commercial law case analyse
Commercial Law
Term Paper (Case Analysis)
Pro-Gordon C. Johnson
June 18, 2013
9th Edition
Chapter 5-Case 5
Summary: Marie-Claude operated a bowling alley in a commercial area that was adjacent to a residential area. Many small children used the parking lot near the bowling alley as a playground, and Marie-Claude was constantly tell these children leave the parking area maybe they will get injured. However, one six years old boy climb onto the flat roof of the bowling alley and while he is running, tripped and fell to the ground. But Marie-Claude continued to order the child off the roof by several times when he was on the roof.
Analysis: this situation can apply on Trespassers of Occupier Liability and Negligence of the concept of Foreseeability through the Supreme Court of Canada. For plaintiff: the occupier of the building warns the child of any dangers that exist on the property. Meanwhile, according to the concept of Foreseeability part, a very small child of tender years would not be held liable in tort, but children in their early teens, depending upon the extent of their maturity and level of understanding, nay very well is held responsible for their actions. This case belongs to unintentional acts of a person caused injury to others. For defendant: Owners of buildings, construction sites or those who construct dangerous structures on their premises in neighborhoods where small children live have a special duty to protect the children from harm or injury. On the other hands, the outcome for this situation maybe is Compensatory damages or Nominal damages. For compensatory: the loss suffered by a person in a negligence case in the loss of or damage to property. For nominal: when a person trespasses on the land of another without inflicting physical damage to the property.
Chapter 7-Case 3
Summary: Armstrong Aggregates Co. wrote a letter to Bishop on May 2nd offering to sell him 200 tons of scrap mica at
Term Paper (Case Analysis)
Pro-Gordon C. Johnson
June 18, 2013
9th Edition
Chapter 5-Case 5
Summary: Marie-Claude operated a bowling alley in a commercial area that was adjacent to a residential area. Many small children used the parking lot near the bowling alley as a playground, and Marie-Claude was constantly tell these children leave the parking area maybe they will get injured. However, one six years old boy climb onto the flat roof of the bowling alley and while he is running, tripped and fell to the ground. But Marie-Claude continued to order the child off the roof by several times when he was on the roof.
Analysis: this situation can apply on Trespassers of Occupier Liability and Negligence of the concept of Foreseeability through the Supreme Court of Canada. For plaintiff: the occupier of the building warns the child of any dangers that exist on the property. Meanwhile, according to the concept of Foreseeability part, a very small child of tender years would not be held liable in tort, but children in their early teens, depending upon the extent of their maturity and level of understanding, nay very well is held responsible for their actions. This case belongs to unintentional acts of a person caused injury to others. For defendant: Owners of buildings, construction sites or those who construct dangerous structures on their premises in neighborhoods where small children live have a special duty to protect the children from harm or injury. On the other hands, the outcome for this situation maybe is Compensatory damages or Nominal damages. For compensatory: the loss suffered by a person in a negligence case in the loss of or damage to property. For nominal: when a person trespasses on the land of another without inflicting physical damage to the property.
Chapter 7-Case 3
Summary: Armstrong Aggregates Co. wrote a letter to Bishop on May 2nd offering to sell him 200 tons of scrap mica at