·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.
Contrastingly, if one’s false belief is not intentional it is unclear why it shouldn’t be regarded as a result of simple ignorance instead of self-deception. A paradox is inevitable if we understand self-deception in the manner of deceiving someone else. While lying to someone else, the deceiver knows the truth and keeps it from the deceived. However, in the case of self-deception, the deceiver and the deceived collapse into one person and there arises the problematic of how a person can know and simultaneously not know a particular thing. This is the paradox of knowing in relation to self-deception, which drives Sartre to his model of bad faith.
Dispatch of the notice by ordinary is not essential since it is the other party who committed a fundamental breach and who has to bear the risk of any incorrect or failing transmission of the declaration of avoidance. The notice re-quires no specific form. It can be made in writing or even orally. It is, however, disput-ed whether the CISG allows also for an implicit declaration of avoidance and whether mere conduct can constitute such implicit declaration. Thus far, cases of that kind ap-pear to be rare and there is no case law on the question.
II. NEGLIGENCE An introduction to Negligence will give a better understanding to Contributory Negligence. “Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those consideration which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would do.” It means a failure to behave with the level of certain care, which a man of ordinary prudence would act in the same circumstances or breach of an obligation. It is usually constituted by actions or omissions when there is a
Secondly, defeasibility, whenever a statement is found in question to be false by showing proofs or evidences. Thirdly, accident, when it comes to show that the unpleasant incident was happened accidentally and unintentionally. The accused may retreat from the responsibility of this unpleasant accident. Lastly is about good intention. The accused may claims that this offensive act was doing in the best of intention but not in any form of recklessness.
A fallacy is defined as a mistake in an argument that arises from defective reasoning or the creation of an illusion that makes a bad argument appear good. In layman terms, Dictionary.com defines a fallacy as a deceptive, misleading or false notion, belief, etc. It is a misleading or unsound argument. Both inductive and deductive arguments may contain fallacies and if they do, they are usually uncogent or unsound. Fallacies are divided into two groups which are formal fallacy and informal fallacy.
It is the misuse of this free will that leads to error due to the fact that Descartes does not fully understand it; therefore free will “easily falls into error and sin and chooses the evil for the good or the false for the true” (21, Descartes). This shows Descartes that error is the result of judgments made by the use of free will regarding things that are not yet understood
These include; Consequentialism, welfarism, Individualism, aggregation and maximization. Consequentialism This is the view the good or bad of an action depends entirely on the outcomes or consequences of that act. This is technically referred to as ‘Teleological’. For instance, if you tell a lie, it will only be considered a bad or negative action if that lie has harmful or bad effects. Otherwise, that lie will not be considered wrong.
Before moving further, it is important to understand the term ‘negligence’ with reference to tortious liability. “Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Actionable negligence consists in the neglect of the use of ordinary care or skill towards a person to whom the defendant owes the duty of observing ordinary care and skill, by which neglect the plaintiff has suffered injury
The parties view each other as adversaries, and can withhold information that may hinder the negotiation. One of the major downsize of power based negotiations is that the parties may lose sight of the real issue. Personal Application As a