with the sub-contractor under German law Baranca industries is held responsible. In Germany‚ when a sub-contractor performs an illegal action‚ it is under the assumption that the company hiring the subcontractor had full knowledge of the character committing the conference and would be held liable. Those that would be held responsible are the highest-ranking officials in Germany and at that time it was Harold Johns. I can understand the reasoning behind the law‚ to eliminate the possibility of outsourcing
Premium Business Law United States
You have been practising for 4 months after completing your practical legal training at The College of Law. Your first degree at university was a Bachelor of Town Planning and your final year thesis was an analysis of local government response to the need for low income housing. You have worked as a volunteer at a Tenants Advice Bureau and feel very strongly
Premium Law Tort Tort law
Product Liability Theories of Recovery and Defense In my opinion Wood would most likely win the law suit against either the peanut or the jar manufacturer on the basis of strict liability or negligence‚ which allows a person injured by an unreasonably dangerous product to recover damages from the manufacturer or seller of the product even in the absence of a contract or negligent conduct on the part of the manufacturer or seller (Bagley‚ 2013). Therefore‚ Wood should recover damages even if the
Free Product liability Tort Negligence
Without this case serving a vital purpose when it comes to American law I can only imagine the amount of breach of contracts that would hold people liable for things they had no clue were even possible or that could take place. This is why the case of Baxendale v. Hadley was such a huge impact. The case let it be known for future cases that when it comes to the law many things are circumstantial especially when it comes down to who is held responsible. Had Baxendale
Premium United States Contract Tort
INTRODUCTION The law of delict is a branch of private law falling under the law of obligations. It deals with civil wrongs as opposed to criminal wrongs. The essential purpose of the law of delict is to afford a civil remedy‚ usually by way of compensation‚ for wrongful conduct that has caused harm to others. A delict is the breach of a general duty imposed by law which will ground an action for damages at the suit of any person to whom the duty was owed and who has suffered harm in consequence of
Premium Tort Tort law
How does the law justify imposing strict liability for some criminal offences? ‘actus non facit nise men sit rea’ means an act alone cannot constitute guilt without the proof of a guilty mind‚ for most criminal cases. Strict Liability is the legal responsibility for injury or damages even if the person was not at fault or negligent; this contradicts the above Latin maxim as it places sole responsibility upon a defendant without the proof of ‘mens rea.’ Strict liability is a topic that has both its
Premium Law Criminal law Negligence
Negligence is a common civil law case that occurs in many workplaces. “Negligence is a failure to take reasonable care to avoid causing injury or loss to another person.” (Legal services commission of SA‚ 2013) These laws creating equality for people done wrong off. Samuel Johnson quoted‚ “He who thinks he can afford to be negligent is not far from being poor” This quote points out that you might as well be poor if you think you cannot look after people and get away with it. This is a growing concern
Premium Law Tort Negligence
There is no need to say that‚ in according to meet these needs of the guests and surprise them‚ Ciragan Palace Kempinski needs high qualified employees who can maintain the Kempinski standards‚ who can manage stress and who are flexible. However‚ hospitality and tourism industry has a huge issue of finding and keeping employees. Employee turnover is a growing issue in the
Premium Hotel Istanbul Hospitality industry
Kaplan University PA 260: Criminal Law Professor Chiacchia March 6‚ 2012 Gideon v. Wainwright – 372 U.S. 335 (1963) Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with a felony under Florida State Law. He allegedly broke into a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor‚ thus making it a felony. Mr. Gideon was indigent and asked the court to appoint counsel for him. The court stated that because Gideon was not charged with a capital offense‚ under Florida State Law his request was denied. Mr. Gideon
Premium Contract Law Employment
negligent in respect to Barnes safety. The elements that the court will examine include; defendant owing the plaintiff a duty of care‚ was that duty breached and did the breach cause damage to the plaintiff. Firstly‚ according to an established common law rule known as the rule from Searle v Wallbank‚ provides that an occupier of land bordering a road will have no duty to stop or restrict animals from straying in order to ensure that damages are not caused and the burden of providing that the area was
Premium Law Tort law Tort