Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Explain caveat emptor
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Explain caveat emptor
Here, the McDowell’s performed an adequate physical inspection of the property and necessary due diligence as required by New York under the doctrine of caveat emptor. In Daly, the buyers similarly performed a physical inspection of the property, but differed in that they failed to perform due diligence regarding the discovery of material fact from the inspection. In Daly, the buyer had a physical inspection performed on the property, it was discovered that there was evidence of previous water intrusion and the buyers were recommended to consult with neighbors and local authorities about the defect. This is distinguishable from the McDowell’s case because they hired a surveyor and inspector to examine the property. The surveyor found that the
On February 26th 1972, Dam 3 of the Buffalo Mining Company a subsidiary of the Pittston Coal Company, failed resulting in a flooding of the Buffalo Creek Hallow. The disaster caused property damage, wrongful death, and psychic impairment. West Virginia prohibited any dam built any dam built over “fifteen feet in height across any stream or watercourse without a prior determination by the state that it is safe” (15). The state’s failure to properly enforce this law gave Pittston the ability to claim the disaster was an act of God; this was supported by President Nixon who referred to this as a natural disaster (187). In his testimony Mr. Spotte, head of the Pittston Coal Group, stated the accident was a natural occurrence beyond the company’s control. However he admitted that this particular dam (3) was not built in the custom of the company other dams lacking a spillway system. This failure to ensure a standard constituted a negligent breach of duty (134-137).
Lord Wilberforce, the judges who presided over the Anns v. Merton case used a two-step test in determining the scope of proximity between the homeowner and the municipality. The first part of the test determined whether the relationship between the two parties was sufficient enough so that failure to exercise a duty of care by one of the parties would result in damages sustained by the other. The second step, pursuant upon the first step looks at any aspects that would limit the obligations placed on the party to exercise a duty of care. This test and the Anns v. Merton case set a strong precedent that was used in the Kamloops v. Nielson case, the first of its kind in Canada.
Palmer v. Mulligan (1805), resembled the case of Merritt v. Parker (1795), however with a different outcome. In Palmer v. Mulligan, Palmer was suing Mulligan to damages caused by his mill. Palmer’s mill burnt down and Mulligan built a new mill up river, so Palmer had to rebuild his mill further into the river in order to get enough water flow, this caused Parker to loose logs that were floating down river and he had to hire more labor to ensue this didn’t happen. Since Mulligan’s mill was upriver trash from his mill was floating down river and hitting Palmer’s mill causing damage. The court found in favor of Mulligan saying that Palmer’s problems were his own because Mulligan was not altering the flow of the river in any way, and that the “injuries” to his mill were being caused by the natural flow of the river and it was nearly ‘slight inconveniences’. (Palmer v. Mulligan 3 Cai. R. 307; 1805 N.Y. Lexis 343). This case showed the shift in favor to competition and the idea that competition was a good thing. It also demonstrated that not all interference with property would have been compensated. The law shifted to favor competition over prior appropriation. The law shifted from “sic utere” to “salus populi” reflecting that the welfare of the people should be the supreme of the law. (Salyer). It was seen that the people
This is a complex case, involving multiple parties and several variables that need to be examined thoroughly. The parties mentioned include Knarles operator of the facility maintenance company, his son Barkley, their employee, a licensed plumber, and Mr. Chetum. Although in the end Chetum is suing the facilities maintenance firm for a breach of contract, all factors must be examined to determine proper fault.
The facts of this case are presented very clearly. Ashton Kutcher, owner of Ashton Acres, and Byrd Busch, owner of Bud Liteacres, have adjoining 100 acre farms. Separating the two was a barbwire fence. In addition, a large swamp encompassed part of both acreages (10 acres of Ashton Acres and 50 acres of Bud Liteacres). The two owners met over coffee where Busch orally proposed a trade of 25 acres for the draining of the swamp and a payment of $50,000 ($5,000 up front and $45,000 upon completion). The two owners shook hands on the deal and proceed to mark the 25 acres Ashton would receive upon completion. Ashton then paid Busch $5,000 as a down payment and began working on the swamp. Over a 30 day period, Ashton successfully completes the work using his own materials and labor and prepares a $45,000 payment for Busch. However, when Ashton arrives to present the check to Busch, Busch is not home. Instead he left a note saying the deal was off, as there was no contract between the two, and the barbwire fence needed to be returned to its original position between the farms.
In this inquiry the relationship between force and mass was studied. This inquiry presents a question: when mass is increased is the force required to move it at a constant velocity increased, and how large will the increase be? It is obvious that more massive objects takes more force to move but the increase will be either linear or exponential. To hypothesize this point drawing from empirical data is necessary. When pulling an object on the ground it is discovered that to drag a four-kilogram object is not four times harder than dragging a two-kilogram object. I hypothesize that increasing the mass will increase the force needed to move the mass at a constant rate, these increases will have a liner relationship.
There are multiple elements that must be proved in order to justify that the hotel owner, Fredericks, was negligent. These five elements consist of duty, breach of duty, cause in fact, proximate cause and actual damages. It is the duty of all parties to act reasonably and to not impart unreasonable risk
Extensive third-party registrations on a mark are not enough to substantially weaken the strength of a plaintiff’s mark. Homeowners Grp., Inc. v. Home Mktg. Specialists, 931 F.2d 1100, 1108 (6th Cir. 1991). The court in Homeowners
The claimant, Jennifer Bowman, lived with the defendant, William Fels, for 10 years. The house in which they resided was registered solely in Mr. Fels name. The two cohabitants’ relationship ended, Ms. Bowman “asserted a right to a beneficial interest in the property arising out of a constructive trust.” She argued that an agreement was reached between her and Mr. Fels that the property would be bought jointly. The proceedings of the case had started, and the trail was set for March 25th 2004. It so happened that upon inspection of the defendants’ trail bundle by the claimant’s solicitors a discrepancy was found. They suspected that the defendant had included cost of work carried out at his home with...
It is highly unlikely that a court would find that Billy Jean owed Donald and Co a duty of care to avoid the purely economic loss. Pure economic loss is described as financial, monetary loss generally attributed to ‘damage’ to an individuals ‘wallet’. For a claim to be valid and considered the steps to pursue a cause of action in negligence must be followed, the first of which is establishing a duty of care owed, in this case by Billie Jean to Donald & co. In this case it is found that no duty of care is owed and thus no claim for compensation can be lodged. In an attempt to establish a duty of care the plaintiff must be deemed vulnerable under the salient factors, the plaintiff being Donald & Co which in this case are not vulnerable. This characterisation of non-vulnerability is derived from the class of sale of the property as well as numerous general assumptions as to the experience of Donald & Co. It is expected under the assumption of Caveat Emptor as well as for the magnitude of purchase that Donald & Co have access to the building records and history of inexperienced builder Billie Jean as well as the financial status of
The court held that it was not an absolute or unconditional obligation to use reasonable endeavors, the nature and extent of it is conditioned by what was reasonable in the circumstances. It was concluded that some contracts containing reasonable endeavors also have their own standard of what is reasonable, expressly referring to the business and trading interests of the obligee.
The plaintiff bought a built as such to the plans approved by the defendants. But the independent consulting engineers who had carelessly failed to note an error in the calculations which rendered inadequate the concrete raft foundation necessited by the sl...
In order to answer the question concerning the formation of states, it is necessary to clarify what constitutes a state; the Oxford English Dictionary defines a state as ‘a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government’. There are a number of ways and processes in which to analyse what state formation is, why they have formed and the way in which this has occurred. State emergence can be traced back to the creation of territorial boundaries in medieval Europe, such as the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and its transition to a modern state can be attributed to the introduction of gunpowder in war (Hague & Harrop, 2010: 64). The formations of states have also been influenced by the growth of bureaucracy, administration and organisations. There are different theories as to the reason why states form, a certain few of which can be divided into the categories of rationalist, culturalist and structuralist perspectives. In this essay, these perspectives shall enter the debate in trying to justify the reason for state formation and the way in which it occurs. The most prominent feature in the formation of states appears to be the prevention and engagement of a state in war and its following consequences.
Due to the recent development in the field of environmental law, tort law has been increasingly turned down. Many of the new laws established legal remedies that didn’t exist under tort law system. However, laws those focus on the imposition of liability in case of any toxic discharge and disposal are meant for the corrective purpose and end up overlapping with the core of tort law principles.
Cooper v Wandsworth Board- Cooper built a house without permission. Board demolished house without giving C a chance to explain or remedy. Considerations of court: