hello, this is a commercial law subject and these two are the question and there

Question

hello, this is a commercial law subject and these two are the question and there is no any study case only these simple question.

Question 1. What must be established to sue successfully for the intentional tort of false imprisonment? provide examples.

Question 2. Indicate why the Donoghue v. Stevenson case ( the snail in the ginger beer bottle) was so important in the development of negligence law. Describe the facts of the case, the main issues the court was called upon to decide, and the outcome.

Explanation / Answer

Question 1. What must be established to sue successfully for the intentional tort of false imprisonment? provide examples.

First lets discuss what is false imprisonment, false imprisonment is a law full act, where a person is restricted to move to the bounded area without and justification, reason of him being in that area. The false imprisonment is punishable under two categories of law, 1) criminal law and 2) tort law. When false imprisonment false under tort law it is described as intentional law. It is unlawful restraint of a person without any legal notification. For example, if a shopkeeper finds a person steeling something from the shop, or trying to steal something. The shopkeeper in this case has a right to do false imprisonment for the shop lifter, another example can be, a person trying to look into another’s house without permission, or a person grabbing on another person without their permission, all these false under false imprisonment.

To establish to sue for false imprisonment, a policy needs to require a strong probable cause for the situation. In fact jury also have right to take decision under such cases. You need to prove that the person liable to false imprisonment is a threat to the person suing him in certain manner.

Donoghue v. Stevenson case

In this case, donoghue got a bottle of ginger beer from a friend which contain the snail in it, donoghue did not realize the snail in the bottle and caught up with illness after drinking the bottle. She later sue Stevenson for the act in the court. There were many flaws against the case as at that time,

Suing party has to show the receipt/bill for the purchase of the product which was contaminated, however in this case since donoghue got the bottle from the friend she was not able to present the bill so she was not able to make a point of negligence on side of Stevenson as she did not carry any legal agreement against the purchase of the bottle.

Another was duty of care, where it is Stevenson the manufacturer has the duty for his customer for use of his products. According to this the consumer has right to sue the manufacturer in case of any illness, flaws happened due to the product.

Neighbor principle. Thirdly, the Donoghue v. Stevenson case produced Lord Atkin’s controversial ‘neighbor principle’, which extended the tort of negligence beyond the tortfeasor and the immediate party. It raised the question of exactly which people might be affected by negligent actions. In Donoghue’s case she had not purchased the ginger beer but had received it as a gift; she was a neighbor rather than a party to the contract

Due to all this points of the case, Donoghue got the reward, but only half of what she claimed.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse H
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.