The second criterion is the seriousness of the breach. How far away from the agreed standard are the goods which have been delivered? How serious are the conse-quences for the buyer? What are the costs of repair? The fact that the seriousness of the breach should be taken into account is probably beyond dispute.
Alteration of risk takes place when the subject matter insured is substantially changed, i.e., the insured risk is substituted by a new one. In this case, a general principle of the common law is that the insurer is automatically discharged from liability: “There would be no cover where the circumstances had so changed that it could properly be said by the insurers that the new situation was something which, on the true construction of the policy, they had not agreed to cover”. Other cases, where the risk remains the same in essence, but a loss is more likely to occur for example, if the ship insured under the war policy sails into areas of enhanced military activity, are referred to as increase of risk. The civil law concept of alteration of risk embraces
When the defendant’s wrong does not fit in any of these pigeon holes he is said to have committed no tort. Hence this theory of Salmond is also known as pigeon hole theory. However the theory of pigeon hole has been criticized by the latter writers as they feel this theory, if accepted, will put an end to the growth and evolution of the new categories of liability in tort and the Courts could be prevented from identifying any new torts based on the violation of the legal rights of a person. Torts are infinitely various and not limited and confined. The novelty of claim may arise and Court may recognize a novel claim.
James A. Hammerton in the “ A Critique of Libertarianism” said that not all voluntary exchanges are just as the exchanges can have consequence on third parties, who might not have consented to the exchange. It contradicts the theory from Nozick that the just transfer of goods is a voluntary transfer from the rightful owner to another person, and without mention about the third parties. In additon, as Nozick said that property right is inviolable, it means that any violations should be compensated for. But in real world that may not be the case as it will be impossible for everyone who get benefits from the government compensate to those to contribute the fund. James also believe that the operation of the free market should be come along with some social rules.
·Sometimes people excuse the damage they cause by saying this was a mistake or that they did not mean to cause the damage. Is this a valid excuse to avoid liability for damage caused? Explain your answer. With the above question about people that is liable to a damages due to their civil wrong and now finding an excuse to avoid damages. In law, there is no excuse and the defaulter would therefore be liable for their offence committed except if the judge in a court of law based of their reasonable doubt found that it was not proven true that such person would be liable for a damages.
In the case of a plaintiff or party’s rights, a temporary injunction is not conclusive or deciding. If rights have been harmed, a preliminary injunction can halt progress to prevent further injustice. At the point of a temporary injunction, the court examines the present state and circumstances before continuing into an area that would obstruct the rights of the parties involved. The use of this injunction is generally considered to be appropriate only in extraordinary
58.According to Art. 74 CISG, only when the loss was foreseeable by the other party can the injured party be entitled to demand compensation of profit lost as a consequence of the breach of contract by the other party. [UNCITRAL CISG DIGEST, p. 347]. In this case, however, CLAIMANT’s loss was unforeseeable for RESPONDENT. 1.
The parties would be in the same position as they would have between had the contract never been made. No property would pass under such a contract; so, for eample,a third party who purchased goods which had been subject of a void contract would acquire no title to the goods and have to deliver them up to the true owner. Conversely, money paid in pursuance of a void contract could be recovered from the person to whom it had been paid. This indeed is the meaning of void where a contract is said to be void for mistake. Where a contract is rendered ‘null and void’ by the gaming act 1845, not only do no rights of action arise out of the contract, but any money or other property transferred cannot be recovered.
On the other hand, deviation for the sole purpose of saving property is not thus privileged, but entails all the usual consequences of deviation” The contract will be stated the route also the loading and discharge port, when the shipper don’t follow what the contract had stated, it might look as breach of contract. The shipper have to pay for the damages of cargo due to the deviation of the voyage. According to the Joseph Thorley Ltd v Orchis SS Co Ltd  1 KB 660, the court held the shipper are not allow to depend on the exemption clauses that already stated in the contract, which is based on the major condition of the
Various Insurance alludes to contracts of protection other than those of Life, Fire and Marine protection. It covers an assortment of dangers, the head of which are:- Individual Accident protection Individual Accident protection is protection for people or gatherings of persons against any individual mischance or ailment. The danger guaranteed is the real damage coming about exclusively and specifically from mishap created by fierce, outer and obvious means. In India this kind of protection is finished by the General Insurance Corporation. An agreement of individual mishap protection is not an agreement of repayment and the safety net provider needs to pay a settled entirety of cash on the passing or aggregate disablement of the safeguarded or give health advantages to recuperation from the damage.