The case we were provided with was Abu V. Shell Company. In this case Abu and Shell company signed a contract of 10 years on the basis of the statement by Shell company experts that the station would be able to sell 900 000 liters of petrol per year. The approximate amount was provided on the basis of being direct access to the service station from Main street. A decision made by the local council announced that there would be a change in the traffic dierect access ‚ Shell company continued the contract
Premium Contract Contract Contract law
Week 2 Knowledge Check Study Guide Concepts Mastery Questions Intentional torts 100% 1 2 3 Negligence 100% 4 5 6 67% 7 8 9 100% 10 Product liability and strict liability Defenses to product liability Score: 11 / 12 11 12 Concept: Intentional torts Mastery 100% Questions 1. Identify the true statement about intentional torts. 1 2 3 A. A person can be sued for assault even if there was no actual physical contact. B. A person can be sued for threatening future harm. C
Premium Tort law Tort Common law
| Negligent Act | Priscilla V Vogue Beauty Salon | | | 11/1/2010 | Nelson Tanwin [The Negligent act refers to negligent category A for the case Priscilla Vs Vogue beauty Salon‚ the document excludes the descriptions for Defense.] | Issue The legal issue in this case relates to the law of negligence. Specifically‚ whether Defendant‚ Vogue Beauty Salon was negligent by applying fragranced cream to the skin of Plaintiff‚ Priscilla. [Note: The Employee of Vogue Beauty Salon‚
Premium Law Tort law Duty of care
Facts: The negligent act of Ruth in the fact that she did not properly park her car caused a series of accidents that resulted in knocked down power lines‚ grass fires‚ a gas station explosion‚ and an injured motorist. These accidents originated with Ruth’s in-action to not properly observe the securing of her vehicle which resulted in the damages suffered by the plaintiff Jim. Issue: The defendant Ruth owed a duty of care by her actions to protect the plaintiff Jim from harm. In the fact that she
Premium Tort Law Tort law
Legal Analysis on “Tourist Breaks Back on Sentosa Ride” Article Sherlyn Goh‚ Nathanael Sim‚ Tay Wenyao‚ Shi Jinhua‚ Tong Mingshuo Factual Summary of Case Australian tourist‚ Michael McCarthy‚ suffered a fall and broke his back while riding Sentosa’s MegaZip‚ which is a flying fox adventure ride run by Flying Dragon Adventures (FDA). The riders would initially slide down the zipline fast and would be slowed down by a braking mechanism as they approach the landing platform. However‚ in this case
Premium Contract Contractual term Tort
Recruitment: Recruitment refers to the process of attracting‚ screening‚ selecting‚ and onboarding a qualified person for a job. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recruitment Depending on the size and culture of the organization recruitment may be undertaken in-house by managers‚ human resource generalists and / or recruitment specialists. Alternatively parts of all of the process might be undertaken by either public sector employment agencies‚ or commercial recruitment agencies‚ or specialist search
Premium Recruitment Employment
Handling Security and Ethical Issues Handling Security and Ethical Issues at TBWI Course: IT560-01 Handling Security and Ethical Issues at TBWI A growing concern‚ especially with the recent information leak at Target‚ is the issue of security. Outlined are security concerns for TBWI and how best to handle them. In addition to handling security issues‚ there may be complicated ethical issues that may occur. To best handle these situations‚ those ethical issues are addressed‚ with recommendations
Premium Security Security guard Ethics
procedures and agreed ways of working of your employer. It is about avoiding abuse and injury to individuals‚ their friends and family and their property. A negligent act could be unintentional‚ careless or intentional that results in abuse or injury. A negligent act is breaching the duty of care. If an individual has evidence that you have been negligent‚ you are likely to be disciplined. You could lose your job and you could have legal action taken against you. In your role you have a duty of care to
Premium Law Negligence
employers have a duty of care‚ to provide valid descriptions of an individual’s quality and potential as a former employee‚ and thus a reasonable reference is‚ truthful and fair. It is up to employers to thus avoid inaccurate references that lead to negligent misstatements or misinterpretations on their part. It is known that in tort‚ liability arises by fault of a particular party or defendant. In other words‚ the modern causation of negligence is formed by evidence that coincide with people or companies
Premium Tort Law Negligence
* In this case‚ we have to look at the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) to determine who was negligent and in specific‚ we use s 5B(1)‚ s 5B(2) and s 5R of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW); s 5B(1) for the reasonable foreseeability test‚ s 5B(2) for determining if the standard of reasonable care has been breached and s 5R for contributory negligence. * Where both the parties seem to have been negligent‚ it is important to determine who is more at fault and for this purpose we need to use the
Premium Tort Tort law Duty of care