What are we doing at this moment in time?

[sqwol]

Going to dubs section repeatedly to see if anyone has posted feedback on my tunes.

[datura]

yeah, thing is I don't really have specific job in mind. oh well got to be done I suppose.

recruitment agencies will rewrite it anyway. Keep it concise and factual and well layed out. You get sent so many cv's when recruiting, so those that present the relevant information the best stand out.

[felixgash]

I've done a Blizzard.

I couldn't keep away. Oh the shame. Hope the ninjas can forgive me.

Hi Kins

Secret Ninjas, Leeds Branch - back in full effect.

[deamonds]

cotchin after a very good day @ work..

wheres mr 10 bag gone?

[psyolopher]

just depressed as fuck!

[badger]

spamming because i'm doing a wonky hip hop show at 8 on streamizm

[Jak The lad]

Playing Poker whilst the last hour of work is here.

[felixgash]

Writing an essay assessing "the relevance of the concept of foreseeability within the tort of negligence" whilst paying "particular reference to the duty of care and breach of that duty."

Will this ever end..

[deamonds]

spamming because i'm doing a wonky hip hop show at 8 on streamizm

smackin it. locken

[shane]

nothing.

[your gfs bedroom dj]

i just got done eating and now i'm drinking some tea. about to go listen to some mixes and some other tracks that i've bought.

despite the tea bit, i'm actually from the states.

[deamonds]

got holly brook park going through my head over n over in work...

i am super happy this week...hold tight all ninjas...

[nesslei]

Writing an essay assessing "the relevance of the concept of foreseeability within the tort of negligence" whilst paying "particular reference to the duty of care and breach of that duty."

Will this ever end..

i didn't realise you are studying law gashful. i did law too. torts sucks ass. but you'll get through and optional papers are waaaay more interesting... makes all the compulsories worth it.

[felixgash]

Writing an essay assessing "the relevance of the concept of foreseeability within the tort of negligence" whilst paying "particular reference to the duty of care and breach of that duty."

Will this ever end..

i didn't realise you are studying law gashful. i did law too. torts sucks ass. but you'll get through and optional papers are waaaay more interesting... makes all the compulsories worth it.

I'm not.. I'm a literature geek, but I took a module in law that ran between October-December '07 and only ever went to one (out of twelve) lectures.. I didn't do the assessment essays in January like I should have, so I'm stuck doing them now.

I've nearly finished now though. I'm in the library, again, having been up all night doing the two essays. I'm such a procrastinator is shocking. Really not a good trait to have and I must see that I get rid of it..

Anyway.. this is what I've written in the past hour.. (1 of 5 questions I have had to do)

(iii) Mark’s Labrador has just had puppies. The father of the puppies is the
Labrador owned by Robert next door. Mark thinks that Robert’s dog is a pure-
breed, although he is not absolutely sure. He advertises the puppies for sale
and when Annie comes to buy one, he tells her the puppies come from pure-
breed stock. Annie buys a puppy on this basis. It becomes apparent two days
later that in fact Robert’s dog is not a pure-breed.

(a) Advise Annie

This is a clear case of misrepresentation and Annie is fully within her rights to sue. The defendant purchased a puppy under the direction of the claimant who, in no uncertain terms, claimed his litter was of pure breed. Whether or not the defendant intended to misrepresent claimant, the deed occurred and he remains liable for any and all losses caused to the claimant. Annie has several options.

Annie can sue for a remedy of rescission, discharging her (and indeed the defendant himself) from any and all the obligations of the contract. There are, however, terms which must be adhered too in order for any relief for misrepresentation to succeed by law; primarily, that any misrepresentation will be awarded only in respect of existing fact*GHT146*. The defendant's claim that his litter was of pure breed can only be a statement of fact and no less; for a litter of puppies is either pure breed or it is not, there is no 'in between' so to speak. Where or not the defendant intentionally told a falsity or not is neither here nor there: Annie's case for misrepresentation comfortably relegates Mark into liability and the reasons why shall be presented in the following.

A representation must be unambiguous - that is to say, there is but the truth and the opposite of that, a false statement. It appears that the defendant did not deliberately intend his misrepresentation to bear false meaning, but the fact of the matter stands that the defendant sold the puppy on the basis of a statement claiming the puppy was of pure pedigree. This in turn causes the defendant to be guilty of a fraud.

A representation must be material - that is to say that the misrepresentation which occurred must relate to a matter of great importance in the decision making process which would have resulted in influencing a reasonable person into entering a contract she would not have otherwise entered. The misrepresentation in this case forms the basis of the entire claim: Annie bought a puppy on the basis it was a pure breed and it was not.

The reliance on the representation - that is to say that the claimant relied upon and trusted the defendant's knowledge of fact, which ultimately proved to be based not on fact but on a false belief that the litter was of pure breed when it was not. Annie relied on Mark's claims, for how else was she to tell if the dogs were or were not of pedigree breed?

Annie can claim misrepresentation but not mistake because, essentially, the contract is not void but is rescindable. It it not voidable because, whilst the misinformation regarding the puppy's pedigree was a mistake, it was not a 'fundamental' mistake in that Annie in truth did receive a puppy. Had she been sold a bunny rabbit on the premise it was a Labrador then one could easily surmise that there had been a fundamental error in the contract which could void it's terms. The precedent for this can be seen in Naughton v. O'Callaghan (1990), where the pedigree of a race horse was called into question.

Annie is, however, entitled to sue Mark for damages and not just for a remedy of rescission concerning the original contract. Having paid for a pedigree puppy the claimant is left out of wallet for an arguably inferior product: thus, she is owed money.

The claimant can recover damages by claiming an act of deceit. Whilst typically an action of the law of tort, the claimant can be said to have been induced by fraud to enter into a contract she would not have otherwise. It must, however, be shown that the defendant had no belief in the statement of representation made or that he made it recklessly: judging by the facts before me I can comfortably advise that the claimant can pursue this course of action on both latter mentioned facts.

Annie can also claim for damages on a further legal ground under the Misrepresentation Act 1967, section 2 (1). The claimant entered into the contract only once the misrepresentation had been made; the defendant recklessly lied about his knowledge of the dogs' pedigree and thus had no grounds to argue against liability for legal action.


AND

(b) How, if at all, would your answer differ if Mark had been told by
Robert that his dog was a pure-breed?

.....................................

I have to answer (b) now, but I've got like 100 words left on my limit so I'm going to make it very brief. I don't now whether my answers are even right you know, literally learnt everything I know about the law of Contract and that of Tort in the past 36 odd hours!

Also, I can only get a maximum mark of 40 for either essay, so as long as I pass and get my credits I don't care. Meh.

[bellybelle]

i am missing the hell out of my sweetheart and the rest of the kcmo krew

[Coppola]

i am wanting some friends

[gwa]

Complaining at the weather in america....

[psyolopher]

Making a new psy track!

[gwa]

Want to ordear another jimmy johns and now kicking myself for leaving my hydro at bro in laws house.

[dr ddd]

apparently offending corpsey when i was trying to target badger, clearly my aim is shit


*offers our dear corpsey a pint of snakebite in appeasement


welcome to our new moddddds