INTRODUCTION The law of delict is a branch of private law falling under the law of obligations. It deals with civil wrongs as opposed to criminal wrongs. The essential purpose of the law of delict is to afford a civil remedy‚ usually by way of compensation‚ for wrongful conduct that has caused harm to others. A delict is the breach of a general duty imposed by law which will ground an action for damages at the suit of any person to whom the duty was owed and who has suffered harm in consequence of
Premium Tort Tort law
Carol and Gary Allen v. Dover Co-Recreational Softball League & a. Strafford No. 2001-457 Briefed by Elizabeth Taylor Submitted: July 26‚ 2002 Opinion Issued: September 30‚ 2002 Basic Facts of the Case: The plaintiffs‚ Carol and Gary allege that on September 13‚ 1998‚ Carol Allen was injured while participating in a recreational softball game‚ while she was running to first base. She was hit in the head by the shortstop of the opposing team. This game was an adult and slow pitch softball
Free
24/02/2015 Case No. I: CS/183/2015 Title of the Case: KALU SINGH v. RAHUL Stage of the case: Prelimnary Hearing Appearance made by the parties: Sh. Ram Chandar Kakkar the ld. Defendant counsel appeared for the defendant i.e. Sh. Rahul. The plaintiff didn’t appear. Proceedings of the case: Next date for filing of the written statement was announced. Order of the court for that day: Directed the defendant to file written statement on 5/03/2015. Next date of hearing: 5/03/2015 Name of the Court:
Premium Legal terms Civil procedure
Butterfield v. Forrester Factual Situation: 1809‚ Butterfield‚ plaintiff was riding and struck an a pole placed in the road by Forrester‚ defendant‚ at approximately 8 PM; sued for damages Witness testified that pole was visible at 100 yards with light at that time‚ and that Butterfield was riding recklessly Trial court: jury instructed that if an individual riding with reasonable care could have avoided the pole and that Butterfield was not riding with care‚ Forester should win Trial Court
Premium Law Appeal Common law
baseball game. Manning sued the Baltimore Orioles and Ross Grimsley for battery under tort law after injuries suffered from a thrown ball. In my opinion‚ the defendant did not intend harm. However‚ the defendant unintentionally caused injury to the plaintiff and is liable under the elements of negligence. Second‚ the Baltimore Orioles are liable because Grimsley was acting in the capacity of an employee at the time of the incident. Factual Summary
Premium Tort Tort law
FIGHTER 7‚000‚000 PEPSI POINTS" appear on the screen. The plaintiff John Leonard viewed this commercial and then later attempted to purchase the Harrier Jet with the advertised "Pepsi Points" from PepsiCo but was denied. Leonard later sued Pepsi on the grounds that the "Pepsi Stuff" commercial constituted an offer for a Harrier Jet. Whether or not the commercial made this proposal is the main question asked in this case. Since the plaintiff is young‚ adventurous and of the Pepsi Generation‚’ the
Premium Contract
as well as‚ when the plaintiff received a response to the complaint from the defendant. 2. Define what adverse inference instruction means and why such an instruction would be useful in a civil trial. Adverse inference instruction is a rule that is applied to a case were spoliation of evidence has occurred. This instruction would be useful in a civil trial‚ as well as‚ this case because it can terminate the litigation proceedings and issue sanctions. 3. Why did plaintiffs in this case seek an
Premium Law Tort Common law
held that part of money as requested by the plaintiff‚ could be recovered. According to Lord Denning‚ if the plaintiff asked to claim the whole sum of money‚ he would fail to recover the money even though the defendant did not provide any consideration. It is because the plaintiff ’s contractual right for the whole sum of rent in 1940-5 was destroyed by agreeing to accept the reduced rent in the wartime. By the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel‚ the plaintiff was estopped from getting the full rent in
Premium Contract Contractual term Sale of Goods Act 1979
I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Robert Lopez flied a claim against Adelanto Stadium‚ Inc. claiming negligence on fault of Defendants insufficient design and/or installation of netting protection from foul balls under California Civil Code of Procedure §1714. Compl. ¶ 3. Also‚ Defendant’s negligence in failure to warn of dangers of foul balls. Compl ¶ 7. Mr. Lopez alleges that Adelanto Stadium‚ Inc. is liable on the sole grounds that they own the stadium in which Mr. Lopez suffered said injuries. Adelanto
Premium Pleading