Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 is a leading decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law.It established the rule that one's non-natural use of their land, which leads to another's land being damaged as a result of dangerous things emanating from the land, is strictly liable.
Nuisance in English law is an area of tort law broadly divided into two torts; private nuisance, where the actions of the defendant are "causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a [claimant]'s land or his/her use or enjoyment of that land", [1] and public nuisance, where the defendant's actions "materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of His ...
Hedonic damages is a legal term that first emerged in 1985 in the research of Stan V. Smith, who was a PhD student in economics at the University of Chicago. The term refers to damages for loss of enjoyment of life, the intangible value of life, as distinct from the human capital value or lost earnings value.
The right measure of damages is to compensate him for the loss of entertainment and enjoyment which he was promised, and which he did not get. Looking at the matter quite broadly, I think the damages in this case should be the sum of £125.
A person is guilty of a public nuisance (also known as common nuisance), who (a) does an act not warranted by law, or (b) omits to discharge a legal duty, if the effect of the act or omission is to endanger the life, health, property, morals, or comfort of the public, or to obstruct the public in the exercise or enjoyment of rights common to ...
City and Westminster Properties (1934) Ltd v Mudd [1959] Ch 129 is an English contract law case, regarding the parol evidence rule. It illustrates one of the large exceptions, that a written document is not deemed to be exhaustive of the parties' intentions when there is clear evidence of a collateral contract.
Nuisance, protected property rights Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] UKHL 14 is an English tort law case on the subject of private nuisance . Several hundred claimants alleged that Canary Wharf Ltd , in constructing One Canada Square , had caused nuisance to them by impairing their television signal. [ 1 ]
Denning LJ held that the Act should be interpreted according to the mischief that Parliament was attempting to remedy, with consideration of the social conditions that prevailed at the time. [ 1 ] The question for decision in this case is whether we are at liberty to extend the ordinary meaning of "burden" so as to include a contingent burden ...