THE DUTIES OF THE AGENTS TO PRINCIPAL The duties of an agent depend primarily on the contract of agency if there is one. Subject to any such express terms‚ the agent owes a number of implied duties or obligations to his principal. It is the agency relationship as such that gives rise to these obligations so that‚ as a general rule‚ they fall as much on the gratuitous agent as on the paid agent. 1. Obey the Principal’s instructions Section 164 states‚ The agent must obey the instructions given to
Premium Contract
Law of Negligence‚ the Panel is requested to examine the formulation of duties for Tom and the bar owner; the causation of Tom and the bar owner; the foreseeability of harm by the two parties as well as the remoteness of the risk. Furthermore‚ it is important to understand if there is any contributory negligence for Tom and the bar owner (Attorney General of Western Australia‚ 2008). To begin with‚ the bar owner hold the duty of care to Tom as he was the customer to the bar. The bar owner should
Premium Tort Law Tort law
Bubbles West Street Newport Isle of Wight PO305BF Dear Jo Blogs RE: Thinking of working in Care Profession It’s nice that you are thinking of joining the Care Profession‚ you must understand that as a Health Care Assistant you have a duty of care‚ this comes with roles and responsibilities. You must act in the best interests and welfare of the service user; by this you must do your best to keep the service user from any harm‚ to prevent this you must keep the environment clean and tidy
Premium Standard of care Medical malpractice Reasonable person
failure to properly inspect and test their products prior to selling and distribution. The plaintiff’s causes of action against Victoria Falls Bungee Co. are as follows: The defendant can be found to be negligent as they have breached the owed duty of care of properly maintaining all equipment‚ resulting in the harm of the plaintiff. If the bungee cord was not properly maintained‚ this would have directly caused the bungee cord to snap and lead to Langworthy’s injuries. In addition‚ professional
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
to the hospital (Miller & Jentz‚ 2010‚ p. 457). Responedeat superior generally states that a business will be responsible for the actions of its employee or employees. Looking at this you have to see if the employee acted within their scope of job duties (Miller & Jentz‚ 2010‚ p. 457). In this case the employees was acting out side of the scope.
Premium Tort law Law Tort
was an act ‘performed on behalf of the employer’ and ‘in the supposed furtherance of the interests of the employer’ . It was not an unprovoked act. However‚ it was done in the course of the employees duties. The employer would be vicarious liable for it although it was an excessive performance of the duty to protect the master’s property . Analysis of the decision In reaching the judgement‚ NSW Court of Appeal emphasised three important matters. Firstly‚ before the appellant was taken to the laneway
Premium Law Tort Tort law
be guilty of five elements: duty of due care‚ breach‚ factual cause‚ proximate cause‚ and damages. Duty of due care means that the defendant has a duty to the plaintiff if he or she could have foreseen injury to a particular person. A person at work has an increased duty of care and must act as a reasonable person in his or her profession. In this case‚ T & J had a duty of due care as they were on the job and could prevent a foreseeable injury‚ an
Premium Law Tort Negligence
part of the defendant. It is trite law that the tort of negligence has three essential elements‚ which any claimant must prove in order to succeed in his action against the defendant. These three elements are existence of duty of care owed to the claimant‚ breach of such duty of care by the defendant and
Premium Duty of care Tort Law
law. It concerns breach of a legal duty to take care‚ with the result that damage is caused to the claimant. Torts other than negligence are normally identified by the particular interest of the claimant that protect. For example‚ nuisance protects against interference with the claimant’s use and enjoyment of land‚ while defamation protects against damage to reputation. `Negligence` is defined in Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort as `the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage
Premium Tort Duty of care Common law
Harry and Mrs Tourniquet. To explain the actions that Harry and Mrs Tourniquet can and can’t take‚ it is going to be split into sections to cover the full law over this case. The sections the law is going to be split into are: Negligence‚ Causation‚ Duty of Care‚ Unforeseeable Harm and Tort; then ending with a conclusion. Each section is going have a short explanation of the law with a link to the case. This should explain to both Harry and Mrs Tourniquet if they have a reasonable case to give in a
Premium Tort Tort law Law