To: Rebecca Warren On behalf of Team A: Contents ANALYSIS FOR SUCCESSFUL LAWSUIT REPORT 3 Purpose 3 Factual Background 3 Issue 4 Roadmap 4 GROUNDS OF LIABILITY 5 Remedies for Negligence 5 Statutes Governing Contract Law 5 ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL BANK’S LIABILITY 7 Tort of Negligence 7 SUMMARY 10 DEFENSES AGAINST LIABILTY 10 Other Considerations 10 Analysis of Income 11 Offer and Acceptance Analysis 12 Summary 14 CONCLUSION 15 RECOMMENDATIONS 15 ANALYSIS FOR
Premium Contract Common law
Is there liability in negligence for injury caused by another in the absence of a contract? 2. Does the manufacturer of a product owe duty of care to the consumer to take reasonable care that the product is free from defect? Judgement The issue was complex because her friend had purchased the drink‚ and that a contract had not been breached. So Donoghue’s lawyers had to claim that Stevenson had a duty of care to his consumers and that he had caused injury through negligence. The leading judgement
Premium Law Duty of care Tort
Case Study 7.8 First Securities Company of Chicago (Ernst& Ernst v. Hochfelder et al.) The critical issue is that Ernst & Ernst‚ who were First Securities auditors for more than two decades‚ failed to utilize appropriate auditing procedures which in consequence led to Ernst & Ernst failure to discover poor internal practices of the firm. Thereby‚ this prevented Ernst & Ernst from completing an effective and efficient audit of the brokerage firm‚ First Securities Company of Chicago
Premium Audit Financial audit Auditing
accusations. The tort that followed was negligence of the concession stand worker who was filling Daniel and Ruben’s soft drink order. Though he was asked for diet drinks‚ in his distraction he filled their cups with regular sugary soft drinks. Malik then assaulted Daniel with an unloaded gun. Daniel defended himself by shooting Malik with the weapon he had concealed. Shortly after Daniel went into a diabetic shock which could have been brought about by the negligence of the concession worker and/ or the
Premium Tort Negligence
CHAPTER ONE SUMMARY: A new state law mandates that all employers must prohibit smoking on employer premises‚ and is responsible to enforce this law whether it be an employee‚ customer or client smoking the employer is always required to enforce the law that no one can smoke there. ANALYSIS/ PERSONAL COMMENTARY: This is substantive law as it is defining the liability that the employer has to keep employees/clients/customers from smoking on the premises of their place of business. And I think
Premium Law United States Constitution Common law
INTRODUCTION Case of Nocton V Lord Ashburton‚ House of Lords (1914) AC 932 It is an important English tort law case regarding professional negligence and conditions under which a person will be taken to have assumed responsibility for the welfare of another. MATERIAL FACTS In this case a solicitor‚ Mr. Nocton appealed after he was accused of fraud in the High Court. Mr. Nocton had advised his client Lord Ashburton‚ who is the respondent‚ to release part of his mortgage so that he could acquire
Premium Common law Fiduciary Trustee
Fault Under the English law individual liability is based liability on the concept of blameworthiness. The oxford English dictionary defines fault as ‘responsibly or blame for an offence or misdeed’ it is not considered appropriate to subject someone to civil or criminal sanctions unless it can be proved that he or she performed on illegal at in a blameworthy manner. Blame does not normally attach in civil law if the injury occurs accidently or in criminal law or the crime occurs through in honest
Premium Criminal law Tort Tort law
Thus‚ the negligence claim with this case failed on the reason that the Touche(defendant) owed no duty of care to Ultramares (plaintiff) because Ultramares was not a primary beneficiary of Touche’s professional audit. The court found that Touche was guilty of ordinary negligence but not fraud. Over the years the rule of Ultramares has been expanded in some cases to the point that the gross negligence noted in Ultramares case has been eliminated. Ultramares
Premium Securities Act of 1933 Accountant Profession
of law in which manufacturers‚ distributors‚ suppliers‚ retailers‚ and others who make products available to the public are held responsible for the injuries those products cause. The claims that most commonly associated with prodcut liability is negligence‚ strict liablity‚ breach of warranty‚ and various other consumer claims. Each type of product liability claim requires different elements to be proven to present a successful claim. A products liability claim is usually based on one or more of the
Premium
Disabled visitors covered by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Cunningham v Reading FC 1992- stadium crumbling. Lump of concrete thrown by fans‚ hit police man on the head. Was foreseeable because of poor stadia. Reading found liable for negligence. Simms v Leigh RFC- rugby league player tackled but injured when he slid off pitch into concrete wall next to pitch. Club not liable because perimeter was regulated distance. Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975- covers all stadiums and all sports
Premium Security Management Project management