Introduction According to the Duhiame law dictionary fault is a breach of duty or negligence and in some circumstances, the errors or omissions of others or things under a person’s control . The fault principle evolved from the writs to negligence and trespass at common law. The standard then was based on physical injury. Fault is an essential term in the common law of personal injury as it is a condition of liability under civil law regimes of civil responsibility. Oliver Wendell Holmes categorized tort law into three categories causes of action based on intentional conduct, causes of action based on unintentional conduct and causes of action based on strict liability.
CHAPTER-2: ELEMENTS OF NEGLIGENCE. It is necessary to have a conceptual framework which helps lawyers to decide whether there is the basis of a claim or possibility of a good defence. Negligence suits have historically been analyzed in stages, called elements. In order to establish in an action of negligence, the claimant must prove each of the following elements: (i) Duty of care. (ii) Breach of duty.
Ordinary Negligence and Occupiers’ Liability – Comparing Principles. Based on the discussion above, we can retrieve the key features of both ordinary negligence and occupier’s liability. In essence, the ordinary idea of negligence is when you unintentionally cause injury to someone in a situation where you should have known your action could cause harm. The plaintiff must establishes three factors to constitute negligence. Firstly, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care.
The court shall allow the plea provided the following requisites concur: (a) The lesser offense is necessarily included in the offense charged; and (b) The Plea must be within the consent of both the offended party and the prosecutor. The consent of the offended party will not be required if said party, despite due notice, fails to appear during the arraignment. Section 2 of rule 116 of the Rules of Court present the basic requisites upon which plea bargaining may be made. The rules however, used the word may in the second sentence of Section 2, denoting an exercise of discretion upon the trial court on whether to allow the accused to make such plea. Trial courts are exhorted to keep in mind that a plea of guilty for a lighter offense than that actually charged is not supposed to be allowed as a matter of bargaining or compromise for the convenience of the accused.
In fact, Viscount Sankey L.C. in outlining the duty of the prosecution stated that there are the exceptions of insanity and statutory exception, under which onus is on the accused to prove. Thus, for the purposes of this exercise, the stated exceptions will require thorough consideration, in order to fully establish the extent to which the constitutionally guaranteed presumption of innocence protects the rights of an accused
STUDY ON A CONTRACT WHICH CAN AND CANNOT BE SPECIFICALLY ENFORCE UNDER SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 Introduction Specific performance is equitable relief, given by the court to enforce against a defendant, the duty of doing what he agreed by contract to do. Thus, the remedy of specific performance is in contrast with the remedy by was of damages for breach of contract, which gives pecuniary compensation for failure are both, remedies available upon breach of obligation by a party to he contract; the former is ‘substitutional’ remedy, and the latter a ‘specific’ remedy. The remedy of specific performance id granted by way of exception. The plaintiff seeking this remedy must first satisfy the court that the normal remedy of damages is inadequate;
This amounts to the abuse of the process. However in Brunsden v Humphrey (1884), the court agreed that different cause of action aroused even in the same incident on recovering damages of property and personal injury so the claimant was entitled with damages. There are two views in issue estoppel. The narrow view is set out in Randolph v Tuck , considering different issues in this case in the matter of law. Therefore the defendant was not estopped to deny his responsibility.
1. Duty Of Care The thing the court must do is identify if the defendant owed a duty of care to plaintiff and what the duty of care owed was. They will try and distinguish what the standard of reasonable care the hospital should have adhered to while they were treating plaintiff and if the harm caused to plaintiff could have been foreseeably cause harm to her. 2. Breach Of Duty Of Care Once the court have established the duty of care the defendant owed to plaintiff, they will then consider whether the defendant failed to obtain the reasonable standard of care that was owed to plaintiff.
The paper mainly focuses on prevention of directand indirect discrimination and identifying therelationship between the rules to reduce the information loss. III.PROPOSEDMETHOD The proposed anti-discrimination system is described in terms of two phases: Discrimination Discovery Discrimination Prevention Fig. 1. Process of anti-discrimination system Figure 1 illustrates about the processing involved in anti-discrimination system. If the original biased dataset D given to the associative classification algorithm whichgenerates frequent classification rules, rules and original dataset goes through an anti-discrimination process whichincludes discrimination discovery phase and discrimination prevention phase, provides transformed dataset D′, the rulesextracted from transformed dataset D′ could lead to an automated fair decision.
The innocent party’s rights in response to a breach of a term depend on how serious or fundamental the actual breach is. If the breach is relatively trivial, then the innocent party is limited to a claim for damages, and the contract remains on foot and enforceable against both parties. If the breach is very the root of the contract then the innocent party can both terminate and sue for damages. When conditions if breach, the contract may be rescinded or innocent party can sue for damages (Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd v Luna Park (NSW); Bettini v Guy ). Antonia can sue for her damage to Johnathan because he terminate relative importance to her is an issue (Bannerman v White (1861) ) and she got the right to terminate the