{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

chap 4 - know that was acquired illegally she would be...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Chap 4 1- Yes, Irene’s suit against Darla could be successful because Darla committed an intentional tort agains person, and to proove that, it is clear to see that consequences of which interfere with the personal or business interest of another happened in a way not permitted by law. 2- Darla could assert defension claming that what she said is true, since truth is an absolute defense against a defamation charge. In other words, if the defendant suit can prove that his or her allegedly defamatory statements were true, normally no trot has been committed. 3- Yes, the action was intentional because if she is buying something that she
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: know that was acquired illegally she would be committing a wrongfull action that interfere with individual’s legally recognized rights with regard to their personal property (goods). 4-Besides the fact that if an action constitutes a breach of the duty of care is determined on case-by-case basis, Darla did no breach her duty of care. The law says that the courts ask how a reasonable person would have acted in the same circunstances, and since Darla works and knows the store, she is a resonable person, and she would not have opened the door, and thus, would not have suffered the accident....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}