be referred to as the Plaintiff; Angie to be referred to as defendant 1; Richard to be referred to as defendant 2. The plaintiff here received some money as a result of a golden-handshake after deciding to retire. The total sum of which is $500‚ 000‚ which she intends to invest in real-estate. Upon being approached by defendant 1 with a proposal of "Sure-thing Property Development Pty Ltd" (Sure-thing)‚ a property development project on a small island of Moreton Bay‚ plaintiff turns to her financial
Premium Law Jury Pleading
While the Plaintiff was able to prove that the sexual behavior did occur‚ the Defendant was not able to prove that there was liability on the employer. There is a clearly defined policy regarding sexual harassment in the employee handbook. According to this policy‚
Premium Bullying Sexual harassment Employment
where the tenancy stood terminated by efflux of time. FACTS: (1) The facts set out in the plaint are that the plaintiff is the owner of the properly knownasflatNo.9-B‚Hansalaya Building‚ 15‚BarakhambaRoad‚NewDelhi-l 10001. The aforementioned premises‚ which has a covered area of 1333 sq. ft. on the 9th floor in Hansalaya Building‚ as marked "B" in the plan was let out by the plaintiff to the defendant as monthly tenant initially at the rate of Rs.5.50 per ft. per month i.e. Rs.7331.50 per month
Premium Renting Landlord Lease
The plaintiff‚ Margaret Hollar was not employed at the time of the accident in question. The plaintiff had a history of having an L4-S1 discectomy and laminectomy. Ms. Hollar testified that she had a history of severe headaches‚ which began when she was 20 years of age. The plaintiff was involved in an accident in 2001 in which she slipped on ice and injured her neck and back. That injury led to her back surgery‚ as a result of her chronic back pain she was unable to return to work. The plaintiff
Premium Medicine Health care Patient
to make an intentional act towards the plaintiff by either a harming or offensive physical act. Have to foresee the results. 2) Harmful or Offensive: Description: The plaintiff has to be physically harmed by the intentional act the defendant has made. The plaintiff does not need to be harmed in order to be offended. The plaintiff has to be offended by a reasonable act. 3) Touching Description: The defendant has to make a contact with the plaintiff. It can either be a consensual or non-consensual
Premium Tort Battery Legal terms
and what it may entail is Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 5621. In this situation there was a duty of care for the defendant‚ who is the bank‚ to provide to the plaintiff‚ who is the old man‚ as the defendant was in a position to see that water had come into the building and the floor was wet.
Premium Law Tort Negligence
Poppy v Jay – Pushing Poppy – Battery at Common Law Application of force to the plaintiff At common law there must be a direct or indirect application of force towards the plaintiff. Jay pushed Poppy and the immediate effect of the defendant’s act is what caused contact with the plaintiff. This push constitutes as offensive contact as the force caused Poppy to stumble. Consent In McNamara v Duncan‚ the court held that the implied
Premium Tort Law
Defendant‚ Union Oil Company of California‚ d/b/a/ UNOCAL (“Unocal”) responds to Plaintiffs’ allegations as follows. To the extent the allegations of the Amended Complaint are directed to Defendants other than Unocal‚ Unocal is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments and‚ therefore‚ denies them. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 1 are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response
Premium Contract Law Contract law
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS JUSTIN WILLIAM KING‚ ) ) Plaintiff. ) ) ) v. ) ) ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES‚ INC. ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) COMPLAINT Comes Now the plaintiff‚ Justin King‚ by and through his attorney‚ states as follows: PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1. Plaintiff‚ for all times mentioned herein‚ was and is a resident of Cook County‚ State of Illinois. 2. Defendant is
Premium Illinois Jurisdiction Chicago
or what amounts to a statement‚ which is defamatory of the plaintiff‚ the plaintiff has a right of action against him unless the defendant can establish one of the special defenses available to an action for defamation. Since the tort of defamation protects the plaintiff’s reputation‚ and since reputation depends on what other people think of the plaintiff‚ the publication of the statement by the defendant to persons other than the plaintiff himself is an essential part of the tort –the purpose of
Premium Tort