St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks (1993) According to the EEOC (2014), the Civil Rights Act of 1964 revision spoke directly to damages in cases of intentional discrimination in employment. Prior to this revision and since this revision, there have been and are still employment discrimination cases going before the courts. This Act forbids employment discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, physical disability, and age in any aspect of the employment process. Anyone who feels they have been discriminated against should file a suit against should file a claim with the Equal Opportunity Commission, who is charged with enforcing anti-discrimination cases. Before this Act passed an employers could not hire someone due to the
265 (1866). (Strict Liability) Rylands v. Fletcher House of Lords, UK (1868) TOPIC: Strict Liability CASE: Rylands v. Fletcher, 3 HL 330, (1868) FACTS: Plaintiff Rylands was the occupier of a mine. Defendant Fletcher was an owner of an adjacent mill, and began building a reservoir to hold water for the mill. Under the area of the reservoir there were old and disused mine shafts. Several vertical shafts had been filled up with soil and debris; apparently no one was aware of the existence of the vertical shafts at the time.
The gas burner was not fitted with a flue which would have prevented a build of dangerous fumes. The plaintiff claimed that this was something that defendants ought to have known of this defect and warned any potential buyers. At common law, in the absence of a contract a landlord of an unfurnished house was not liable to his tenant, for defects in the house or land rendering it dangerous or unfit for occupation, even if the defects are due to his construction or are within his knowledge. After Donoghue V Stevenson, the plaintiffs could sue under the tort of
The formal offer was $ 19,300. The recruiting chief told him that it was a mistake and would settle, and accept the offer now. When the increase was not given, Schoenberger resigned and filed a claim to recover damages for the contract The court of first instance ruled in favor of CTA and Schoenberger appealed. Issue The problem is that a new employee was offered a raise a promised time but the person who offered it was only a manager an employee of CTA, which, he did not have the authority or the power to do so. Decision The CTA decision was confirmed since the one interviewed did not have the authority and was only a person in
On April 28, engineers tried their best to close the blowout preventer valves. Then on May 8, they attempted to cover the well with a containment box, and consequently they used the Top Kill technique on May 26 to close the well. Finally they successfully halted the flow of oil on July 15, and completely destroyed the well on September 19, 2010. Meanwhile BP managers were making efforts to bring back the company’s
The federal court, at first, ruled that the DEA was not liable for the suit, but Sosa was liable. On the appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal overturned the district court and sentenced that the DEA should not permit the arrest in another country that way and also upheld the judgment on Sosa. Flaherty, Moore, Ku, Stephens, and Steinhardt (2007) had an in-depth analysis of the Sosa case. The authors argued, as the court ruled that an unauthorized arrest and a single day custody did not violate any norm of customary law analysis and regulation, the case was, therefore, unsatisfying with “no decision”. The court emphasized that the arrest was taken place outside of the United States and therefore was exempted from the
While working, the locals approached her commission to complain against the American-vanadium mining company ‘Union Carbide’ (the same firm responsible for Bhopal Gas tragedy where around three thousand casualties occurred) about the gruesome symptoms that miners were facing. They bled from their eyes, ears and genitals. A black substance seeped from their skin. A study conducted later found that vanadium exposure made men
There was a breach of contract between Sara and Vincent; she will not be paid by Vincent. Ability to contract As per articles 1123-1125 deals with the ability of parties to enter into a contract. In case there is a non-execution of the contract binding the two parties i.e. Sara and Vincent, due to certain conditions there may be no legal obligations attached to it .The three types are: 1) Full absolution 2) Partial absolution 3) Limited sum absolution of a contract According to the case, Sara and Vincent agreed for the sale of the orchids, but due to foreseen circumstances, all have been destroyed by the stray dog Cookie. Therefore, since the orchids are no longer present the contract is not valid.
The bank had feels guilty of damaging conduct in their investigation. The judgement by the court is that they cannot claim back the damages although the bank has breached the duty of trust and confidence. Therefore in my opinion, I disagree that the courts appeal although the court has sufficient evidence to dismiss a sustainable claim for damages because they did not breach the duty of trust and confidence. A similar case of McNeill v. Aberdeen City Council (No.2) -  IRLR 113 has support that Aberdeen City Council has unfairly dismissed McNeill. Before this, McNeill accepted that he was guilty of gross misconduct as he used the sexist remark to female employees.
However both the plaintiff and the defendant knew that there was no sheep-farming on the land. With that leading to misrepresentation. MISREPRESENTATION ACT (CHAPTER 390) 2.1 states that when a person enters into a contract after the misrepresentation by the other party and suffer losses, then, if the person making the misrepresentation has to be liable to damages as respect thereof the misrepresentation has been made fradudulently. This shows that Ben’s misrepresentation has had a similar case before therefore it would be taken as Alan would be able to claim due to the fact that he has suffered losses due to Ben’s Misrepresentation.