word Problem Question John went to the store The security guard suspected him of

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Click Here To Order Now!

word
Problem Question
John went to the store The security guard suspected him of

word
Problem Question
John went to the store The security guard suspected him of stealing a toaster. John was taken to a waiting room where he was told that he was needed to give evidence. He stayed there quietly for 2 hours. Unknown to John, the guard locked the door. After not finding a toaster on him John was about to be released but on his way out an employee of the store stood with a bucket of water and told him that he has to clean him of his dirty thoughts of stealing from the store and threw the
water at him. After that hard experience John went home to relax. He sat by the window to look at cars and pedestrians passing on the highway. John was the victim of extreme racial harassment by
persons using the highway. He called the police. The police officer who came was disruptive and made John feel very uncomfortable. John asked him to leave but he told him that this is his house
now and the police officer stayed for 3 hours in John’s apartment. Advice John on any claims in tort
Guiding questions:
1) consider the following potential tortfeasors: the store employees, the highway users, the
police officer.
2) Consider whether there was trespass to land, battery, false imprisonment and nuisance.
Answer in IRAC form :
issue
then
rule
then
application
then
conclusion
sources :
west laws
apllication section
British cases only
instructions :
apply the law from cases in the coursework and you will say like according too the case ….
rules are the cases
and the relevant material facts of the case
similar facts or contrary facts
you apply the rules to facts by discussing details similarities and differences and opposite and justify differences in facts and rules and the fact turn it to legal concept and put the facts between brackets.
elements of torts and batteries and assault and the courts ruled on it with what and what is the principle here
1-Identifying the issue
2-Identifying the law applicable
3-Applying the law to the facts
4-clarity of the advice given
5-reference
british cases :
1-Bird V. Holbrook
2-Letang V cooper (1965)
3-morriss v marsden (1952)
4-R(A) v Partnerships in Care Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 2610
5-(Heather) V Leonard Cheshire Foundation (2002) EVCA Civ 366
6-Venables and Thompson v Newsgroup Newspapers and Associated Newspapers
Ltd (2001] 2 WLR 1038
7-Pretty v United Kingdom [2002] 2 FLR 45
8-Keenan v United Kingdom [2002] 33 EHRR 38. ECtHR
9-Price v United Kingdom [2001] 11 BHRC 401
10-Z and Others v United Kingdom [20011 2 FLR 612; [2001]34 EHRR 3, ECtHR
11-Hatton v United Kingdom [2001] 11 BHRC 634 (Chambers judgment)
12-Marcic v Thames Water Utilities [2003] UKHL 66
13-Dennis and Dennis v Ministry of Defence [2003] EWHC 793 (OB)
14-Robson v Hallett [1967] 2 All ER 407
15-Bernstein v Skyviews and General Ltd [1977] 2 All ER 902
16-Delaney v T P Smith & Co [1946] KB 393
17-White v Bayley [1861] 142 ER 438
18-The Six Carpenters’ Case [1610] 8 Co
Rep 146a
19-In Elias v Passmore [1934] 2 KB 164
20-Lord Denning in Letang v Cooper [1 964] 2 All ER 929, CA
21-R v Ireland [1997] 4 All ER 225
22-Livingstone v Ministry of Defence
[1984] NI 356, NICA
23-Gibbons v Pepper [1695] 1 Ld Raym 38
24-Scott v Shepherd [1773] 2 Wm BI 892
25-Pursell v Horn [1838] 8 A & E 602
26-Nash v Sheen 1955] CLY 3726
27-Innes v Wylie [1844] 1 Car & Kir 257
28-The Confusion: Wilson v Pringle [1986]
2 All ER 440
29-Rv Brown 1994] 2 AIl ER 75
30-Bira v Jones [1845] 7 QB 742
31-Meering v Grahame- White Aviation Co Ltd [1919] 122 LT 44
32-Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988] 2 All ER 521
33-Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council [1958]
34-R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex p Evans (No 2) [2000] 4 All ER 15
35-Iqbal v Prison Officers Association
[2009] EWCA Civ 1312
36-Herd v Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke Co Ltd [1915] AC 67
37-White v W P Brown [1983] CLY 972
38-The rule in Rylands v Fletcher [1865] 3
H & C 774
39-Giles v Walker [1890] 24 QBD 656
40-Ellison v Ministry of Defence [1997] 81
BLR 101
41-Leakey v The National Trust [1980] QB
485
42-Charing Cross Electric Supply Co v
Hydraulic Power Co [1914] 3 KB 772,
CA
43-Smeaton v Ilford Corporation [1954]
Ch 450
44-Rylands v Fletcher [1868] LR 1 Exch
265; LR 3 HL 330
45-Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan
Council [2003] UKHL 61
46-Malone v Laskey [1907) 2 KB 141
47-Smith v Giddy (1904] 2 KB 448
48-Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd and Hunter and Others v London
Docklands Corporation [1997] AC 655
49-Anthony and others v The Coal Authority [2005] EWHC 1654 (QB)

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Click Here To Order Now!