Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The law responds to each of them by imposing an obligation to pay compensatory damages. Restitution for wrongs is the subject which deals with the issue of when exactly the law also responds by imposing an obligation to make restitution. Example. In Attorney General v Blake, [25] an English court found itself faced with the following claim. The ...
The owner of the home wanted to convert the land to commercial use but held an estate limiting the land to residential purposes. The court held that the neighboring properties had sufficiently changed the nature of the area and allowed the estate holder to convert the land despite the existence of potential ameliorative waste.
In Australia, punitive damages are not available for breach of contract, [5] but are possible for tort cases.. The law is less settled regarding equitable wrongs. In Harris v Digital Pulse Pty Ltd, [6] the defendant employees knowingly breached contractual and fiduciary duties to their employer by diverting business to themselves and misusing its confidential information.
Generally, punitive damages, which are also termed exemplary damages in the United Kingdom, are not awarded in order to compensate the plaintiff, but in order to reform or deter the defendant and similar persons from pursuing a course of action such as that which damaged the plaintiff.
Uniqueness of the Property: The subject of the contract, especially in real estate transactions, must be unique to such an extent that monetary damages would not be a sufficient remedy. Irreparable Harm: The aggrieved party would suffer irreparable harm if specific performance were not granted, such as in cases where real property’s unique ...
Inverse condemnation is a legal concept and cause of action used by property owners when a governmental entity takes an action which damages or decreases the value of private property without obtaining ownership of the property through the use of eminent domain. Thus, unlike the typical eminent domain case, the property owner is the plaintiff ...
Failure to comply with the State Comptroller’s Corrective Action Plan: State Comptroller Kevin D. Walsh states that Bridgewater is “failing in its most basic responsibilities: To act as a ...
Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971), is a court case decided by the Iowa Supreme Court, in which homeowners Edward and Bertha Briney were held liable for battery for injuries caused to trespasser Marvin Katko, who set off a spring gun set as a mantrap in an uninhabited house on their property. [1]