The aspects of Misrepresentation in contract law Misrepresentation is a false statement of fact and law, which induces the represented to enter a contract. When a statement has been made during the course of negotiations it is then classes as a representation rather than a term an action for misrepresentation may be available where the statement turns out to be untrue. In misrepresentation has there different of types. • Innocent misrepresentation • Negligent misrepresentation • Fraudulent misrepresentation To find a misrepresentation is to find if the contract is voidable. The contract exists but may be set aside by the representee.
·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 a classic formulation, recently adopted and approved by Geopel J. of Supreme Court of British Columbia, a communication is defamatory if it “tends to harm the reputation of another so as to lower [him, her or it] in the estimation of the community or deter third persons from associating or dealing with them. If the defamatory communication takes a permanent or semi-permanent form – that is, if it is written, or spoken while being recorded or filmed such that it is preserved in some way – then it is libel, and actionable without proof of actual pecuniary loss. If it is some exceptions, only the economic losses that can be proven to have resulted from the false communication can be recovered. Examples:- Capital And Counties Bank vs Henty & Sons :- The defendant wrote to their customers saying ‘Henty & Sons hereby give notice that they will not receive in payment cheques drawn on any of the branches of the Capital and Counties Bank.’ The contents of the circular became known and there was a run on the bank. The bank claimed they had been defamed.
It may have been a careless, unintended error. Even if the error was unintended, Thomco could still be held liable. The law helps to provide the following three-part approach in order to decide liability in a case such as Squish v. Thomco: (1) The negligent supply of false information to foreseeable persons, known or unknown; (2) such persons’ reasonable reliance upon that false information; and (3) economic injury approximately resulting from such reliance. (Meiners, 154) As negligent misrepresentation is a tort of deceit, it would have to be established based on these guidelines that the deceit was in fact consummated. There is no doubt that Squish suffered economic injury, but it was not established that the other actions caused the result of the economic
In other words, "what people deserve is determined by what they do as agents." For example, applied strictly, if someone steals from another person, then the thief must have the same thing happen to him, and be stolen from. In this case, the punishment is equal to the crime. This is where Nathanson's objection of "moral desert" comes into play. "Moral desert" is just a philosophical notion that a person deserves something based on his or her actions, and it is not cleared up by equality retributivism because equality retributivism calls for us to "behave barbarically to those who are guilty of barbaric crimes" (Nathanson).
Russo v. White 241 Va. 23. Rather, "liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Id. Our client likely does not have a viable claim because even if the conduct of Mr. Bega was mean it has not reach the level of outrageous, intolerable or extreme. In Harris v. Kreutzer, 271 Va. 188, the court has to consider if the action done by the doctor was outrageous.
We know now that this liability gained its basis from the case of Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) . It is a liability for which defendant is held liable even if he was not negligent, had no intention of causing that harm or even made positive efforts to avert the same. Because of this nature of it , it is also referred as “no fault” liability. According to this rule if a person brings any dangerous thing on his land and keeps it and that thing escapes and does the very probable mischief , the person brought it there or who is the owner of this thing will be liable even if he has not been negligent . The liability here arises not because of any fault of defendant but because of the dangerous nature of the thing brought to the land and escape of such thing.
Corruption is an improbity or decay in the decision-making process in which a decision-maker consents to deviate or demands deviation from the criterion which should rule his or her decision-making, in exchange for a reward or for the promise or expectation of a reward, while these motives influencing his or her decision-making cannot be part of the justification of the decision. He has clearly misused the power in this, called misuse of power. by being invisible he treats ill mannered with the people, and at last is punished. if he would used his power in proper sense then it would not lead him to death. A brilliant scientist uncovers the secret to invisibility but his grandiose dreams and the power he unleashes causes him to spiral into intrigue, madness, and
arrested and successfully prosecuted and punished is smaller than what advocates of this theory would prefer it to be. Retribution Retribution involves the payment of a debt to both the victim and society and thus atonement for the person’s crime. Historically retribution was encapsulated in terms like “getting even”, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. Retribution literally mean paying back the offender for wrongs he or she did. It is based on the idea that victims are entitled to reprisal.
Ltd. According to the test of directness, a person is liable for all the direct consequences of this wrongful act, whether he could have foreseen them or not; because consequences which directly follow a wrongful act are not too remote. The only question which has to be seen in such a case is whether the defendant’s act is wrongful or not, i.e., could he foresee some damage? If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, i.e., if he could foresee any damage to the plaintiff, then he is liable not merely for those consequences which he could have foreseen but for all the direct consequences of his wrongful act. The first authority for the view advocating the directness test is the case of Smith v. London & South Western Railway Company, the railway company was negligent in allowing a heap of trimmings of hedges and grass near a railway line during dry weather.