LGST101: Business Law AY 2011-2012‚ Term 1 Group 8 Project Written Analysis Tort of Negligence Prepared for: Professor Melvyn Chew Written By: Jamie Lim Jia Qi (#12) Joel Koh Yong Kiat (#14) Low Hwan Hong (#23) Oh Zhan Yuan (#24) Ong Hui Ming Maria Nicolette (#25) G12 Throughout the course of this report‚ to determine if the plaintiff is owed a duty of care in negligence‚ we will adhere by the Singapore single test of negligence laid out in the case of Spandeck Engineering
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
Torts Notes – Negligence Contents 1 Preamble 2 1.1 Concurrent Wrongdoers 2 1.2 Death 2 1.3 Apologists 2 1.4 Vicarious liability/non-delegable duties 3 2 Duty of care 5 2.1 Immunities 5 2.2 Omissions/failure to control third party 6 2.3 Atypical Plaintiffs 6 2.4 Unborn Child 6 2.5 Mental Harm/Nervous Shock 7 2.6 Statutory Authorities 8 2.7 Pure Economic Loss/Negligent Misstatement 11 3 Breach of Duty 12 3.1 Section 5C 12 3.2 Obvious risks 12 4 Causation 13 4.1 Res ipsa loquitur
Premium Tort law Tort Negligence
Hedley Byrne v. Heller [House of Lords] [1964] AC 465 Summary: Hedley (the appellants) were advertising agents who had provided a substantial amount of advertising on credit for Easipower. If Easipower did not pay for the advertising then Hedley would be responsible for such amounts. Hedley became concerned that Easipower would not be in a financial position to pay the debt and sought assurances from Easipower’s bank that Easipower was in a position to pay for the additional advertising
Premium Tort Duty of care Negligence
ANSWERS TO AICPA QUESTIONS CHAPTER 10 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE INTERNET 1. (a) Computer software is covered under the general copyright laws and is therefore usually copyrightable as an expression of ideas. Answer (b) is incorrect because copyrights in general do not need a copyright notice for works published after March 1‚ 1989. Answer (c) is incorrect because a recent court ruled that programs in both source codes‚ which are human readable‚ and in machine readable object
Premium Contract Contract law
Torts Exam Notes Intentional Torts Trespass to the Person Battery - directly and intentionally (or negligently) bringing about a harmful or offensive contact with the person of another - the ‘body is inviolate‚ and that any touching of another person‚ however slight may amount to a battery’ - Rixon - doesn’t have to cause harm - Rixon v Starcity Casino - Collins v Wilcock - no requirement of hostility or anger - Wilson v Pringle - In Re F - exception is made
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
Financial Scandals and the Role of Private Enforcement: The Parmalat Case Law Working Paper N° 40/2005 May 2005 Guido Ferrarini University of Genoa‚ Centre for Law and Finance and ECGI Paolo Giudici Free University of Bozen and Centre for Law and Finance © Guido Ferrarini and Paolo Giudici 2005. All rights reserved. Short sections of text‚ not to exceed two paragraphs‚ may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit‚ including © notice‚ is given to the source. This
Premium Calisto Tanzi Italy Accounting scandals
commuTorts Spring 2011 Pittman 1. Wrongful Death and Survival A. Wrongful Death 1. Moragne v. States Marine Lines 1. Facts: P’s husband killed working on a boat owned by D b/c of D’s negligence. 2. Issue: Can an action for wrongful death and a survival action be brought together? 3. Rule: Wrongful death suits can be brought along with survival suits for the pain and suffering in the time in between the injury and death 4. Wrongful death: action created by the death of a person due to the
Premium Tort Tort law
A BUSINESS RISK APPROACH Auditing 6e Larry E. Rittenberg University of Wisconsin–Madison Bradley J. Schwieger St. Cloud State University Karla M. Johnstone University of Wisconsin–Madison Australia • Brazil • Canada • Mexico • Singapore • Spain • United Kingdom • United States Auditing: A Business Risk Approach‚ 6e Larry E. Rittenberg‚ Bradley J. Schwieger‚ Karla M. Johnstone VP/Editorial Director: Jack W. Calhoun Publisher: Rob Dewey Acquisitions Editor: Matthew Filimonov
Premium Auditing Audit Internal control
The Lakeside Company: Auditing Cases SOLUTIONS MANUAL 11e Table of Contents John M. Trussel and J. Douglas Frazer A Not on Ethics‚ Fraud and Sox Questions 2 A Note on Research Assignments 4 Introductory Case 6 Case 1 13 Case 2 21 Case 3 29 Case 4 39 Case 5 51 Case 6 67 Case 7 74 Case 8 83 Case 9 92 Case 10
Premium Audit Internal control Auditing
Tort Law Reading Notes Week 1 Mon Sep 8 Damages pp697-729 - aim of damages: restore plaintiff to position he would have been had the wrong not occurred o as this is impossible in cases of personal injury‚ monetary compensation is used o total amount is the amount that will release the target amount over the given span of years - assessment is a matter if calculation‚ not impression (SCC 1978) - 3 probs: o 1) what kinds of items must a defendant compensate
Premium Tort