Discuss what is intoxication in law ?  How can an person avoid a contract entered into under intoxication?   Using the following case and THREE of your own, You are required to research relevant case laws on this matter and discuss in detail.  Also discuss in detail the outcome of the cases.  Nash V. Inman (1908) Sherrington v. Sherrington (2005) Howe v. Smith (2017)   Additional requirements Introduction- The introduction and objectives are clearly stated. Background and context are clearly articulated and linked to objectives effectively. Analysis- Analysis is highly relevant to the assignment requirements and presented clearly and logically. Very strong link made between theory and practice. Case laws- The Case law presented and facts is highly relevant to the assignment Conclusion- Conclusion is clearly stated and connections to the arguments and positions are clear and relevant. The underlying logic is explicit

Warranty and strict liability represent two causes of action, often relied upon by plaintiffs who pursue recovery in a product liability case. Describe the two legal theories by making reference to the elements that need be proven; the obstacles with which a plaintiff may be confronted; the recoveries that be sought; and finally, the nature of the cause of action; hint from what discipline of law does each theory arise

The  main sources of sport law in the Caribbean include: Question 14Answer a. Contract, tort and statutory  law b. Equity, common law, statutory law , criminal and civil law c. Equity and common law d. Common law and Statutory law

Ridwaan, a seventeen year old trainee chef, found work at a restaurant. However the restaurant was a little farfrom where he lived. Public transport was available but Ridwaan found it inconvenient. Ridwaan saw apromotion on social media by Fantastic Cycles Pty Ltd with a great deal on e-bikes worth $5000. The businessallowed a payment plan to anyone who purchased an e- bike and had a secure job. Ridwaan decided hewanted a bike to ride to work. He went to Fantastic Cycles and picked out a great looking e-bike. Thesalesperson checked with Ridwaan's employer, Sunset Restaurants Ltd, who confirmed he worked there.Ridwaan entered into an agreement to purchase the bike paying by instalments and signed a written contract.Ridwaan took the bike home but a month later lost his job and told the business he did have to continue topay for the bike because he was under 18 years of age. However Fantastic Cycles disagree and now wish tosue Ridwaan to recover payments for the e-bike. A. Discuss whether…

In Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., foreseeability was an issue. The question addressed by the court was: Group of answer choices Was it foreseeable to the plaintiff (Ms. Palsgraf) that the scales would fall? Was it foreseeable to Ms. Palsgraf that her injury would have been caused by an explosion? Was it foreseeable to the plaintiff (Ms. Palsgraf) that someone in the train station would be carrying explosive fireworks? Was it foreseeable to the passenger carrying the fireworks that they might explode and injure someone?

Explain the statutory interpretation tools in law . With example

Wanda attends a public high school. Today's lunch is a roasted pepper and tabouli on pita sandwich, which Wanda detests. During the lunch hour, instead of saying something about the sandwich, eating it, or trying to find something else to eat, Wanda yells "Food Fight" and tosses her sandwich to the floor. No fighting actually occurs, but students throw a huge amount of food onto the floor, leaving the cafeteria covered in peppers, tabouli, and pita bread. The school principal is furious and orders Wanda to clean up the mess. Wanda refuses and claims she was exercising her right of free speech. True or False: Wanda's actions are protected under free speech. O True, because Wanda was expressing her thoughts. O True, because Wanda was engaged in expression-plus. O True, because Wanda's actions were not obscene and demonstrated no imminent lawlessness or clear and present danger. O False, because students are not protected by the First Amendment. O False, because Wanda did not intend to…

Choose two from the list below   Offenses Against the Person People v. Watson (1981) (murder) Regina v. Dudley and Stephens (1884) (murder) Commonwealth v. Green (1908) (larceny) Offenses Against Property People v. Thompson (1988) (burglary) State v. Gary (1992) (arson) United States v. Jones (1999) (robbery) Forgery People v. Hernandez (1998) State v. Johnson (2003) United States v. White (2008) Extortion and Blackmail Hobbs v. Louisiana (1965) Berger v. United States (1935) Hinkhouse v. United States (1994) Bribery McDonnell v. United States (2016) McCormick v. United States (1993) United States v. Twomey (2007) For each, please provide the following: The definition of the crime or issue The elements required to prove the crime or issue The potential penalties for conviction The different perspectives on the crime or issue  Your thoughts on the different perspectives

What is the slide talking about? What is the relationship between duty of care, breach of duty, causation and remotness?