Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
But while we regard the difference between fraud on the one hand and mere negligence, however gross, on the other as a difference in kind, we regard the difference between negligence and gross negligence as merely one of degree. English lawyers have always had a healthy disrespect for the latter distinction. In Hinton v.
could see no difference between negligence and gross negligence; that it was the same thing, with the addition of a vituperative epithet. [7] This view has been consistently approved in English law relating to fiduciary duties, as the courts have reasserted that there is only one standard of culpable carelessness: ordinary negligence.
The first main issue before us was: accepting that the tortious measure is the right measure, is it the measure where the tort is that of fraudulent misrepresentation, or is it the measure where the tort is negligence at common law? The difference is that in cases of fraud a plaintiff is entitled to any loss which flowed from the defendant's ...
Courts declined to extend spouses the ability to sue each another after car accidents for fear of collusion and insurance fraud. [7] [9] This fear stems from the fact that both sides of a negligent car accident suit between spouses want the injured party to recover. [7]
Negligence by the attorney, A loss or injury to the client caused by the negligence, and; Financial loss or injury to the client. To satisfy the third element, legal malpractice requires proof of what would have happened had the attorney not been negligent; that is, "but for" the attorney's negligence ("but for" causation). [3]
The Supreme Court of Canada established a similar test in the context of assessing damages for pure economic loss owing to negligence derived from Anns which consists of a two step examination of the existence of a sufficiently proximate relationship between the parties and public policy considerations; however, the Canadian test is more ...
The two causes of action will be considered in succession, first the one for negligence and second that for fraud. (1) We think the evidence supports a finding that the audit was negligently made, though in so saying we put aside for the moment the question whether negligence, even if it existed, was a wrong to the plaintiff.
Similarly, fraud may serve as a basis for a court to invoke its equitable jurisdiction. The remedies for fraud may include rescission (i.e., reversal) of a fraudulently obtained agreement or transaction, the recovery of a monetary award to compensate for the harm caused, punitive damages to punish or deter the misconduct, and possibly others. [6]