HND BCR 商务契约关系 outcome1(2)

Case 3

Question 1

There are various defences available to a claim in delict and specifically covers the following: contributory negligence; consent and volenti non fit injuria; damnum fatale; immunity and prescription.

There are many defenses available to be argued by a defender to an action. For example, defender could claim a defense on point of low. The defender could also claim that the pursuer s case was factually incorrect, i.e. A defense on point of fact.

In the case(a), the Rap can use contributory negligence, consent and volenti non fit injuria and damnum fatale. In the case (b), the Margaret can use contributory negligence. In the case (c), He wants to use immunity to escape his liability.

Question 2

In the case(a), Jamesie intends to sue Rab for the injuries that he suffered as a result of his dangerous driving. the Rap can use contributory negligence, consent and volenti non fit injuria and damnum fatale to escape liability.

In the case (b), Margaret attempted to apply the brakes as quickly as possible, but the bus driver was much slower to react, the defender is the bus driver, but his vehicle was unable to stop in time so the bus collided head on with Margaret s car. It is unexpected. At the same time, Margaret was not wearing her seat belt at the time of the collision, it is Margaret s negligence. So the defender coule use contributory negligence to escape liability.

In the case (c), obviously, the Knockbuckle players, lost his temper脾气 and kicked Gavin in the face during a scrum and he makes a excuse for this called that accidents will happen and anyone who plays the game knows this only too well. He wants to use immunity to escape his liability.

Question3

In the case(a), Jamesie got to the car and screamed at Rab to drive the car as fast as he could, so Jamesie has liability on the subsequent car crash, and in the case, we could find that Rab lost control of the vehicle, it is damnum fatale. Thus, Rap might

successfully by use contributory negligence, volenti non fit injuria and damnum fatale to escape liability.

In the case (b), the defender is the bus driver, he had out of control of his vehicle when the accident happened, so the bus collided head on with Margaret s car. It is unexpected. At the same time, Margaret was not wearing her seat belt at the time of the collision, it is Margaret s negligence. So the defender coule use contributory negligence to escape liability successfully.

In the case (c), the Knockbuckle players, lost his temper and kicked Gavin in the face during a scrum and he makes a excuse for this called that accidents will happen and anyone who plays the game knows this. It is an intentional act, he wants to use immunity to escape his liability. I think It is chicanery and it never would have succeed.