* Intentional Torts – involve intentional‚ rather than merely careless conduct; assault/battery‚ invasion of privacy‚ false imprisonment‚ trespass to land & the interference with chattels. * It is enough if one intends to do the act even if they did not intend to do wrong or cause damage b/c the law wants to protect property interests. ASSAULT AND BATTERY * Assault – occurs when the defendant intentionally causes the plaintiff to reasonably believe that offensive bodily contact is imminent;
Premium Tort Tort law
their decision unanimous? 5. Ratio/Principles Applied = what principles of law did the court lay down as the basis for deciding the case? Were there any qualifications or restrictions or dissensions to the principles stated by the court? 6. Reasoning = what was the underlying rationale given by the court for adopting the principle or principles which it applied? 7. Critique of the Case = Is the case still good law? To what extent has it been interpreted/applied in subsequent cases? Has it
Premium Law Supreme Court of the United States Logic
Adams v Lindsell (1818) The defendant wrote to the claimant offering to sell them some wool and asking for a reply ’in the course of post’. The letter was delayed in the post. On receiving the letter the claimant posted a letter of acceptance the same day. However‚ due to the delay the defendant’s had assumed the claimant was not interested in the wool and sold it on to a third party. The claimant sued for breach of contract. Held: There was a valid contract which came in to existence the moment
Premium Contract
Blake v. Barnard 1840 A man put his gun at the head of another and said‚ ’Be quiet or I blow your brain out’. No assault. If the person did what he is told nothing would happen. Contrast: READ v. CROKER (1853). Byrne (Canada) 1968 Canada Supreme Court A man went into a bank. Having a jacket over his hand‚ he said: I have a gun‚ give me the money or I shoot. No assault. He did not show the gun. Persuasive precedent. Janvier v. Sweeny 1919 Court of Appeal Private detectives tried
Premium Tort Tort law
MANDATES Piec vs. Caisse d’economie polonaise (p. 59) (MIDTERM 2) Grandma = Stephania Wojcicka Bad Boy = nephew Tadeusz Wojcicki Niece (Margaret Wojcicka) is executor of will |Facts |Three mandates: | | |Gma goes on extended trip‚ gives power of attorney for banking matters to Bad Boy | | |Niece has
Premium Management United States Marketing
[G.R. No. 117103. January 21‚ 1999] Spouses RENATO S. ONG and FRANCIA N. ONG‚ Petitioners‚ v. COURT OF APPEALS‚ INLAND TRAILWAYS‚ INC. and PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISE‚ INC.‚Respondents. FACTS: Petitioners were paying passengers of Inland Bus (owned and operated by Inland Trailways under a Lease Agreement with Philtranco)‚ iIt was driven by Calvin Coronel. Around 3:50 a.m. on February 9‚ 1987‚ when the Inland bus slowed down to avoid a stalled cargo truck in Tiaong‚ Quezon‚ it was bumped from
Premium Appeal Law Jury
In my opinion‚ Tort reform will benefit both the patients and the medical practitioners‚ but it is more favorable for clinicians and health providers. It will benefit the patients because of its promised to reduced health care cost and better health care access. Tort reform has the potential to attract more physicians to continue their practice. According to the report‚ through tort reform‚ patients have greater access to specialists in high-risk fields of medicine‚ and more emergency room doctors
Premium Health care Medicine Health care provider
The film Class Action is a piece that does not directly involve a tort tale‚ however the case portrayed in the movie could easily depicted as one. In order to convert this case into a tort tale‚ we have to have a brief overview of the events that occurred in the movie. To start‚ the defense attorney (Maggie Ward) for Argo was the daughter of the attorney who was representing the clients who were suing Argo (Jed Ward). According to the movie‚ a certain model and year of an Argo (Fictional car company)
Premium Film English-language films Law
TORTS FINAL EXAM OUTLINE INTENTIONAL TORTS 3 2. Battery 3 3. Assault 3 4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 3 5. False Imprisonment 4 6. Trespass 4 6.1. Trespass to Land 4 6.2. Trespass to Chattels 4 6.3. Conversion 4 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 5 7. Consent (Privilege) 5 8. Self Defense (Privilege) 5 8.1. Self-Defense by Force Not Threatening Death or Serious Bodily Harm 5 8.2. Self-Defense by Force Threatening Death or Serious Bodily Harm
Premium Tort Common law Law
person that the was acquainted with and knew‚ that this tape needing to been revealed. The tape existed for well over a year with no in in the public being able to see it‚ until this request was made. In this case I can see two of the torts being
Premium