Using the IDEA structure for Criminal Law application questions – example answer. In response to questions from the Jan’ ’10 exam. 1bi) “Discuss the criminal liability of Ashok for the incident at the traffic lights.” * Identify and Define Ashok could be criminally liable for the common law offence of assault; an assault takes place when the defendant intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful violence. * Explain Actus Reus and Mens Rea The actus reus
Premium Criminal law Causality Crime
Products Liability Research Paper By Bobby Brown Sunbeam is an American made brand that has produced various household appliances since 1910. Their products have included the Mixmaster mixer‚ the Sunbeam waffle iron‚ Coffeemaster‚ and an automatic toaster. In 1928‚ the company’s head designer‚ Swedish immigrant Ivar Jeppsson‚ invented the Mixmaster mixer. Introduced to the public in 1930‚ it was the first mechanical mixer with two detachable beaters whose blades interlocked. Barbara Thompson
Premium Occupational safety and health Finger Manufacturing
Topics in Criminal Law May 25‚ 2010 Abstract Strict liability crimes require no culpable mental state and present a significant exception to the principle that all crimes require a conjunction of action and mens rea. Strict liability offenses make it a crime simply to do something‚ even if the offender has no intention of violating the law or causing the resulting harm. Strict liability is based philosophically on the presumption that causing harm is in itself blameworthy regardless of the
Premium Criminal law
financial accounting standards statement sets up the foundation for reporting and accounting for loss contingencies. A contingent liability is a potential liability that might‚ or might not happen in the future. For example this could be a lawsuit‚ a product warranty‚ a possible tax assessment‚ a government investigation‚ or even an environmental contamination. A contingent liability and the associated loss are recorded as a journal entry only if the contingency meets these two criteria; A.) the contingency
Premium Balance sheet Generally Accepted Accounting Principles Financial statements
The European Accounting Review 2000‚ 9:3‚ 371 385 Auditor liability rules under imperfect information and costly litigation: the welfare-increasing eŒ of liability ect insurance Ralf Ewert‚ Eberhard Feess and Martin Nell University of Frankfurt‚ Frankfurt am Main ABSTRACT This paper examines auditor liability rules under imperfect information‚ costly litigation and risk-averse auditors. A negligence rule fails in such a setting‚ because in equilibrium auditors will deviate with positive probability
Premium Insurance Risk aversion
Office of the Ombudsman v. Uldarico P. Andutan (G.R. No. 164679‚ 27 July 2011) The Ombudsman argued – in both the present petition and in the petition it filed with the CA – that Andutan’s retirement from office does not render moot any administrative case‚ as long as he is charged with an offense he committed while in office. It is irrelevant‚ according to the Ombudsman‚ that Andutan had already resigned prior to the filing of the administrative case since the operative fact that determines its
Premium Termination of employment Resignation
former to incur the liabilty. The object of this assignment is to explain the principle of vicarious liability and show which instances it applies to. Reference will be made to decided cases and statutes. 2. Employer- Employee Relationship The employer- employee relationship is one of the most common occurrences of cases of vicarious liability. The most accepted reason for conferring liability to the employer is that by assigning a task to the employee‚ the employer creates a risk of harm and
Premium Tort law Vicarious liability Legal terms
Principles of Liability – Coursework Assessment Two For a contractual agreement to withstand‚ it is crucial that the contract contains the four main components‚ which are; offer‚ acceptance‚ consideration and the intention to create legal relations. A contract is seen as a legally binding agreement between two parties‚ so It is very important for the court to establish a ‘consensus ad idem’; the meeting of minds in order to judge whether a contract exists. Britney’s first meeting with
Premium Contract Meeting of the minds
Liability for Omissions The law has historically been reluctant to impose a general liability for omissions as opposed to positive acts. This means that there is no general duty of care in tort to act in order to prevent harm occurring to another. In Smith v Littlewoods Organisation‚ Lord Goff stated clearly that “the common law does not impose liability for what are called pure omissions”. Similarly‚ in Yuen Kun Yeu v A-G of Hong Kong‚ Lord Keith stated that people can ignore their moral responsibilities
Premium Tort law Legal terms Tort
Employers Liability and breach of statutory duty Employers liability have both a common law and statutory aspect. Common law = found in tort of negligence. Duties are only owed to employees. Not owed to IC and visitor’s (Occupiers liability) Common Law Basic duty owed at common law by an employer to an employee is founded on the tort of negligence. Authority derives from: Wilsons and Clyde Coal v English [1938] AC 57 Employers have the duty at common law to take reasonable
Premium Tort law Tort Law