1.) The legal issue in R V Brown case that the house of lord had to determine was "Is consent a defence to an assault causing grievous bodily harm" This is a case of sado-masochism where the group of men were engaged in act of violence against each other particularly on their genital parts‚ by branding or genital torture for sexual pleasure. The victims in each case consented to this ritual (activity) and didn’t suffer any permanent injury. Each of the defendants faced assault ABH charges and unlawful
Premium Law Human rights
Title: R. v. Hufsky‚ [1988] 1 S.C.R 621 Parties: Werner E. J. Hufsky – Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen - Respondent Decision: Appeal was dismissed Notions/Concepts: Constitutional Law Criminal Law Equality before the law Charter of Rights and Freedoms Arbitrary detention Unreasonable Search Refusal to provide breath sample Facts: Appellant was stopped at a random spot check by police Nothing unusual about his driving at the time of the spot check Spot check was for the purposes
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Supreme Court of the United States
Abashidze Case #3: Kmart and Sears: still stuck in the middle? Kmart Company History Kmart had been established in 1962 by its parent company S.S. Kresge as a discount department store offering the most variety of goods at the lowest prices. Un- like Sears‚ the company chose not to locate in large shopping malls but to establish its discount stores in highly visible corner locations. During the 1960s‚ ’70s‚ and ’80s‚ Kmart prospered. Retail formats in operation Kmart – is a chain of discount
Premium Kmart Sears Holdings Corporation Discount store
HOGESCHOOL UTRECHT Law Chapter 4 Tort Tort Contents 1) 2) Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1) Tort and Crime .............................................................................................................................. 2 1.2) Tort and Contract ............................................................................................................
Premium Tort Tort law
contract which excludes one of the parties from responsibility for something that may go wrong in the performance of the contract or limits that responsibility. It is called an exclusion clause or an exemption clause. For example‚ an exclusion from liability for damage done to the lawn by a builder’s backhoe might be included in a contract between the builder and a home owner who is having an extension built to their home. Express Terms of the Contract The express terms of the contract‚ the obligations
Premium Contract Law Parol evidence rule
Litonjua v. L&R Corporation December 9‚ 1999 Facts: Litonjua obtained loans from L&R Corporation secured by a mortgage. Without knowledge of L&R‚ Litonjua sold to PWHAS the parcels of land they had previously mortgaged to L & R Corporation. When Litonjua defaulted in the payment of their loans‚ L & R Corporation initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings and L & R Corporation was the only bidder. When L & R Corporation presented its corresponding Certificate of Sale for registration‚ it
Premium Mortgage
Vicarious Liability * Employer’s liability for employee’s wrongdoing committed by employee in course employment- strict liability/ absence of wrongdoing by defendant * Employer will not be liable unless employer-employee relationship/ employee must commit a tort/ must be during course employment * Casual potency important * Must be committed by an employee- employer/employee relationship: * Distinguished between contract of employment/contract for employment * Ready
Premium Tort law Tort Law
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
PRACTICE QUESTION FOR TORTS John worked as a car/truck mechanic for a small business in Darlinghurst Sydney. He was a newly trained mechanic and had just commenced work at a new job last week. The day he started work he was given the task of repairing a truck engine. This required John to disassemble the engine with specialised tools. Mechanics who worked on these large engines were normally given protective head gear to prevent any piece of engine striking them in the face should a piece
Premium Causality Pleading Internal combustion engine
TORTS – INTENTIONAL TORTS PRIMA FACIE Battery is the (1) intentional infliction of (2) a harmful or offensive (3) contact. Offensive includes acts damaging to a “reasonable sense of dignity.” No knowledge of contact is required. (Rationale: protection of personal integrity. Freedom from intentional and unpermitted contact. Offensive harm included b/c of mental injuries). ▪ To have a claim of battery‚ there must be a claim of fault‚ negligence‚ or wrongdoing on the part of
Premium Tort law Tort