In their remanded district court case, the jury returned a verdict of infringement, finding Microsoft’s infringement to be wilful, and rewarding Uniloc $388 million in damages. However the district court granted a new trial on infringement and wilfulness as well as other motions following post-trial motions. In response, Uniloc appealed once again. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the new trial on infringement, but stated that Uniloc lacked evidence to prove wilfulness and granted a new trial on damage costs. In this decision, the Federal Circuit shifted model and rejected the previously widely used “25 percent rule of thumb”  in calculating patent damage awards.
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.
Secondly, the defendant must show that he do not know ‘the nature and quality of the act he was doing’. Hence, if he knew his act was illegal, he has no defence in insanity: Windle (1952). However, the High Court of Australia stated in Stapleton (1952) that Windle should be overrule as ‘morality’ and not ‘legality’ was the correct principle behind the use of wrong. Nevertheless, this strict approach was used in Johnson
According to section 729 of the Corporations Act, a person has the right to compensation after suffering damage or loss due to an “offer of securities under a disclosure document contravening section 728(1)”. Section 728(1) prohibits individuals from offering securities containing a misleading or deceptive statement. Indeed, a company can only be liable if shareholders launch class action. This means shareholders litigating against a company and its officers for misrepresenting profitability and causing shareholders to purchase shares at inflated prices. For instance, in Dorajay Pty Ltd v Aristocrat Leisure Limited  FCA 19, shareholders launched class action against Aristocrat after acquiring interest in shares and suffering a loss because Aristocrat exaggerated profits and failed to reveal that earnings forecasts will not be met.
For example, Greco Belgica’s disbarment case vs Morales was dimissed on the grounds that impeachable officials are immune to lawsuits that would in effect impeach them, as evidenced by Ombudsman vs CA and Mojica [GR No. 146846], where it’s stated
The first employee warning settled in his favor. He was in the process of disputing the other three reports at the period of discharge. He was challenging his termination, hence seeking reinstatement with back pay, benefits, and seniority. However, the employer argued that the discharge was not subject to arbitration since the collective bargaining agreement does not consist of a "for a cause' requirement in the required article XVII and XXII. He felt that there was no standard against which the employee can test the employer's action of termination.
There is however, an important point of difference between Rama Chandran and the instant appeal. In the former, the Industrial Court had found that the workman had been justly terminated from service. An application to the High Court for certiorari to have that finding quashed failed. In the present case, the court was merely dismissing the
The court laid down that the common law before the act, the defect and mischief it didn’t provide for and the remedy and true reason behind passing the remedy to cure the mischief had to be considered. This rule is used as the last option when neither literal rule nor plain meaning rule help solve
However both the plaintiff and the defendant knew that there was no sheep-farming on the land. With that leading to misrepresentation. MISREPRESENTATION ACT (CHAPTER 390) 2.1 states that when a person enters into a contract after the misrepresentation by the other party and suffer losses, then, if the person making the misrepresentation has to be liable to damages as respect thereof the misrepresentation has been made fradudulently. This shows that Ben’s misrepresentation has had a similar case before therefore it would be taken as Alan would be able to claim due to the fact that he has suffered losses due to Ben’s Misrepresentation.