Hello Marcus!! You are truly wonderful mate. Can you please do a video presentation on why the tests of remoteness of damage in contract and tort should be different. Thanks mate
Hi thanks for your effort and time, it is appreciated. I just opened a big expensive text book in Tort Law, turned to the chapter called "Remoteness" and it immediately delved into a discussion of Re Polemis and The Wagon Mound. Yet the Novus Actus material was all covered in the previous chapter entitled "Causation". Can you explain what is going on, thank you, it is appreciated.
van leaves handbrake off, rolls down hill. 2 padestrians dive out of the way and the van goes through the shop window, glass goes everywere and his a padestrian. Factually but for test hes responsible for damage and hurt pedestrians. Legally the defendant was the cause for the claimants loss... for shop damage, profits from shop and damage caused to the padestrian who hurt himself diving out of the way and cutting himself of glass.....that right?
Your videos are wonderful. Thank you.
Without a doubt the clearest Law videos available on youtube 5 *****
Superb! Absolutely superb!
Great information mate
Hello Marcus!! You are truly wonderful mate. Can you please do a video presentation on why the tests of remoteness of damage in contract and tort should be different. Thanks mate
Hi thanks for your effort and time, it is appreciated.
I just opened a big expensive text book in Tort Law, turned to the chapter called "Remoteness" and it immediately delved into a discussion of Re Polemis and The Wagon Mound.
Yet the Novus Actus material was all covered in the previous chapter entitled "Causation".
Can you explain what is going on, thank you, it is appreciated.
Thanks alot
Hello thank you for your videos. I just have a question about causation. Is proximate cause the same as remoteness. If not where does it fit in
Maybe I'm wrong but isn't that an American term?
van leaves handbrake off, rolls down hill. 2 padestrians dive out of the way and the van goes through the shop window, glass goes everywere and his a padestrian. Factually but for test hes responsible for damage and hurt pedestrians. Legally the defendant was the cause for the claimants loss... for shop damage, profits from shop and damage caused to the padestrian who hurt himself diving out of the way and cutting himself of glass.....that right?
@6:47 did you mean to say 'claimant' instead of 'defendant'?
Story of my life
The years of some of the cases appear to be wrong...
You wouldn't be any chance able to put out some contract law videos before my first year law exam within a week would you? XD