Essay about Legal Case Study

There are four remedies for breach of contract under UCC Article 2. Categorized as remedies of law; the first is compensatory damages, which cover direct losses and costs. Compensatory damages are an attempt to put the non-breaching party in the same position it would have been had they not suffered the breach. Second are consequential damages, which are to cover indirect and foreseeable losses not covered by compensatory damages. Third is restitution to prevent the unjust enrichment of one party in the agreement. Fourth, liquidated damages are provisions agreed to by the parties when drawing up the contract in the event of a default or breach of contract by either party (Melvin, 2011).

The Tort of Negligence put the claimant in the position to prove that the defendant owed to them a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty and the claimant must have suffered damages as result of that breach (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC562).

The defendant, Kingston High School, is negligent under the Ontario Occupants Liability Act against the plaintiff, Mary. The defendant failed to uphold a duty of care against the plaintiff, which resulted in general and special damages. The plaintiff is owed compensation for medical care and treatment expenses, the economic loss from failing to attend the remainder of the semester of business school, and a loss in prospective wages from future employment.

Build the management-research question hierarchy, through the investigative questions stage. Then compare your list with the measurement questions asked.

The Civil Liabilities Act 2002 defines negligence as a failure on the part of the defendant which results in the harm of the plaintiff which could have been prevented by taking reasonable care. The breach of duty must be foreseeable, Sullivan v Moody. The risk must be not insignificant, and a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have taken precaution against the harm. In this case

If all these four steps are found, he can be sued by a plaintiff for the economic loss stemming from that negligence. The key case of Tepko Pty Ltd v Water board(2001) 206 CLR 1（High Court) can demonstrate the duty of care. In this case, the majority held the board owed no duty of care to Tepko at last. Two factors seemed critical to their decision. First, the board did not know, and there was no reason why it should have suspected, that the estimate would be relied on by a bank to make such an important decision(that is, whether to place Tepko into receivership). Second, in all the circumstances it was not reasonable for Tepko to rely on the rough estimate; The board was reluctant to provide the estimate, the estimate was never intended to

Ragnarr, must prove to the court that due to the states negligent actions he will consequently experience economic loss. Causation refers to whether the defendants conduct (or omission), in this case The State Of Victoria, caused the resulting harm or damage. The common law of negligence obliges instigation of causation for the purposefulness of attaching legal accountability. Another element that must be proven is that it is applicable for the scope of the negligent persons liability to extend to the harm so caused (scope of liability ). As it is a case of negligence the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, is weighed upon our client, the plaintiff Mr. Ragnarr. Even if the ‘but for’ test is applied to the current situation in the case, the outcome would be that the loss suffered by the plaintiff would have only occurred if the defendant acted negligently, which they did, and therefore if they hadn’t have acted in that way, then our client would not have been publicly humiliated by the State Of Victoria as a result. The court must deliberate whether it is suitable to extend the scope of the defendant negligence to the harm caused to the plaintiff and our client, Mr. Ragnarr. The harm that occurred, or similar harm, must have been foreseeable in order for it to reach within the scope of liability upon the

being careless thus he will not offer any compensation. This may need some arbitration, but with both sides taking a hard line, the matter will eventually lead to court. Legal representation becomes indispensable in this case.

Since Arthur performed an act for Peter (Principal) and did so with negligence, he is liable for his actions. If Peter had completed the act in a non-negligent way, he would not have been liable.

Oscar was in a written agreement with Newton University to teach two business classes on Tuesday and Thursday at 9:00 to 10:15 AM and 11:00 AM to 12:15 PM. However, 7th March 2009 at 10:55 AM, when Oscar collided with Rosa and Lucia, was on Saturday. This means that Oscar was not working in the interests of the employer, but on his own interests. Despite being within the stipulated time and environment, Oscar was not working within the agreement of the contract. In this case, Oscar can be said to be negligent and is personally liable for his activities.

Legal Advice Case Study Late one Saturday night Chris, who is a fanatical Manchester United

Question 1. What competences has IBM had to invest in arising from its transformation from a ‘product-centric’ to a ‘service-centric’ organization?

The example suggests that computer professionals were immune from suit before 2011. Moreover, it can be disputed that the shield of immunity was abused by the Mr Callaghan as he changed his statements, which subsequently caused Mr Stanton a loss of money. It can also be argued that the “expert is instructed as a professional and is paid for his work” (Brown, 2010), therefore if their job is done negligently, then the claimant should be entitled to some compensation.

Legal Case Study Tom agrees to give Ellen private tuition for her Law of Contract

The two legal cases I studied involved sexual harassment. Both cases were similar, in that each involved multiple people and the plaintiffs were terminated in retaliation for reporting the alleged violations.