Is infancy an automatic tort defence under English law?

No, infancy is not an automatic tort defence under English law. Infancy can be taken into account when determining the liability of a person under the age of majority, but it is not an automatic defence. In other words, the court may consider the age of the defendant when determining liability, but this does not automatically mean that the defendant will not be held liable.

What is Bolam test for professional standard of care under English tort law?

The Bolam test is a legal test used in English tort law to determine whether a professional has met the standard of care required of them. It states that a professional is not negligent if they have acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical practitioners skilled in that particular art. In other words, a professional will not be found negligent if they have acted in accordance with a practice accepted by a reasonable body of medical professionals.

What are the general elements of a tort under English law?

1. Duty of Care: The defendant must have owed a duty of care to the claimant. This means that the defendant must have had a legal responsibility to take reasonable steps to avoid causing harm to the claimant. 2. Breach of Duty: The defendant must have breached this duty of care by failing to take reasonable steps to avoid causing harm to the claimant. 3. Causation: The breach of duty must have caused the claimant to suffer harm or loss. 4. Damage: The claimant must have suffered some form of damage as a result of the breach of duty. This can include physical injury, financial loss, or emotional distress.

What is the legal standard in Hedley Byrne case regarding negligent misstatements in English tort law?

The legal standard in the Hedley Byrne case is that a duty of care can arise in the tort of negligence where a defendant makes a statement of fact, and the plaintiff relies on it to their detriment. This is known as the Hedley Byrne principle. The principle has been applied in a number of cases, but the basic elements of a Hedley Byrne claim are: (1) the defendant must have made a statement of fact; (2) the plaintiff must have relied on that statement; (3) the defendant must have known that the plaintiff would rely on the statement; and (4) the plaintiff must have suffered a loss as a result of the reliance.

Can someone recover loss from negligent misstatements under English tort law?

Yes, someone can recover losses from negligent misstatements under English tort law. Negligent misstatement is a type of tort, which is a civil wrong, and as such, a person who has suffered losses as a result of a negligent misstatement can seek damages from the person responsible for the misstatement. To be successful in such a claim, the claimant must prove that the defendant owed them a duty of care, that the defendant breached that duty of care, and that the breach caused the claimant to suffer losses.

Are pure economic loss recoverable under English tort law?

No, pure economic loss is generally not recoverable under English tort law. This is because tort law is designed to provide compensation for physical or mental harm caused by a breach of duty, rather than to provide compensation for financial losses. Pure economic loss is usually more appropriately addressed through contract law.

What is egg-shell skull rule in English tort law?

The egg-shell skull rule is a principle in English tort law that states that a defendant must take a plaintiff as they find them, meaning that the defendant must accept the plaintiff as they are, even if the plaintiff is more vulnerable or has a pre-existing condition that makes them more susceptible to injury. The defendant is liable for all of the consequences of their actions, even if the plaintiff's injury is more severe than would normally be expected.

What is Caparo test in English tort law?

The Caparo test is a three-part test used in English tort law to determine whether a duty of care is owed by one party to another. The test was established by the House of Lords in the case of Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman in 1990. The three parts of the test are: (1) Is there a sufficient relationship of proximity between the parties? (2) Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care? (3) Is it reasonable for the court to impose such a duty in all the circumstances of the case? If all three parts of the test are satisfied, then a duty of care may be established.

What is neighbour principle in English tort law?

The neighbour principle is a legal principle in English tort law which states that a person must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which can reasonably be foreseen to be likely to injure the person or property of another. This principle was established in the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932).

What is the tort law principle in Donoghue v Stevenson under English law?

The tort law principle in Donoghue v Stevenson under English law is the "neighbourhood principle," which establishes that people owe a duty of care to those who could reasonably be expected to be affected by their actions. This principle is also known as the "duty of care" principle.

What is the principle of restraint of trade under English law?

Under the common law doctrine of the restraint of trade in England and Wales, any restriction will only be deemed lawful if: the former employer can show it has a legitimate business interest to protect, and. the restriction extends no further than is reasonably necessary to protect that interest.

Can you enforce guarantees not evidenced in writing under English law?

No, under English law, verbal agreements are generally not legally enforceable. This means that any guarantees that are not evidenced in writing cannot be enforced.

What is the limitation Period for bringing an action founded on contract under English law?

Under English law, the limitation period for bringing an action founded on contract is six years from the date of the breach of contract.

What are the requirements of the equitable remedy of injunction under English law?

1. The claimant must have a legal right to the relief sought. 2. The claimant must have a “serious question to be tried”. 3. The balance of convenience must be in favour of granting the injunction. 4. The claimant must have provided a suitable undertaking to the court. 5. The claimant must not have delayed unreasonably in bringing the claim. 6. The claimant must not have acted in such a way as to make it inequitable to grant the injunction.

What are the requirements of the equitable remedy of specific performance under English law?

1. The subject matter of the contract must be unique, i.e. it must be something that cannot be replaced with an equivalent item. 2. The court must be satisfied that the claimant has performed, or is willing to perform, their obligations under the contract. 3. The claimant must have suffered, or be likely to suffer, substantial financial loss if the defendant does not perform their obligations. 4. The claimant must have no other adequate remedy. 5. The defendant must have the financial means to perform their obligations under the contract.

Can liquidated damage be a penalty meaning it bears no relation to the legitimate interest under English law?

No, liquidated damages are not considered to be a penalty under English law. Liquidated damages are an estimate of the loss that would be suffered by one party if the other party breaches the contract. As such, it must be an amount that is a genuine pre-estimate of the likely loss that would be suffered, and must not be excessive or oppressive.

What is liquidated damage under English law?

Liquidated damages are a pre-agreed amount of money that is specified in a contract to be paid by one party to the other in the event of a breach of contract. The amount of liquidated damages is typically an estimated amount of the damages that may be suffered by the non-breaching party in the event of a breach. The amount of liquidated damages must be a genuine pre-estimate of the loss that may be suffered and must not be a penalty.

Does the nonbreaching party to a contract has a duty take all reasonable steps to reduce his damage from breach under English law?

Yes, the non-breaching party has a duty to take all reasonable steps to reduce their damages from breach of contract under English law. This is known as the duty of mitigation. The non-breaching party must take all reasonable steps to mitigate their losses, such as seeking alternative sources of supply, or seeking to recover their losses from a third party.

Does the nonbreaching party to a contract has a duty to mitigate losses from breach under English law?

Yes, the nonbreaching party to a contract has a duty to mitigate losses from breach under English law. Under English law, a non-breaching party is required to take reasonable steps to mitigate the losses that arise from the breach of contract. This includes taking reasonable steps to minimize the damage or losses caused by the breach, and to make alternative arrangements to replace the goods or services that were lost due to the breach.

What is two-limbed test in Hadley v Baxendale?

The two-limbed test in Hadley v Baxendale is a legal test used to determine the scope of damages in a breach of contract case. It consists of two parts: first, whether the breach was foreseeable by both parties at the time of the contract; and second, whether the damages were caused by the breach. If both limbs of the test are satisfied, then the defendant may be held liable for the damages.

If a loss from contract breach is not reasonably contemplated by the parties, can you recover under English law?

No, under English law you cannot recover for losses that were not reasonably contemplated by the parties at the time of entering into the contract. The purpose of a contract is to clearly set out the rights and obligations of the parties, and if something has not been discussed and agreed upon, then it cannot be enforced.

If a loss from contract breach is too remote or indirect, can you recover under English law?

No, you cannot recover under English law if the loss from contract breach is too remote or indirect. English law does not allow for the recovery of damages for losses which are too remote or indirect. In order for a loss to be recoverable, it must be foreseeable and directly caused by the breach of contract.

What is the effect of intervening act on contract damage under English law?

Under English law, an intervening act is a factor that interrupts the chain of causation between a breach of contract and the resulting damages. This means that if an intervening act occurs, the party who has suffered a breach of contract may not be able to recover all of the damages they are owed. For example, if a party breaches a contract but then an intervening act occurs which causes further damage, the breaching party may not be liable for the additional damages caused by the intervening act.

Explain but for test for contract damage under English law.

Under English law, a contract breach is a breach of the terms of a contract between two or more parties. A breach can occur when one party fails to fulfill its obligations under the contract, or when one party does something that goes against the terms of the contract. In order to prove that a breach of contract has occurred, the party claiming the breach must show that: (1) there was a valid contract; (2) the other party failed to perform its obligations under the contract; and (3) the breach caused the claimant to suffer damage. If all of these elements are met, the claimant may be entitled to monetary damages or other relief from the breaching party.

What is quantum meriut under English contract law?

Quantum meruit, also known as a quantum meruit claim, is a legal concept in English contract law. It is a type of implied contract and can be used as a remedy when a party has provided services but has not been paid for them. The term quantum meruit literally translates as "as much as is deserved" and refers to the principle that one should be paid for the value of the services provided.

Can mere increase in expense or loss of profit be a ground for frustration under English contract law?

No, mere increase in expense or loss of profit is not a ground for frustration under English contract law. Frustration of a contract occurs where an event occurs after the formation of a contract that makes it physically or commercially impossible to fulfill the contract, or where it transforms the obligation to perform into a radically different one from that originally agreed. An increase in expense or a loss of profit alone does not amount to frustration under English law.

What is the case law in English case Tsakiroglou v Noblee Thorl?

Tsakiroglou v Noblee Thorl is an English contract law case that dealt with the issue of frustration of contract. The case established that a supervening event which makes performance of a contract illegal will generally constitute frustration, so long as the illegality was not caused by the fault of either party. This case expanded the doctrine of frustration to include not only events that make performance physically impossible, but also events that make performance illegal.

What is loss of amenity for contract damage under English law?

Loss of amenity is a concept in English contract law that refers to a reduction in the enjoyment or quality of life that results from a particular situation or event. In the context of contracts, loss of amenity may be relevant where a contract involves the use of property, such as a lease agreement. If the property becomes less suitable for the purpose for which it was rented, the tenant may have a claim for loss of amenity. The extent to which loss of amenity constitutes a breach of contract will depend on the specific terms of the contract and the circumstances of each case.

What is cost of cure for contract damage under English law?

Cost of cure is a term used in English contract law to refer to the expenses incurred by a party to remedy a breach of contract by the other party. It is the cost of putting right a failure to perform a contractual obligation, for example, repairing defective goods. In some cases, the cost of cure may be recoverable from the party that committed the breach, as compensation for the losses suffered as a result of the breach. The recovery of the cost of cure will depend on the specific terms of the contract and the circumstances of each case.