In order for legal causation to be established the question to be asked is whether it is fair to attribute blame to the defendant, if the jury believe the defendant can be blamed for the consequence then he is also the legal cause of the consequence. There must also be a direct link from the defendant’s conduct to the consequence; this is known as the chain of causation and so therefore in order for the defendant to be guilty of the consequence then there cannot be any major intervening acts. Intervening acts can include the actions of a third party, the victim’s own act or a natural but unpredictable event. Naturally there are issues with the rules on causation which I will discuss in detail in the remainder of this essay, the first issue comes with defining what is meant by more than a ‘slight or trifling’ link as this is a very vague phrase it can be difficult for juries to understand and so therefore may be misused. The second issue involves the thin skull rule which involves the defendant having to take the victim as he finds him which can be seen as unfair.
The negligence was certainly made by the driver , but in what capacity. Proximate: This form of negligence requires foreseeability of what happened Causation: The basis upon which a lawsuit may be brought to the court Negligence: would be carelessness except the following did occur: The tortfeasor was under a duty to use due care. The tortfeasor breached that duty of due care. The tortfeasor’s act was the actual cause of injuries or damages. The tortfeasor’s act was the proximate cause of injuries or damages.
This requires specific intention, which shows that the D must have been culpable voluntarily. Regarding its role in civil law, it is essential to prove fault in some areas, but not in others. For example proving fault is crucial for a successful claim in negligence. Here, fault is tested in breach, which states that D is at fault if they do not act like the ordinary, sensible individual. For example, the defendant in Paris V Stepney BC was at fault by failing to provide protective goggles when the ordinary, prudent employer would have.
State of Confusion should be filed in the Federal District Court. This case should take place in a Federal Court because the decree generates an impermissible trouble on interstate commerce. According to USlegal.com Interstate commerce refers to the acquisition, retailing or trade of merchandise, shipping of public, funds or merchandise, and routing of waters among diverse circumstances. Interstate business is regulated by the national administration as endorsed in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. The federal government can also control exchange in a situation when it has an effect on interstate progress of supplies and provisions and may strike down state proceedings which are obstacles to such movements (2012).
In this suit, legal ramifications must be a factor by the different states. Congress has the authorization through this clause to supervise the free flows of trade. Deciding in this case whether or not Congress has a control here is examined. This decision will be made by the court regarding the subject of regulation and how it will be done. According to the Commerce Clause the state statute is unconstitutional because it is a burden on interstate commerce to the state of Confusion.
Law Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council shows that unsigned exclusion clauses need to be clearly defined to a reasonable person. Another case highlighting the need for exclusions to be clearly informed to the other party is the case of Causer v Browne. As for the case of White v John Warwick & Co Ltd the court held that the company providing defective product is liable for their negligence. If reasonably sufficient notice is given as to the existence of an exemption clause, then it is accepted by the courts that that clause becomes parts of the contract. The case that set this dictum, and which laid our the guidelines for testing the reasonableness and sufficiency of the notice
Explain what is meant by balancing conflicting interests. Discuss the extent to which English law balances conflicting interests and briefly consider whether it is important to do so. Many argue that the law should act as a natural arbiter against the competing interests of those who seek to use the law and demand justice. Ultimately differing legal actors will have differing and competing interests. This is an age old legal dilemma and is what is effectively meant by ‘balancing conflicting interests.’ In the nineteenth century, von Jhering recognised law as a means of ordering society in a situation where there were many competing interests, not all being economic; as he believed utilitarianism views he was concerned with social aims and results over individuals.
Explain and discuss the test of reasonableness in UCTA with reference to decided cases One of the key provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms Act, (UCTA) 1977, is its application to clauses which restrict or limit liability for breaches of statutory implied terms. If UCTA applies it may render such clause void or subject it to a reasonableness test, thus preventing a defendant from relying on it to avoid liability to the claimant. This essay will explain and discuss the test of reasonableness in UCTA 1977. This will be done by looking critically at the key issues with the test as well as the judicial approaches in assessing reasonableness when deciding cases, with references to the Schedule 2 guidelines. An exemption clause is a contract term which seeks to exclude liability completely or limit liability in the event of a breach of contract.
In such document, he says the previous quote addressing the action of fighting a law using one’s conscience. The ideal of contradicting a law due to a conscientious and ethical skew of that law is upholding the highest and upmost respect for the law. Dr. King speaks of breaking a law due to the neglect of conscientious submission because of its unjust and immoral roots. First, one must identify a law as immoral and unjust using the nature of the law and referencing the general moral rules of life. If a law is in direct violation of any moral rule, then action is required.
Could you imagine how history or our literary works would be altered if only one person stood up and said that it was wrong? Similarities between McCarthyism and The Crucible is the key to understanding this literary work. Both are centered around the belief that manipulating people for their own good is justified. The act of making unfair accusations leading to investigations and trials without regard to evidence or truth is the main theme to both. Standing up for what is right and true, regardless of what the outcome may bring you should be the norm.