difficult 6) Under the U.S. legal system‚ subject to some exceptions‚ costs of litigation regarding both the plaintiff and defendant C. are paid for by each side with the plaintiff and defendant paying for their own legal costs 7) Generally‚ torts law is governed by B. state common law 8) Assumption of risk is a defense to B. negligence 9) The three stripes on Adidas clothing represents a A. trademark 10) The color or shape of an item‚ if distinctive‚ is a B. trade dress
Premium Common law Contract Tort
Suman Siva Prof. Jeong Chun Phuoc 012014111647 Assignment 2 – Weekly Case Law Critique WEEK 2 CASE LAW ON DONOGHUE V STEVENSON (1932) Summary On August 26th 1928‚ Donoghue (plaintiff) and a friend were at a case in Glasgow‚ Scotland. Her friend ordered / purchased a bottle of ginger beer for Donoghue. The bottle was in an opaque bottle (dark glass material) as Donoghue was not aware of the contents. After‚ Donoghue drank some and her friend lifted the bottle to pour the remainder of the ginger
Premium Law Duty of care Tort
Introduction to Occupier’s Liability in Singapore Occupier’s liability refers to the liability of an occupier of premises arising from the defective conditions or unsafe activities on the premises which result in injury or damage to the plaintiff. In Industrial Commercial Bank v Tan Swa Eng His Honour Lai Kew Chai J rightly held that “the law of occupiers’ liability in Singapore is derived from English common law”. However‚ statues on occupier’s liability in the England are not applicable to
Premium Law Tort Common law
The Application of Precedent • The process: relevant circumstances in the present case; rule to be applied to the case must be discovered by examining previous similar cases (precedent); rule applied to the circumstances of present case. Example 1 • Considine v Shannon regional Fisheries Board [1994] Costello J: ‘principle of precedent is easy to state‚ but is difficult to apply in practice’ • The issue: after a not guilty verdict (acquittal) in the District Court‚ could an appeal could
Premium Law Tort Jury
Michelle v Canconcert Pty Ltd Duty: Since Michelle suffers from depression‚ a recognized psychiatric illness‚ and does not suffer any physical injury‚ this is a case of duty of care (DOC) under Mental Harm (MH)‚ as provided in s34 CLWA. Circumstantial factors will be used to answer the reasonable foreseeability question. From the facts‚ ‘sudden shock’ can be established as Michelle was in the midst of buying water when she was suddenly shocked by the bang and screams. Determination of DOC then
Premium Tort Duty of care
Duty of care - Solicitor - Will held by solicitor - Failure to inform executor of death of testator and of contents - Whether duty to do so - Loss to estate caused by executor’s ignorance of death - Measure of damages. Limitation of Actions - Tort - Accrual of cause of action - Running of time - Commencement - Breach by solicitor of duty of care to inform executor of testator’s death - Loss to estate caused by executor’s ignorance of death - Limitation Act 1969 (N.S.W.)‚ s. 14(1). Legislation
Premium Tort Supreme Court of the United States Law
Student Safety and University Liability Case Analysis U10a1 Introduction Student safety and University liability are major issues of concern for all institutions of higher education. In many instances‚ students and parents allege institutional liability for injuries or character defamation that result from negligent student behaviors‚ on and off campus. Then‚ there are the instances in which a party‚ other than a student‚ is at fault. Each of the cases presented below represent a variation of
Premium Law University Tort
Is there a need for a doctrine of unconscionability The doctrine of unconscionability prevents a contracting party from exploiting their full contracting rights when the courts feel that it is inequitable for them to do so. This essay shall examine the juristic basis of unconscionability with reference to the basic principles expounded in the classic case of Fry v Lane. It will conclude that there is no need for a doctrine of unconscionability because most of these cases can be explained on the
Premium Contract Common law Contract law
rescind contract * Fraud: type of misrepresentation that is committed knowingly‚ with the intent to deceive * Scienter (legal term to distinguish from innocent) * Liable for damages; possibly including punitive damages for the tort of deceit * Election of Remedies * Can’t rescind contract and sue for damages (some states make you elect‚ or chose) * Requirements for Rescission on the Ground of Misrepresentation * Should be used only when a person has been
Premium Contract law Tort Misrepresentation
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Holmes saw the legal obligation as a prediction that sanctions were likely to be visited upon someone not following a course of conduct. Accordingly‚ Holmes saw a contractual obligation as the obligation to pay damages in case of breach. But doesn’t this put the cart before the horse? He inspired the American realist movement with a jurisprudential theory based on the need to ‘think things‚ not words’. The examination of facts must dominate legal investigation. The object
Premium Law Common law Scientific method