Salmond standing opposed to Winfield opines that there is no “law of tort” (meaning no specific principle of establishing tortious liability) but merely “law of torts”. What he meant to say is that the law of torts consists of a number of specific rules prohibiting certain well-defined harmful acts prohibited by Common Law. This means that there is a certain list of commissions and omissions of acts which under specific situations are actionable in a court of law. Hence according to Salmond, people are only allowed to file a case against that specific act or omission which comes within one of these recognized categories. Like law recognizes specific acts like theft, forgery, dacoity, murder, rape and etc.
Cargo Insurance - Review of Essential Standards Why would it be advisable for you to spend additional sum to pay for cargo insurance? The short answer is: on account of with that "additional" sum, you will be compensated on the off chance that your cargo gets lost or harmed. In any case, let us characterize cargo insurance in more specialized way. Cargo insurance for the most part covers the lost or harm, aggregate or incomplete, of the products that is the subject of the insurance scope if such merchandise is harmed or lost while in travel and all other fundamental necessities are specialist. This sentence essentially exemplifies the conditions before you can guarantee for your insurance continues.
The fact that the seriousness of the breach should be taken into account is probably beyond dispute. How much weight should be attached to it is an altogether different question. To put it differently: does a serious non-conformity in itself justify avoidance? The answer probably is no. The third criterion is the seller’s right to cure the defect.
For civil law, liability generates damages in life, without having to prove that the defendant was negligent. For the criminal law, liability tax legislation without the need to prove the criminal purpose. WHAT IS NEGLIGENCE 1. General negligence. According to Mr. Pram 's notes, negligence is the breach of a legal obligation to care that results in unwanted harm by the defendant before the plaintiff.
The landmark case of Caparo v Dickman  2 AC 605 has created the three tier test in order to establish duty of care. The Caparo test departs from the case of Donoghue v Stevenson  AC 562 as well as the test laid down by Lord Wilberforce in the case of Anns v Merton LBC  AC 728 that begins by assuming that there is a duty of care and that damage or injury was foreseeable unless there is good reason to judge otherwise. Whereas the Caparo test begins by assuming that no duty of care is owed unless the criteria of the three tier test are
Accordingly, in Fuller's view the predecessor law of conceding immunity would be invalid and there is no need for the enactment of a law retrospectively. With respect to the civil liability, Fuller has a few reservations as to such laws. What must be contemplated is the objective of the retrospective law. For example, the imposing of tax gains in which the object is to raise revenue and not control past conduct, thus issue of retroactivity cannot be used as ground to invalidate such
According to an earlier case Commercial Solvent, the substance of Art.82 is reiterated that abuse of dominant position is not established solely on dominant position, but on certain risk of harm. It reminds the wording “abuse” in Art. 82. In United Brands case, the case law provides protecting legitimate commercial interests is possible but it should be done on a proportionate ground given an objective justification; and the application of this interpretation in the case is that undertaking cannot, therefore, stop supplying an order in no way out of the ordinary. In BP case, the same law interpretation is applied, but this time objective necessity was found.
For a constructive trust to take place a detrimental reliance is also needed the maxim states that ‘Equity will not assist a volunteer showing there must be some hardship based on the reliance. As well as this, equitable fraud is also needed which is shown in the case of Yaxley v Gotts where it was stated that it would be inequitable to disregard the claimant’s expectations and the courts wanted to avert ‘injustice’. This shows constructive trusts are more fair and flexible as they allow for justice to prevail even without an
Specific Performance can be granted only by the court in the exercise of its equity powers, subsequent to a determination of whether a valid contract can be enforced exist and an evaluation of the relief sought. As a general rule, specific performance is applied in breach of contract actions where monetary damages are inadequate, primarily where the contract involves land and unique chattel. Damages for the breach of a contract for the sale of ordinary personal property are, in most cases, readily ascertainable and recoverable so that specific performance will not be granted. The advantage of this remedy is that, since it is an order of an equity court it is also been supported by the enforcement power of that court. If the defendant refuses to obey that order, she can be cited for criminal contempt and even imprisoned.
Other that damages and rescission, there’s also excluding or limiting liability for misrepresentations. Section 19(1) of the Contracts Act that provides that agreements caused by coercion, fraud and misrepresentation are voidable contracts. Thus, in the situations provided, the contract is not voidable if the innocent party was able to ascertain the truth of the matter by exercising ordinary diligence. There have been uncertainties whether the word "fraudulent" applies only to silence thus fraud by silence or it applies to misrepresentation as well thus to fraudulent misrepresentation. A contract is rescinded for misrepresentation because it would not have been entered into but for the misrepresentation.