增城景点Business contractual relations
Asssment3
1. Outline the general principles of the law of delict.
The law of Delict, like the law of Contract, is a part of the Law of Obligations. Delict means a civil wrong committed by a person in deliberate or negligent breach of a legal duty, from which liability to make reparation for any conquential loss or injury may ari. Delict is also known as the law of ‘civil wrongs’ and applies to much of the same area of law as the English law of ‘tort’. General principles of delictual liability includes some elements: a loss or injury, such as physical or personal injury, the loss of earnings, nervous shock, distress, damage to a reputation; caud by legal wrong (wrongful conduct); caud by culpa (fault, intentionally or negligently done) on the part of the wrongdoer.
Two exceptions will be discusd later—1) vicarious liability, where the defender is liable for the actions of anther; and 2) strict liability, where liability can ari without fault through statutory provision.
In the ca of Drew v Western SMT (1947), the defenders were held to be jointly and verally liable.
鄱湖
In certain circumstances, someone can be liable for another’s delictual act. This can ari through agency, partnership and employment. For out purpos, we will concentrate on the liability of an employer for his/her employee.
As we have en, the common law of negligence requires a standard of care which is broadly defined as reasonable care in the circumstances.
If the employer is sued and found liable, then s/he (or the insurance company) can sue the employee for amount that has been paid in damages. In the ca of Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co (1957), the company’s insurers paid the father and then brought a successful action against the son for the amount paid.
中国非物质文化遗产名录
2. Explain the points to be considered for a claim of negligence to ari关于春节的英语句子
舒庆春Negligence is the most common delict and an action in delict aris where harm is cau
d carelessly or inadvertently. A claim to ari in negligence, the following points must be considered:
变压器品牌1. was a duty of care owed by the defender to the pursuer? And, if so, was there a breach of the duty of care (looking at the standard of care required). In the ca of Bourhill v Young (1943), it was held that the defender could not have reasonably foreen that his failure to take care would cau injury to the pursuer in her position behind the tram. She did not have the relevant proximity to the accident. In the ca of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), Mrs. Donoghue did not have a contract with the ller nor with the manufacturer of the goods and so her only possible remedy was in direct against the manufacturer on the basis of his fault in not taking care in the production of the product.
聪慧的反义词2. was the harm of loss caud by the defender’s breach of this duty of care. . the establishment of causation
3. whether the loss arising from the breach of duty was too remote (only direct and immediate loss arising from a breach are usually compensated.)
Was there a breach of the Duty of Care?
As above, again this is judged on what the reasonable man would or would not have done had he been in the exerci of his reasonable foreeability) he had identified. The degree of care will vary depending on the circumstances of each ca, for example the probability of injury, how rious the injury could be, how easy it was to avoid the injury etc.
顺逆If john want to win the ca, he must prove that he obey the duty of care.
In the ca of Scott v London and St Katherine Dock Co (1861), in the abnce of an explanation the presumption was that the accident aro from the defender’s negligence.
If there is physical damage, the wounded person must be found, and nd the person to hospital.
3. explain what is meant by the defences(listed below) in delict
Defences in Delict & Remedies looks at the various defences available to a claim in delict and specifically covers the following: contributory negligence; connt & volenti non fit injuria; damnum fatale; immunity & prescription.
There are many defences available to be argued by a defender to an action. For example, a defender could claim a defence on point of law. For example, that no duty of care, was owed to the pursuer, that s/he did take reasonable care or that the alleged loss was too remote. The defender could also claim that the pursuer’s ca was factually incorrect, . a defence on point of fact.
Contributory Negligence—sometimes it may argue that the pursuer contributed to his or her own loss. This is known as a plea of contributory negligence and it is ud where it is established that: the defender has been negligent BUT the pursuer’s own actions, in failing to take care for his own safety, have partly contributed to his injuries.
