Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
So where there is a sudden downturn in the property market, a person guilty of deceitful misrepresentation is liable for all the claimant's losses, even if they have been increased by such an unanticipated event. [7] This is subject to a duty to mitigate the potential losses. [8] Contributory negligence is no defence in an action for deceit. [9]
It is an unfair practice for a supplier, in a transaction or proposed transaction involving goods or services, to: (a) do or say anything, or fail to do or say anything, if as a result a consumer might reasonably be deceived or misled; (b) make a false claim; (c) take advantage of a consumer if the person knows or should reasonably be expected ...
Derry v Peek [1889] UKHL 1 is a case on English contract law, fraudulent misstatement, and the tort of deceit.. Derry v Peek established a 3-part test for fraudulent misrepresentation, [1] whereby the defendant is fraudulent if he:
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment required the government to demonstrate both a compelling interest and that the law in question was narrowly tailored before it denied unemployment compensation to someone who was fired because her job requirements substantially conflicted ...
R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2 is an English criminal law case setting out a test for dishonest [a] conduct which was relevant as to many offences worded as doing an act dishonestly, such as deception, as theft, [1] as mainstream types of fraud, [2] and as benefits fraud.
To commit a criminal offence of ordinary liability (as opposed to strict liability) the prosecution must show both the actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind). A person cannot be guilty of an offence for his actions alone; there must also be the requisite intention, knowledge, recklessness, or criminal negligence at the relevant time.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), was a court case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 14, 1970. It concerned employment discrimination and the disparate impact theory, and was decided on March 8, 1971. [1]
All States must adhere to the Federal Civil Rights laws, but States may enact civil rights laws that offer additional employment protection. For example, some State civil rights laws offer protection from employment discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, even though such forms of discrimination are not yet covered in federal ...