CLASS NOTES By Leslie A. Beck COMPARATIVE LAW CIVIL LAW VS. COMMON LAW AREAS OF COMPARISON Differences that you should be aware of Property Law Sources of law and method of judicial reasoning Property Law Civil Law You are either the absolute owner‚ or you are not. 3 components of absolute ownership usus (latin term) i.e. use Right of use fructus ie. enjoyment of revenues Right to enjoy revenues abusus ie disposal Right to dispose of that thing dismemberment This does not mean that the absolute
Free Common law Law
Competent and diligent people - selection‚ training and supervision THE TORT OF NEGLIGENCE - breach of common law legal duty of care to exercise reasonable care towards others‚ resulting in loss‚ damage or injury. Key defining case - Donoghue V Stevenson (1932). Three main points to test for negligence: 1. Defendant under duty of care to claimant (injured party)
Premium Tort Law
Doctrine of Precedents INTRODUCTION It is very difficult‚ if not impossible‚ to give a precise definition of Law. Many renowned jurists have held forth their own definitions of the term Law. Law‚ in the broadest and most comprehensive sense means a set of rules and norms and a standard of pattern of behaviour to which every individual of the society has to conform to. Another often quoted‚ although not widely believed‚ definition of Law is of that given by Austin according to which Law is the
Premium Common law Stare decisis Precedent
Question 1: a) Explain the main characteristics of a consumer contract. Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SOGA 1979) is amended by Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 and the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 The Contract for Sale of Goods A contract for the sale of goods is ‘a contract in which the seller transfers‚ or agrees to transfer‚ the property in goods to a buyer for a money consideration‚ called the price’ This contract contains two conditions‚ Both ‘sale’ and ‘agreement
Premium Contract Tort
Case – British Railways board Vs Herrington Relevance - Trespasser duty of care - Common humanity - Occupiers liability act 1984 Facts - Railway line operated by BRB ran through property open to public - Fences were in poor repair - 1965 children seen on line - Child severely injured when he stepped on line after passing through broken fence - Plaintiff claimed damages for negligence Ruling - House of lords held over trespassers‚ a duty to take steps as common humanity to avert
Premium Tort law Tort Law
Problem Questions ------------------------------------------------- Question 1 Based on the question‚ the issue in the question is will there be a contract of sale of goods act 1895(SA) under s 1? Hence‚ the law is s 1 where a contract of goods is a contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property the goods to the buyer for a money consideration based on the case Toby Construction Products Pty Ltd v Computer Bar Sales Pty Ltd. The application is under s1 sale of goods
Premium Contract Tort Law
The dispute that occurred among the individuals had caused potential trespass to person claims. Trespass to person tort is involved in intentional‚ direct interference to claimants and is branched into three elements: assault‚ battery and false imprisonment. Phil could claim assault against Grant due to him coming at him in an aggressive manner and for throwing a bottle at him. However Phil could also possibly be prosecuted for Battery‚ from Grant’s girlfriend‚ because of the unlawful kiss he enforced
Premium Negligence Tort Tort law
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY LUCKNOW (2014-2015) FINAL DRAFT ON “TORT OF NEGLIGENCE” Submitted to Submitted BY Mr. R.K Yadav RAHAT ALI Astt. Prof. (Law) ROLL NO - 100 B.A. LL.B (Hons)
Premium Tort Duty of care Tort law
also take into account of changes in these laws in England. However‚ Malaysian government can set their own scope for the amended or repealed Common Law and Law of Equity in Malaysia. In the case of Mokhtar v Arumugam [1959] MLJ 232‚ Smith J in a dictum said that the court could not award damages in the nature of interest for delay in the return of specific goods on the basis that such relief had been provided by section 29 of the Civil Procedure Act 1833 (English). He added that by of section 3(1)
Free Common law Law
Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 204 Newpaper advertisement is not an offer – it is an invitation to treat 9. R. v Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227 Acceptance must be made with knowledge and reliance on the offer 10. Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334 Counter offer 11. Stevenson Jacques & Co. v McLean (1880) 5 QBD 346 Request for information is not a counter offer 12. Powell v Lee (1908) 99 LT 284 Acceptance through third parties – authorised agent 13. Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 11 CBNS 869 Silence as acceptance 14. Household
Premium Tort Contract Invitation to treat