PEASANTS AND FARMERS Q1.Explain what the open field system meant to rural people in 18th century in England from the point of view of (a) A rich man (b) A labourer (c) A peasant women. Ans: Open field system Before the 18th century in large parts of England the country side was open‚ it was not partitioned into enclosed lands privately owned by landlords. Peasants: They cultivated strips of land around the village they lived in. Mixed quality of land: At the beginning f each
Premium Agriculture Opium Wars Opium
Topic Comparative study on sensitivity toothpaste (COLGATE v/s SENSODYNE) NAME: VISHAL KORI ROLL NO: 25 SUB: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY STD: S.Y.BMS SUBMITTED TO: SUSAN ALEX INDEX NO | TOPIC NAME | PAGE NO | 1. | INTRODUCTION | | 2. | BACKGROUND / SIGNIFICANT | | 3. | QUESTIONNAIRE | | 4. | ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONNAIRE | | 5. | ANALYSIS OF AREA (CHUNABHATTI) | | 6. | CONCLUSION | | 7. | RECOMENDATIONS | | 8. | BIBLIOGRAPHY | | INTRODUCTION Toothpaste is a paste or gel dentifrice used
Premium Toothpaste Oral hygiene
common negligence against Edmund. 2. Whether Sam has action in rescuer’s duty against Edmund 3. Whether William has an action in vicarious liability against TCS 4. Whether Sam has an action in vicarious liability against TCS Pleadings: 1. William v Edmund A. Duty of care Foreseeability – there will be accidents if bus isn’t checked properly and if Edmund doesn’t watch the road. Fair just reasonable. Proximity – safety of William depended on Edmunds careful driving B. Breach of duty – Edmund
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
land‚ or some right over or in connection with is nuisance (Winfield and Jolowich on tort) examples are noise‚ fumes‚ dust e.t.c. There are 3 different actions in nuisance but the ones of concern are private‚ public and Rylands and Fletcher (strict liability).the objective of nuisance is to protect an individual’s interest in land. The scenario to be analysed below is to advise Banger of his potential liability in tort since the occupier/ controller of the land (country house)‚ and the creator of the
Premium Tort
Tort Scenario Paper Crystal Cunningham‚ Robert Harrison‚ Billie Miller‚ Tyler Pierce‚ and Jennifer Sorensen University of Phoenix Business Law BUS415 Page Beetem May 30‚ 2011 Scenario One What tort actions do see and the identity of potential plaintiffs? Intentional battery - (Plaintiff‚ Malik v. Ruben) Malik can file a claim against Ruben for pushing him. Ruben would be liable for any physical harm sustained due to the physical contact. Unintentional negligence- (Plaintiff‚ Malik
Premium Tort
the Law of torts. However‚ to every general rule there exceptions‚ this paper will discuss in some detail. the meaning of the three terms of intention‚ motive and malice as used in the Law of torts. In discussing the terms as used in tort‚it is important to note that Tort means a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common-law action for unliquidated damages‚and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or breach of trust or other merely equitable obligation’ (Salmond:Law of Torts)1 Another
Premium Tort
Question 1 What legal issues does this situation raise and what are the possible legal consequences? Issue 1--duty of care The tort of negligence to be constituted depend on whether the defendant violate the principle of ‘Duty 0f Care’. Because of the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1]‚ ‘Duty 0f Care’ has been established in common law: 1. Defendant whether or not fulfill the duty of care. 2. That defendant whether or not breached that duty. 3. whether Breach the duty of care is the main
Premium Tort law Law Negligence
4.0 INTRODUCTION Occupiers’ liability generally refers to the duty owed by land owners to those who come onto their land. However‚ the duty imposed on land owners can extend beyond simple land ownership and in some instances the landowners may transfer the duty to others‚ hence the term occupier rather than owner. The term occupier itself is misleading since physical occupation is not necessary for liability to arise. Occupiers’ liability is perhaps a distinct form of negligence in that there must
Premium Tort law Tort
narrow and clear in the contract‚ including an enumeration of examples such as market research data‚ sales plans and advertising strategies. In Mainmet Holdings plc v Austin‚ the defendant was held not in breach of confidence‚ because the reports about defects in customers’ systems are not considered as trade secrets.[ Mainmet Holdings plc v Austin [1991] F.S.R. 538] It would be easier to determine the nature of the reports if the corporation has specifically stated that as confidential information in
Premium Confidentiality Law Employment
Tort Reform XXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX University Tort Reform In the past several years‚ the focus surrounding tort law has grown significantly. Why all the attention? Most people say it is because of the increase insurance liability and the recent up rise in ridiculous lawsuits. One of the most recognizable suits out there is the infamous “McDonald’s Hot Coffee” Lawsuit. This well known lawsuit sparked controversy and propelled
Premium Tort Medical malpractice