Some answers about Common law Assignment

小編導(dǎo)讀：本文由留學(xué)dissertation中心法律essay代寫專欄整理提供，全文就common law相關(guān)的assignment做出了專業(yè)的解答，僅供大家參考使用。更多的law assignment參考可在本站查詢。

In this case, there are have an exclusion clauses, which said ' nothing in this contract shall make the owner of the bicycle rental company liable for any personal injuries to the riders of the bicycle rented '. Exclusion clauses is a contract which purports to exclude liablity altogether or to restrict it by limiting damages or by imposing other onerous conditions. Exclusion clauses must be incorporated into a contract before they have legal effect, and exclusion clauses are interpreted strictly. Pete signed the contract and know this, so, if Pete sued John used exclusion clauses, he will failure.
But, Pete can sued John use law of tort. In this situation, first, Pete rented a bicycle from a bicycle rental company, which was owned by John. So, John owed him a duty of care to avoid causing injury to persons or property. Second, Pete rented the bicycle have a defective seat, and John don't fixed it, so, there was a breach of that duty by the John. Third, Pete was injury because of the defective seat.
So, this three factors can proof John's action was the tort of negligence. Therefore, Peter could receive the damages for his injury.

In this case, Harry invited Bill to visit his playground. So, Bill is a visitor, because he is a person who enters the premises with the actual or implied permission(or invitation) of the occupier.
But, an item dropped from the air and hit Bill in Harry's land, he was injured. By stature an occupier owes a duty to all visitors to premises and must take such precautions as are necessary to make the premises reasonably safe for the purpose for which the http://m.elviscollections.com/thesis_sample/falvzuoyexuqiu/ visitor is permitted to enter them. The occupier may discharge his duty to visitor as follow: by taking reasonable measures, or by giving warnings. But Harry don't do this.
So, according Bill is a visitor , and Harry is occupier, don't by taking reasonable measures, or by giving warnings. So, Bill could sue Harry for the injury he suffered.

First, Tom is an employee of a building company. So, according Healthy and Safety At Work Act 1974, section 2, there is a key, overriding duty owed by employers to their employees, which is ' it shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the healthy, safely and welfare at work of all his employees'. So, employers must, as a minimum, follow law and relevant Codes of Practice and guidances.
First, plant and systems of work are provided and maintained so as to be safe and without risk to healthy. But in this case, employer don't make the platform be safe, this is no guardrails.#p#分頁標題#e#
Second, he maintains places of work, and access to and from such places, in such a condition as to ensure that they are safe and without risks to health. The platform  is no guardrails, it is very clear its dangerous. So, employer don't provided them a condition as to ensure that they are safe and without risks to health.
Third, the working environment provided and maintained is safe, without risks to health and has adequate facilities and arrangements for employee welfare at work. The platform is no guardrails, and the employer do not offer other security measures, so, the working environment provided and maintained not safe.So, Tom can sued the employer for damages.

   Strict liability: Where a person who, for his own purpose, brings and keeps on land in his occupation anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, he must keep it in at his peril, and if he fails to do he is liable for all damage naturally accruing from the escape.
   Mike kept the firecrackers in his courtyard, also meaning Mike for his own purpose, brings and keeps on land in his occupation, although he was very careful,  but the firecrackers were lighted and burnt down the house of Tom. According to strict liability, if it( firecrackers)escapes, he must keep it in at his peril, and if he fails to do,  he is liable for all damage naturally accruing from the escape.
   So Mike was still liable for the damage suffered by Tim although he had taken a reasonable care.

本文由留學(xué)dissertation中心法律essay代寫專欄整理提供，更多專業(yè)的留學(xué)生代寫essay服務(wù)盡在英國dissertation網(wǎng)：http://m.elviscollections.com/