negligent otherwise the accident would not have happen. In the common law of negligence‚ the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (Latin: the thing speaks for itself) states that the elements of duty of care and breach can be sometimes inferred from the very nature of the accident‚ even without direct evidence of how any defendant behaved. Where all that the Plaintiff can show is that he suffered injury. To deal with such difficult case where she does not know how the damage was caused‚ he could apply the
Premium Tort law Tort Duty of care
UCC Team Boys and a Chick Law/421 11/3/12 Mr. Marmo Uniform Commercial Codes 1) Does article 2 of the UCC apply to the contracts between Grocery Inc and their vendors? Yes. In the scenario Grocery Inc is in contract with multiple vendors‚ both private (individual) and corporate vendors. Article 2 covers the sale of goods. Goods meaning that they can be moved during the time of purchase such as food products (Lawinfo.com‚ 2012). The UCC does not cover services like a membership
Premium Common law Contract Uniform Commercial Code
The plaintiff of this case is Harvest States Cooperatives and the defendant is Anderson. Harvest States Cooperatives sued Anderson for breach of contract‚ after Anderson failed to deliver 5‚000 bushels of corn. Anderson had spoken to a representative of the coop over the phone to inquire the price of corn which he had available for sale. Harvest States Cooperatives asked Anderson if he would like to see a contract and Anderson said yes. Following through‚ Harvest States Cooperatives sent Anderson
Premium Contract Contract law Breach of contract
ISSUE: Is there a legally enforceable contract for the sale of gold between Terry and Susan? RULES: 1. Social and domestic agreements have a presumption against legal obligations (Balfour v Balfour ). The presumption can be rebutted in a domestic agreement if there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate an intention to create legal relations (Beswick v Beswick ; Errington v Errington ; Parker v Clark ; Riches v Hogben ; Wakeling v Ripley ). 2. An offer must be clear‚ unambiguous‚ and have sufficient
Premium Contract Contract law
Contract law – contract formation Figure 1: Elements required for a contract to be recognised by law Using Figure 1 above‚ and your knowledge of the elements required for contract formation‚ consider whether a contract recognised by law has been made in each of the scenarios below. Scenario IS THERE A contract? James is selling his car for $5000. Lucy comes to look at it‚ and says that she loves it‚ but that she only has $4800 to spend. James says he will accept $4800‚ as long as Lucy
Premium Contract Offer and acceptance Common law
failure to arrive on time‚ and filed an action for rescission of contract with damages against Maersk Line and Eli Lilly alleging gross negligence and undue delay. Denying that it committed breach of contract‚ petitioner alleged in its answer that the subject shipment was transported in accordance with the provisions of the NCC covering bill of lading and that its liability under the law on transportation of good attaches only in case of loss‚ destruction or deterioration of the goods as provided
Premium Contract law Transport Legal documents
payment for the entire contract? I believe that Gordon would be able to successfully sue for payment of the contract‚ but not to the entirety of it. The reasoning for this is that Gordon’s plans with Floors n’ More Inc. were submitted to the company‚ and then approved afterwards. By doing so‚ this was made into an
Premium Common law Contract Lawsuit
MJC/Barney’s-NSH/Hermès: Applicable law: • Bonebrake: The handbags are the predominant thrust of the agreement‚ and they fit in a shopping cart similar to UCC Coffee cans. UCC applies. §2-105. Enforceability: Offer §2-104(1): o NSH’s owner manifested his willingness to bargain when he met with buyers from MJC. Moreover‚ he said‚ “I am happy to have you buy all the bags we make for $8‚000 each‚ just as we have done for the past several years.” Acceptance §2-104(1): o The head buyer from MJC accepted
Premium Contract law Contract
the case of Salomon v A. Salomon & Co. Ltd was concluded‚ a highly regarded case within company law due to the Separate Entity Principle outlined‚ the principal which became widely known as the Salomon Principle. This piece will summarise the case in order to identify the importance it has in company law‚ along with identifying under what circumstance the Salomon Principle might be ignored by the courts. The final section will conclude with a subjective view of the Salomon Principle. The case of
Premium Law Common law Corporation
detailed language (pg. 935) that Mr. Freeman had the authority to make new orders in his absence. However‚ there was implied authority. According to the evidence‚ Mr. Harran did leave Mr. Freeman in charge and instructed him to use his common sense in case something were to come up. There’s also the issue of apparent authority that is clearly present here. In Busher and Willis Consulting Engineers‚ Planners and architects v. Smith 643P.2d 1156 (Kan App. 1982). Johnson was appointed attorney for an estate
Premium Contract Law Contract law