CASE LAW122 Examples PDF

Preview

Summary

heh...

Description

Cases Examples

Trespass to Land Nellie is a meter reader for the gas company. Each day, she visits homes to read people’s gas meters. By the end of the day, she is pretty tired. So after work, when she gets off the bus and walks home, she takes a short-cut across her neighbour’s backyard. Her neighbour, Mr. Dread, is tired of Nellie cutting through his yard. She has not done any physical damage, but Mr. Dread just does not like people on his property. Mr. Dread has decided to sue Nellie for trespass to property. Which of the following is TRUE? Intentional act Nellie intentionally went on the land Causing person or object to interfere with Improperly interfered with the land that land

Battery Defendant (Ki Yim) owns a variety store in Toronto. One day, the Plaintiff (Bettel) & 6 other boys enter the store, play on the pinball machine and start playing with toy guns, football and other store items. Yim asks them to leave. The boys go outside and start throwing lit matches into the store. Yim goes outside, grabs one of the boys (Bettel) and starts shaking him, trying to get him to confess. While shaking him, Yim ends up hitting Bettel in the nose. Yim says it was an accident. What is the Issue? (i.e. what is the legal wrong) Is Yim Liable for Battery? What is the Rule/Legal Test? Defendant causes offensive, physical contact with the plaintiff Apply the Facts Intends to Cause – Yim purposefully shook Bettel Offensive – shaking is an offensive act Bodily contact – shaking a person’s body is bodily contact

Assault Dave plays a joke on Henry. He sneaks up behind him and pokes him in the back with his finger and snarls, “Stick ‘em up!” Henry is terrified. He thinks there is a real gun to his back. Yes. Since Henry had reasonable belief that Dave had a real gun to his back, he was terrified and sensed that he was in immediate danger. His belief was intentionally caused by Dave and his physical, offensive bodily contact. Therefore, Dave is liable for his actions and Henry would be successful if he decided to sue Dave for assault. Gunther is deathly allergic to shrimp. Ella does not know about Gunther’s allergy. One day at lunch, Ella sat next to Gunther and took out her shrimp salad. Gunther was shocked and frightened. No. Ella did know of Gunther's allergy to shrimp and did not intend to harm him. Additionally, no physical, offensive bodily contact took place. Therefore, Ella is not liable and if Gunther decided to sue Ella for assault, he would be unsuccessful. Delilah has a secret crush on her roommate, Samson. Samson does not share Delilah’s feelings and Delilah knows it. One night, when Samson is asleep, Delilah creeps into his bedroom and cuts a small lock of his hair. Not assault, battery. Delilah intentionally caused physical, offensive bodily harm against Samson. Therefore, Delilah is liable for her actions and Samson would be successful if he

Cases Examples decided to sue Delilah for assault. Not assult because sleeping so doesn’t know about imminent threat.

Interference with Contractual Relations An orchard was owned by three brothers: Alan owned 20%, Bernie owned 40%, and Jeff owned 40%. They created a contract to govern their rights and obligations. That agreement had two important terms: If a majority of the brothers agreed, the orchard would be sold and the profits would be distributed according to the brothers’ interests. If one brother did not want to sell, then he would have a “right of first refusal”—that is, he would have the opportunity to buy his brothers’ share. Bernie and Jeff wanted to sell the orchard. Alan did not. To make life more difficult, Alan also refused to buy his brothers’ shares at market value. Bernie and Jeff therefore attempted to sell the property to outsiders. Several potential buyers appeared, but Alan managed to discourage all of them by (i) telling them that he already had full ownership of the property, and (ii) preventing them from viewing the orchard. Bernie and Jeff eventually became completely frustrated. Alan then offered to buy their shares at $400 000 less than their market value. Fed up and anxious to be done with the matter, they agreed. Alan is now the sole owner of the orchard. Bernie and Jeff have sued Alan under the unlawful means tort. They claim that they lost $400 000 as a result of his wrongful conduct toward the potential purchasers. Law sued for: D Knows about the contract

Intend to cause the 3rd party to breach the contract. Causes 3rd party to breach the contract through an illegal act.

The defendant conduct causes loss to suffer. Conclusion

Unlawful means tort Alan knew about the contract and that majority would rule. If you weren’t the majority, you could sell your shares to the others. Alan knew Alan did use unlawful techniques to prevent Alan did not use illegal acts to convince the 3rd party. Did not use a civically actionable law against 3rd party. Did lose $400 000. Not guilty

The defendant persuaded an opera singer to leave Her Majesty’s Theatre (with whom she had a contract to perform for the season) in order to perform with the Royal Italian Opera. Her Majesty’s Theatre sued. Law Sued for D knows about the contract Intent to cause the 3rd party to breach contract.

Direct inducement D knows opera singer works for Majesty He did not have the intent to get her to bre. Was in good faith. She was entitled to terminate her contract.

Cases Examples Caused 3rd party actually to breach contract Loss occurred. Consluion

The contract was breached, the opera singer left. The Majesty suffered a loss. Not Guilty.

DeJohnette Developments was in the process of building a recording studio. It agreed to purchase about $5000000 worth of sound equipment from Peacock Electronics Inc. Jarrett Koln, who custom builds sound equipment, heard that DeJohnette was planning a new recording studio. Koln did not know that DeJohnette had already entered into a contract with Peacock. He sent a letter to DeJohnette that said: You should not, under any circumstances, buy equipment from Peacock. Although that company has been around for years, the quality of its merchan- dise is vastly inferior compared to mine. DeJohnette knew that Koln was correct. Recent studies had shown that Peacock’s equipment was second-rate. DeJohnette nevertheless honoured its contract with Peacock and refused to buy from Koln. Peacock, how- ever, is upset that Koln jeopardized its agreement with DeJohnette. Can Peacock successfully sue Koln for induc- ing breach of contract? Provide several reasons for your answer. Law Sued for D knows about the contract Intent to cause the 3rd party to breach contract. Caused 3rd party actually to breach contract Loss occurred.

Direct Inducement of contract Does not know about the contract He didn’t because he didn’t know about the He did not cause a breach of contract because they went with Peacock. There was no loss because Developments company went with Peacock electronics

Consluion

Not guilty

Deceit The Defendants were directors of a company that had published a statement in a prospectus to the effect that the company had obtained government authorization to use a new technology (steam). In fact, the Defendants had not yet actually received the authorization, although they believed that they would. The Plaintiff, Derry, invested in the company, relying on that statement. The government ultimately denied the authorization, and the company went bankrupt. The plaintiff sued for the tort of deceit. Law Sued for D made false statement D knew statement was false when they made it D intended to mislead plaintiff

Deceit They made a false statement, did not have authorization. Yes they did. The did not because they honestly believed they would get approval. Deceit requires knowledge that the statement they made was false.

Cases Examples Plantiff suffered a loss as a result of relying on statement Conlusion

Lost investment. Not guilty.

You have decided to take RYE 245 next term. A colleague, Dave, took the course last term. You ask Dave if he knows whether the same textbook will be used in RYE 245 and, if so, whether you could purchase his used text. Dave tells you that yes, the same textbook will be used in RYE 245 and he agrees to sell you his used book. In actual fact, students taking RYE 245 next term will use a new text, a different one from the text used by Dave’s class. Dave knew that the text would not be the same: the professor made an announcement in class and later personally confirmed this information with Dave. He had this information when you asked him about the textbook. Law Sued for D made false statement D knew statement was false when they made it D intended to mislead plaintiff Plantiff suffered a loss as a result of relying on statement Conlusion

Deceit He made a false statement, it was not the same textbook. Yes he knew, the prof made announcement. Yes he did, because he knew he was wrong but still wanted to sell the textbook. Did not buy book, did not suffer loss. Not guilty.

Tort of Nuisance The OK Speedway race track was built in 1980, but it has not been used for business purposes for many years. The Speedway will be demolished in four years to make way for a highway. In the meantime, the property is available to lease at a cost of $100 000 per year. You see an opportunity to fulfill your lifelong dream of operating a race track. Of course, race tracks can be used for different types of events. The most prestigious possibility in this instance would be NASCAR- class races, which would generate a net profit of $25 000 per race. One step down, “Baby Grands,” which are road-legal cars that have been modified for racing, would generate net profits of $15 000 per race. And finally, the Speedway could be used to simply allow ordinary motor- ists to experience the thrill of driving their own vehicles around a track. That option would generate a total of $50 000 per year in net profits. There is one other difference between the options: sound. Under race conditions, NASCAR-class vehicles produce a noise that most people consider intolerable within a ten-mile radius. Baby Grands are intoler- able within a six-mile radius. And finally, ordinary street vehicles are no noisier on a track than they are on a highway. After intense lobbying, the local municipality has passed a by-law (a type of legislation) that allows you to either (i) hold NASCAR-class or Baby Grand races at OK Speedway ten times a year, or (ii) open the track to ordinary motorist as often as you wish. Both options are limited to four years. You would prefer to stage races at the Speedway, but your plans are complicated by your neighbours. The Lawrence Heights Seniors Complex (LHSC) is located eight miles west of the track. Its residents have long enjoyed quiet suburban

Cases Examples living and they are in no mood to compromise. Four miles east of the track sits Peter Rogers’ farm. His cattle are gener- ally indifferent to noise, but he is worried about his new pair of prize parakeets. He hopes that they will breed, but that will not happen unless they have settled for at least a year. •Typeofnui s a nc ei . e . noi s e , s me l l , t ouc h •Na t ur eoft hene i ghbou r hood

•Ti mea ndd a yoft hei nt e r f e r e nc e •I nt e ns i t ya nddu r a t i on •Soc i a lut i l i t yofi nt e r f e r e nc e •De f e nda nt ’ smot i v a t i on Conc l us i on St a t ut or ya ut hor i t ynota ppl i c a bl e , notun e n vi a bl e , i ti sun e n vi a bl et ol o we rnoi s e ,y ouc a nus equ i e t c a r s .

Noise The nature of the neighborhood is quite. So to suddenly start having races would be a nuisance. Could be night and day. The noise is intolerable or tolerable. Might create jobs, entertainment value Not to upset the neighbours Guilty

Petra was very happy when she found a beautiful apartment to rent in downtown Toronto. In fact, her new apartment was right in the heart of all the action: it was just three blocks from John Street and Peter Street! The rent was really affordable! It seemed too good to be true. And it was too good to be true. Petra’s apartment was next to a big club, and the noise from the club flooded her apartment from about 9pm until 2am every night. Then Petra had to deal with the noise from the drunken customers leaving the club. Petra is exhausted and wants to know if she might have a good claim against the claim for nuisance. •Ty peo fnu i s a nc ei . e . noi s e , s me l l , t o uc h •Na t ur eo ft h en e i g hb our h oo d

•Ti mea n dd a yo ft hei nt e r f e r e nc e •I nt e ns i t ya nddu r a t i o n •So c i a lu t i l i t yo fi n t e r f e r e n c e •De f e n da nt ’ smo t i v a t i o n

Noise She lives in downtown, which is the heart of action, where everything happens. Club noise should not be unusual. 9-5 which is better than all day Entertainment, big club, creating jobs, The club doesn’t have a motivation to disturb her sleep.

Each year, Helga hosts a party in June to celebrate her Viking heritage. The party involves a BBQ, singing Norse songs, fun games, and general merriment. Helga invites everyone in her neighbourhood, and almost everyone loves to come. Her next- door neighbour, Austin, however, never comes. Austin hates this celebration. He does not like all of the singing, particularly because he is very sensitive to noise. He also hates the smell of the BBQ since Helga prepares some very pungent Norse meats to serve her guests. Austin also feels that since he was in the neighbourhood first, Helga has no right to do things that he hates. Austin has decided that this

Cases Examples year, he will get an injunction to prevent Helga from hosting her annual Viking heritage party. Austin will probably be successful because: •Ty peo fnu i s a nc ei . e . noi s e , s me l l , t o uc h •Na t ur eo ft h en e i g hb our h oo d •Ti mea n dd a yo ft hei nt e r f e r e nc e •I nt e ns i t ya nddu r a t i o n

•So c i a lu t i l i t yo fi n t e r f e r e n c e •De f e n da nt ’ smo t i v a t i o n

Noise, smell

1 day only which isin’t bad at all -the fact that he doesn’t like the smell of her food not bad, Most people attend this party, benefits them Helga is trying to celebrate her Viking heritage not make his life miserable

Old MacDonald moved to the Ruraltania area about 35 years ago. There were not many cities nearby: just miles, er, kilometres and kilometres of farmland. He started a poultry farm (chickens and eggs), which he farmed successfully for many years. But urban sprawl has led to big changes in Ruraltania. The land around Old Mac’s farm has been bought out by developers. The suburbs have arrived in Ruraltania, and the suburbs do not like the smell of chicken farms. Old Mac’s farm is now surrounded by suburb housing. The local homeowners want to shut Old Mac down. They say that the smell of chicken manure interferes with their enjoyment of their property. No one likes Sunday brunch on the deck with mimosas and the smell of chicken manure. 1) For what tort should the local home owners sue Old Mac? They should sue for the tort of nuisance. 2) Are the home owners likely to be successful? Explain why or why not. Yes they are. • Type of nuisance i.e. noise, smell, touch • Nature of the neighbourhood

• Time and day of the interference

• Intensity and duration

• Social utility of interference • Defendant’s motivation

Smell. The nature of the neighborhood is mostly suburban so although the smell would not be considered a nuisance in a rural area it would be in an suburban because that’s not normal. It especially interfered with their weekend, they cant enjoy the outside life. The smell of chicken manure is really bad and unbearable. Duration is all the time. Majority of the neighbors are disturbed by the smell.

Cases Examples

3) What remedy should the home owners seek? If they can establish liability, do you think a court would aware them this remedy? The should seek injunction because it would be benefitting majority of the people and you have to think about the overall good of the society. 4) Let’s look at the ethics of this situation. Suppose a court would force Old Mac to sell his farm because the area that was once farms is now sub-urban. Old Mac was in the area first! Is it ethical to force Old Mac to move? Use one of the four types of ethical reasoning we have studied to make a case one way or the other. Consequences: The greatest good for the greatest number. You have to take into account that most of the neighborhood was being disturbed by the manure smell, and only one person was benefitting from running that farm. So the farm had to go. A new runway was added to the Vancouver International Airport. As usually occurs with large infrastructure projects, the development was governed by statutes and regulations. That legislation determined, amongst other things, the location and direction of the new runway. The final result has been a mixed blessing. The new runway has created hundreds of jobs and further added to the city’s reputation as a desirable holiday destination. Unfortunately, it has also “ruined” several neighbourhoods. Until recently, for example, Bridgeport was a peaceful community in which residents spent a great deal of time enjoying the outdoors. As a result of the air traffic associated with the new runway, however, life has become unpleasant, if not intolerable. It is impossible to conduct a conversation outdoors if a jet is passing overhead, and in some situations, it is even difficult to hear a television or radio while indoors. The noise regu- larly keeps some residents awake at night. Those problems have caused property values to plummet. It is very difficult to find a buyer for a home in Bridgeport. Has a tort been committed? If so, what remedy will the residents of Bridge- port likely receive?

Type of nuisance i.e. noise, smell, touch Nature of the neighbourhood

Time and day of the interference Intensity and duration Social utility of interference Defendant’s motivation Remedy

Noise It’s a peaceful community, where people have an outdoor life so the noise is nuisance Night time, when their sleeping, morning, The noise is extremely loud, unbearable, high intensity

Compensatory, not injunction because you have to consider the overall good and its helping the economy so the judge would be reluctant to do injuction

Defamation

Cases Examples Tony Twist was a professional hockey player with the Quebec Nordiques and the St Louis Blues. During his career, he was known as an enforcer—while playing in the NHL for a decade, he amassed only 10 goals, but over 1100 minutes in penalties. Todd McFarlane is the publisher of a number of comic books. One of those publications, Spawn, features a vicious gangster named Antonio Twistelli, who also goes by the nickname of “Tony Twist.” The real Tony Twist’s mother became very upset when she discovered that such a character shared her son’s name. She was wor- ried that Spawn would lead people to think badly of her boy. McFarlane insists that he did not base his comic book villain on any real person and argues that if he wanted to borrow a hockey player’s name, he would have called the gangster Wayneatelli Gretzkytello. Can the real-life Tony Twist successfully sue McFarlane for defamation? What test would a court apply in these circumstances? Law being accused for: The statement reasonably refers to plaintiff The statement could hurt plaintiff’s reputation The statement was published to third party The statement was not true Conclusion Defenses

Defamation Yes. They have the same name and aggressive characteristics. Yes it could, making him sound like a gangster. Published to third party. Tony was not a vicious gangster Guilty. None

Negligence A man went to a hospital complaining of stomach pain. The doctor on duty believed that there was nothing seriously wrong with the pat...