·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.
Civil Offenses Requiring Proof of Specific Intent Conversion Intent to exercise dominion and control over another’s property Trespass to Land Intentional interference with land of another State of mind becomes particularly relevant when the courts decide on the punitive damages to be awarded in torts cases. Where punitive damages are asked, the state of mind of defendant is the only issue. The purpose of the award of such damages is to punish the defendant for his willful, wanton or malicious conduct. 1.1 Intent For the purposes of deciding intentional torts cases, intent is essential and not purpose or motive. The position of the law is that a wrongful act done intentionally provides for an actionable claim, regardless of bad purpose or a motive to injure or cause harm .
As there is no clear victim in this case the principle of harm will not be applicable here and would not be considered as an act that can be criminalised. This paper is about whether a victimless crime can be criminalised. Various theorists have argued in favour and against the criminalisation process. The argument against criminalisation is mainly on the violation of the individual autonomy of a person, where he will be criminalised for an act that he did as a part of exercising his autonomy and has not affected any other person in the process. On the other hand, one argument from the side favouring criminalization is that if such acts are not criminalised then they may cause social harm.
The premise is that only parties to contracts should be able to sue to enforce their rights or claim damages in case of breach. Consideration in contract is one of the evidences which support this doctrine as both does not acknowledge the existence and the benefits of the third party. This is because they have not submitted a consideration to the party
“A trust is an equitable obligation binding a person (trustee) to deal with property over which he has control for the benefit of persons (beneficiary)…” . The trust concept is seen as one the main applications of modern equity. There are a number of trusts that came about to fill the gap in the common law which had led to an unconscionable manner which had resulted to unjust judgments; these trusts are implied, resulting, expressed and constructive
The judge neglects so many other aspects of the theory and interprets corrective justice in a very literal sense. Applying the law word to word is a very redundant and regressive way of looking at the law. In complex cases such as these, laws must be interpreted in purposive way so that there is no wrongful gain for the defendants. The judge only looks at cases in which a bipolar relationship and a harm and wrong are clearly identifiable, while forgetting about a whole range of cases in which these concepts are ambiguous, although are
Torts are considered unfair acts that result in loss, causing damage or injury to anyone else in the form of “body, property, or legal rights”. The reason behind this is the violation of duty that was owed as decreed by law. Tort laws are considered civil wrong and the individual who is wronged can sue in the civil court either as compensation or some form of equitable remedy to have prevented repetitive actions. When parties are bound by contracts, contractual liability also exists. Companies and individuals are all applicable for Tort Laws.
The word ‘tort’ in law means a legal wrong or injury that has several elements, of which the most important element is that it is redressible in nature for the benefit of the person wronged or injured. The wrong or injury can consist of several civil wrongs like negligence, assault, battery, defamation etc. Therefore, tort is a breach of some duty, independent of contract, giving rise to a civil cause of action and for which compensation is recoverable . In tort law, the aggrieved party is provided relief in the form of damages. Damages are a form of compensation given for breach, loss or injury suffered by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff needs to prove that he suffered damages or loss as a direct consequence of the defendants act. The liability of a tortious act may result in punishments like imprisonment but the main aim of the law of tort or torts is to make sure that the victim, who incurred damages, gets compensation or relief. Among the different types of compensation available against the damages incurred, the victim may recover loss for the pain and suffering caused to him because of the act and also the medical charges sustained by
Mere disobedience by a party to a civil action of a specific order of the court made on him in that action is classified as a “Civil Contempt”. The order is made at the request and for the sole benefit of the party to the civil action. There is an element of public policy in punishing civil contempt, since the administration of justice would be undermined if the order of any court of law could be disregarding with impunity, but no sufficient public interest is served by punishing the offender if the only person for whose benefit the order was made chooses not to insist on its enforcement. All other contempt’s of court are classified as “Criminal Contempt”, whether the particular proceedings to which the conduct of the contemnor relates are themselves criminal proceedings or are civil litigation between individual citizens. This is because it is public interest in the due administration of justice, civil as well as criminal, in the established courts of law that it is sought to protect by making those who commit criminal contempt’s of court subject to summary