mall that allows the consumer to transact business including banking‚ shopping‚ and a host of day-to-day chores. As much as the consumer has come to rely on this new forum of exchange‚ it is also an instrument of many civil wrongs (cyber torts). This harm includes financial injuries‚ reputable damage‚ theft of trade secrets‚ and invasions of privacy. The Enron Corporation was listed as the seventh largest company in the U.S. with over $100 billion in gross revenues and more than 20‚000
Premium Enron Enron scandal Tort