Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Under joint and several liability or (in the U.S.) all sums, a plaintiff (claimant) is entitled to claim an obligation incurred by any of the promisors from all of them jointly and also from each of them individually. Thus the plaintiff has more than one cause of action: if she pursues one promisor and he fails to pay the sum due, her action is ...
The UCFA seeks to establish an apportionment of liability that is more flexible than the all-or-nothing approaches of the contributory negligence and last clear chance doctrines. Under the UCFA, the judgment against tortfeasors can be reduced according to any negligence on behalf of the plaintiff, and multiple tortfeasors held joint and several ...
Courts, in the majority, do not apply comparative responsibility to intentional torts. However, some courts apply comparative responsibility to intentional torts. The law and academia on this issue is very complex, but typically support holding intentional tortfeasors in a suit subject to joint and several liability. Further, any negligent ...
There are several other report types that have some resemblance in name or degree of detail to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment is an "intrusive" investigation which collects original samples of soil, groundwater or building materials to analyze for quantitative values of various contaminants. [11]
consideration, promissory estoppel, severing of joint and several liability, legal partnerships Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1329 is an English contract law case, concerning the doctrine of consideration and promissory estoppel in relation to "alteration promises".
In their Financing column, Jeffrey Steiner and Dino Fazlibegu caution commercial mortgage lenders that they need to be vigilant in their interactions with contractors when making constructions ...
In situations where joint and several liability is engaged, contribution claims between parties are governed by the operation of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, but, in addition there remain several equitable principles developed by the chancery division of the English Courts that are thought to remain in effect. [3]
Both the construction worker and the careless driver are equally liable for the injury to the pedestrian. This example obeys the but for test . The injury could have been avoided by the elimination of either act of negligence, thus each is a but for cause of the injury.