Introduction to Law - Essay Example

Introduction to Law Table of Contents Question 3 Introduction 3 Discussion 3 Conclusion 5 Question 2 5 Introduction 5 Discussion 5 Activity of Herbert 5 Activity of Brundle 6 Activity of Coulthard 6 Conclusion 7 Question 3 7 Introduction 7 Discussion 8 Strict Liability of Land 8 Strict Liability of Animals 9 Conclusion 9 References 10 Question 1 Introduction According to the case provided, it was found that Clark, a private individual displayed a recently repaired long-case clock for sale. The same had been claimed by him to be a rare piece of 17th century and thus valued it at £50,000. Stewart was attracted in buying the clock as he had an interest of buying old furniture. Finally, he consulted with Hill who was a specialised in restoration of old English clocks. Hill, based on the explanation provided by Stewart, suggested that the deal will be profitable and can purchase the product. However, one month later, Stewart found that the model was not the unique one that it was claimed to be. The provided case could be determined as the conduct of fraudulent activity. Discussion In relation to the aforementioned case, it can be affirmed that fraud is defined as an act of dishonesty, which is generally undertaken for acquiring certain personal benefits. Under the Fraud Act 2006, a person who founds to be guilty in performing any fraudulent activity is treated under subsection (2). This section of the law defines fraud under three situations i.e. ‘fraud by false representation’, ‘fraud by failing to disclose information’ and ‘fraud by abuse of position’ (Crown, 2006). With this concern, the provided case can be categorised falling into the situation of ‘fraud by false representation.’ It was the private individual i.e. Clark who made a false representation in terms of not disclosing the actual details of the clock and claiming it to be an antique of the 17th century. It can be obviously stated that the dishonest act of Clark dishonesty was intended not to disclose the truth for reaping personal benefits. Thus, Section 2(3) of the Fraud Act 2006 can be applied in this provided case (Crown, 2006). After acquiring a preliminary understanding about the case provided, it can be affirmed that this case could be placed before the county court. Stewart can file a case in opposition to the fraudulent activity performed by Clark, as he intentionally did not disclosed the details of the good for his own personal gain. Stewart before filling the case must collect all the relevant documents against the defendant i.e. Clark, so that the defendant does not get a scope to strike out the case. The parties could even opt for pre-action claims through settling out the dispute without the intervention of the court. Sanctions regarding the settlement of the dispute could be gained through obtaining a monetary compensation from the party charged with the conduct of fraudulent activity (Pinsent Masons LLP, 2011). It is worth mentioning that if the case does not get solved based on the pre-action claim protocols, then there lays the options of having a trail in the court. However, the legislation under the Social Security Act 1992 charges the offender of any false representation case as per the two sections, namely S111A and S112. The maximum limitation of penalty, which is charged relating to such type of case, is 7 years and 3 months respectively (The Crown Prosecution Service, n.d.). Certain clauses that need to be backed by evidences include guilty constrains of the offender, time duration of the practise of fraudulent activity and the amount involved. Moreover, circumstances such as the underlying situation of the fraudulent activity and whether any repayment of the overpaid amount has been made in the course of time also need to be taken care of (The Crown Prosecution Service, n.d.). Based on the above discussed guidelines, it can be affirmed from a broader understanding that Stewart might charge Clark on financial grounds and demand compensation for his personal loss through showing certain evidences in front of the court (DLS, 2014). Conclusion Based on the above analysis and discussion, it can be affirmed that the provided case seems to be a clear case of fraudulent activity, which appears under the English law referred in Fraud Act 2006. Stewart can claim for his loss that he actually faced for being misled by the offeror. Stewart as per the details available can file a case against the seller i.e. Clark, but Hill could not be charged as he just given his viewpoints based on the explanation of Stewart regarding the offer. In order to advice Stewart, it can be stated that Stewart is entitled to claim for compensation by charging Clark due to the conduct of fraudulent act. Question 2 Introduction Land laws seem to possess several number of clauses that eventually raise confusions amid the individuals person who offer and accept a particular contract. According to the case provided, it was found that Watson and his wife named Galica had bought a house after due speculation of the area and neighbourhood. However, as days passed by, the relation between them and the neighbours got deteriorated due to the unreasonable behaviours of the neighbours for which Watson and Galicia decided to take legal actions against them. Discussion Activity of Herbert With regards to the provided case, it can be found that Herbert was using the track across the paddock, which is a part of the property of Galica and Watson. This can be duly considered as a case of trespassing as the neighbour has been using the property of the couple without their permission. Specially mentioning, this case falls under the law laid down by tort signifying that trespassing is caused by the unlawful justification of the use of property, which belongs to someone else. The couple can make a appeal to the court and claim compensation against Herbert for trespassing. Since the neighbour is adamant and have possible chances of causing damages to the property in future, it is better that the couple i.e. Watson and Galica lodge a case against Herbert (Balchin & Rhoden, 1998). Activity of Brundle The activity of Brundle in relation to the case provided can again be treated under the trespassing law. The law has been violated as the neighbour i.e. Brundle unlawfully entered the premises of the property, which was marked to be of Galica and Watson. The law eventually gets violated at the moment of intrusion made in the property owned by someone else is registered. Hence, the couple can file a case against the neighbour and can charge him compensation for causing damage to the property of Watson and Galica through trespassing. It is worth mentioning that since the claim of being innocent goes unjustified and chances of causing damages to the property in future is highly possible from the activities of the neighbour, it is better that the couple opt for lodging a case against him (Edwards & Wells, 2012). Activity of Coulthard According to the case provided, the activity of Coulthard could be settled out mutually. It would be vital to mention in this similar concern that the couple Watson and Galica was well about the residents and their lifestyle before they actually invested in the property. However, the couple can only file a case under the tort law of private nuisance. However, the duration for which the nuisance is affecting the couple is a huge factor to make the case weak or strong (Kamal, 2011). The solution for the case could be better sorted out by the way of court settlement. Both the parties can mutually decide on the matter and thus come to a settlement. Conclusion The activities referred in the case provided possess certain clauses that can be challenged in the court of law. However, the couple Watson and Galica may have certain strong points that would aid them to take appropriate lawful actions against the neighbour. However, at the same time, the neighbour can cross the couple in the court of law stating that they had purchased the property after wide speculation of the area and thus cannot have the power to make such legal claims. From a broader understanding, it could be affirmed that it is better for Watson and Galica to solve the disputes amid themselves and live together happily in future. Question 3 Introduction Strict Liability is related to the concept of Tort law, which imposes maximum obligation or liability for any harm suffered. This law as framed in English law represents the harm caused by any individual or firm engaged in hazardous activities, which may result in loss of life or property. Property is defined in a broader type under the English law, which includes anything forming a part of an individual or firms personal collection. The doctrine or the principle of strict liability was passed under a special status for certain states and this even includes harm caused by domestic animals. The law has been framed to provide the claimants with maximum amount of cover and benefits that could react towards the negative impacts imposed by certain external factors on land and life. According to various researches, the doctrine associated with strict liability is mainly applied in a certain situation wherein an organisation or an individual become liable for causing any sort of damage due to the conduct of their respective actions. Moreover, this doctrine also applies in a particular setting wherein people involve in conducting inherently dangerous actions (Edwards & Wells, 2012). Discussion Strict Liability of Land The law applicable for hazardous events occurring in respect of the land property can include certain aspects that may cause damage or harm to the land as well as the property of the owners. This broadly covers the major issue of trespassing. In general, trespassing is referred to as people who wrongfully uses or misuses the property of others. In addition, it can also be related to anything even when the person is not indulged only in misusing of land. This law mainly covers specifically the plaintiff from any kind of damage caused on the land property by any unauthorised user (Osoro Chege Kibathi & Company Advocates, 2014). In order to describe about the application of strict liability in the ownership of land, it can be affirmed that the damages caused must not be measured on the actual ones. However, those should be measured keeping track of the possibility of harm or the likelihood of danger, which may arise from any future practise. It would be vital to mention in this similar concern that several laws have been enlisted and even enforced to safeguard such illegal moves at large (Edwards &Wells, 2012; Sterk, 2012). Strict Liability of Animals The speciality of Tort law has grown up to be of a separate domain with the inclusion of the beasts even under the jurisdiction of law. The strict liability for animals covers the damages that cause by them to any collective property. The damages of injuries caused by the animals strictly fall under the jurisdiction of law. This law of strict liability for animals demonstrate that the owners usually provide the compensations of loss. This law also covers the threats that are caused by the animals, which are termed as dangerous species. In order to discuss about the standards of strict liability and its application to the ownership of animals, it can be affirmed that this doctrine denotes the owners to be liable for any damage triggered by the animals (Law Reform Commission, n.d; The Chartered Institute of Loss Adjusters, n.d). Conclusion The series of lawful guidelines pertaining to Tort law have certainly represented the requirements of the liabilities that need to be ensured for the citizens. In this regard, the liability laws have been strictly framed keeping in mind the possible damages that may occur in any situation. Maintaining a clear description of how to make a claim, the strict liability doctrine of Tort law has clearly defined the person on whom the liability will be falling for the damages caused. Moreover, the doctrine also stressed on the major factors like use of hazardous elements or taming domestic animals, which proves to be fatal for life and property of others. Thus, it can be concluded from the above analysis and discussion that the doctrine pertaining strict liability of Tort law is largely applied to land ownership as well as animals by a considerable level. References Balchin, P. N. & Rhoden, M., 1998. Housing: The Essential Foundations. Routledge. Crown, 2006. Fraud by False Representation. Fraud Act 2006. [Online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/pdfs/ukpga_20060035_en.pdf [Accessed June 12, 2014]. DLS, 2014. Halifax Plc -v- Omar; CA 20-Feb-2002. Home. [Online] Available at: http://swarb.co.uk/halifax-plc-v-omar-ca-20-feb-2002/ [Accessed 12 June, 2014]. Edwards, J. S. & Wells P., 2012. Tort Law. Cengage Learning. Kamal, A. H. M., 2011. Noise Nuisance Abatement under Tort Law: Mirage or Reality? ASA University Review, Vol. 5, No. 2. Law Reform Commission, No Date. Civil Liability for Animals. Introduction. [Online] Available at: http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/wpAnimals.htm [Accessed 12 June, 2014]. Osoro Chege Kibathi & Company Advocates, 2014. Introduction to the Tort of Trespass. Trespass to Land. [Online] Available at: http://www.ockadvocates.com/2013/01/introduction-to-the-tort-of-trespass/#.U5lydXKSwbw [Accessed June 12, 2014]. Pinsent Masons LLP, 2011. An Overview of Civil Proceedings in England and Wales. Legal Information. [Online] Available at: http://www.out-law.com/topics/dispute-resolution-and-litigation/court-procedure/an-overview-of-civil-proceedings-in-england-and-wales/ [Accessed 12 June, 2014]. Sterk, S. E., 2012. Strict Liability and Negligence in Property Theory. Article. The Chartered Institute of Loss Adjusters, No Date. Liability of Animal Owners/Keepers. Presentation Notes. [Online] Available at: http://www.cila.co.uk/files/LIABILITY%20OF%20ANIMAL%20OWNERS%20-%20Presentation%20Notes.pdf [Accessed 12 June, 2014]. The Crown Prosecution Service, No Date. False Representation to Obtain Benefit. Obtaining Benefit Fraud. [Online] Available at: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/obtaining_benefit_fraud/ [Accessed 12 June, 2014]. Read More