We solve your fever problems

Author: Sooemrei

  • Etna Meaning

    Leaders in Europe term Navarro a disaster waiting to happen

  • Legal liability

    In law, liable means “responsible or answerable in law; legally obligated”. Legal liability concerns both civil law and criminal law and can arise from various areas of law, such as contracts, torts, taxes, or fines given by government agencies. The claimant is the one who seeks to establish, or prove, liability.

    Liability in business

    In commercial law, limited liability is a method of protection included in some business formations that shields its owners from certain types of liability and that amount a given owner will be liable for. A limited liability form separates the owner(s) from the business. The limited liability form essentially acts as a corporate veil that protects owners from liabilities of the business. This means that when a business is found liable in a case, the owners are not themselves liable; rather, the business is. Thus, only the funds or property the owner(s) have invested into the business are subject to that liability. If, for example, a limited liability business goes bankrupt, then the owner(s) will not lose unrelated assets, such as a personal residence (assuming they do not give personal guarantees). Forms of businesses that offer the limited liability protection include limited liability partnerships, limited liability companies, and corporations. Sole proprietorships and partnerships do not include limited liability.

    This is the standard model for larger businesses, in which a shareholders will only lose the amount invested (in the form of stock value decreasing). For an explanation, see business entity.

    There is an exception to this rule, however, which allows a claimant to litigate against the owner(s) of a limited liability business, if the owner(s) have engaged in conduct that justifies the claimant’s recovery from the owner(s): This exception is called “piercing the corporate veil.” Courts generally try not to utilize this exception unless there have been serious transgressions. Limited liability aids entrepreneurs, businesses, and the economy in growing and innovating. Therefore, if courts often chose to pierce the veil, that innovation would be restricted. The exact test a court will use to determine if the veil needs to pierced vary by state in the United States.

    For sole proprietorships and general partnerships, the liability is unlimited. Unlimited liability means that the owner(s) of the business have the full responsibility of assuming all the business’s debts. This can include seizure of personal assets in the face of bankruptcy and liquidation. Professionals in limited liability partnerships and limited liability companies will have unlimited liability for their own torts and malpractices. The limited liability of the business will no longer apply for these wrongdoings.

    For business owners, there are main categories of liability exposure to be aware of in order to protect their businesses from liability and financial troubles and issues. The first is employment-related issues where the larger the work force, and the more turnover there is, the larger the likelihood of liability lawsuits such as wrongful termination claims. Another area is accidents and/or injuries on the premises. Next, vehicle-related liability if employees are allowed to drive company cars since this could lead to accidents while they use the company cars. Product-related liability (also called manufacturer’s liability) details poor manufacturing of products that results in injuries and/or accidents, which is discussed in more detail in the following section. Errors/omissions is another category where a lawsuit can result from a mistake on the part of the company such as in a contract or paperwork. Finally, the last major category relates to holding directors and officers personally liable for actions taken by the company, as seen in piercing the corporate veil. Overall, as businesses get larger and more successful, their chances of liability lawsuits increase, but small businesses are not completely immune to them. Entrepreneurs and business owners need to be aware of these types of liability exposures to ensure their businesses are protected.

    Product liability

    Product liability governs civil lawsuits between a plaintiff and defendant who furnishes defective goods that caused loss or injury 11.

    Product liability and its prevalence in the law has changed throughout history. In the 19th century, it worked to both the manufacturers’ and other sellers’ advantages. “Caveat emptor” (“let the buyer beware”) reigned supreme in this area of the law. In this era, the seller had no liability unless they had made an express promise to the customer that was not received. The 19th century was also when the Industrial Revolution was beginning and changing the business world. In order to promote this rise in industrialization and manufacturing, the law avoided allowing damage recoveries that would weaken new industries. In the 20th and 21st centuries, there was no longer this need to protect manufacturers from liability. If anything, there was more of need to impose liability standards on industries because consumers had less power to freely bargain with corporations and other business forms. Furthermore, the complexities and intricacies of goods was increasing, making it harder for the average buyer to determine manufacturing issues when purchasing these goods. Now a new phrase dominates liability: “caveat venditor” or “let the seller beware.” The law finds that sellers and manufacturers can face more liability for defects with the help of insurance and socializing the damages by raising prices and forcing the consumer to pay for it.

    If a manufacturer is found to be negligent, that means they breached their duty to the customer by not eliminating a reasonably foreseeable risk caused by the product. The manufacturer can be seen as negligent if there are problems in the manufacturing process, do not properly inspect their products, do not give a reasonable warning to the customer when the product has a foreseeable risk of harm, and/or the design lends itself to risk of harm. The magnitude and severity of the foreseeable harm are also assessed when looking at negligence.

    Employer liability

    There is a form of liability that exists between employers and their employees. This is called vicarious liability. For it to apply, one party has responsibility for a third party, and the third party commits an unlawful action. An employer may be held liable for the actions of an employee if it is unlawful (i.e. harassment or discrimination), or the employee’s negligent actions while working causes damages to property or injury.

    Respondeat superior (“Let the superior answer”) is a legal principle that dictates when an employer is responsible for the actions of an employee. Employers should worry about this rule when the employee commits a tort or harmful act when the employee was acting within the course and scope of employment at the time of the incident. The term “scope of employment” is when an employee is doing work assigned by their employer or is completing a task that is subject to the employer’s control. To test whether the conduct that led to the incident is within the scope of employment, one must determine:

    If it was the type of task the employee was employed to perform
    It occurred flexibly within the authorized work time period
    The incident was not unreasonably far away from the employer authorized location
    The incident was motivated, at least in part, for the purpose of serving the employer

    If these four factors are found to be true, the employer will have to answer for the tort. The reasoning behind this legal principle is because it is thought that the employer is best suited for bearing the financial burden, employers can protect themselves against this burden with insurance, and the cost can be passed to customers by raising prices. On the other hand, if the employee was found to have either detoured or frolicked then defining the scope of employment becomes trickier. The rule of frolic and detour changes how the liability applies. A frolic is when the employee causes a tort when completing an activity that is unrelated to their job. If it is found that the employee had frolicked, the employee would then be liable for damages. For example, if a delivery driver does not complete his deliveries for a few hours so he can do some personal shopping, and on his way to the store, he hits a pedestrian. A detour is more minor. The employee is still participating in a non-work related activity, but the activity is not a major disregard for work duties. An example of a detour would be if on the way to deliver a package, a delivery driver stops at a drive-thru to grab something to eat. When pulling away from the restaurant to continue with deliveries, the driver hits a pedestrian. Here, the employer could still be liable for these damages because the detour was minor.

    An employer can also be liable for a legal principle called negligent hiring. This happens when in the process of hiring a new employee, the employer does not check criminal pasts, backgrounds, or references to ensure the applicant did not pose a potential danger if hired as an employee. Under a similar principle of negligent retention, an employer may face liability if they know that a worker poses a potential danger to others but maintains their employment. To avoid claims of negligent hiring or retention, employers should take appropriate measures to avoid hiring employees who will pose a danger to members of the public, and take appropriate measures in response to any concerns that come to their attention, up to and including dismissal. Employers who serve vulnerable populations, such as young children and the elderly, go to customers’ homes, or have access to weapons may perform criminal background checks as their default practice, and may have additional legal duties when it comes to screening, supervising and disciplining employees.

    It is important for employers to note whether someone working for them is an independent contractor or an employee. An employee is someone who is a paid worker for the employer. An independent contractor, on the other hand, contracts with a principal to produce a result and in the process, gets to determine how that result will be completed. The difference lies in how much control the principal/employer can wield on the agent. Employees are subjected to more control while nonemployee agents, like independent contractors, have more freedom in how they do their job. A principal is not ordinarily liable for torts committed by nonemployee agents since the principal does not fully control the method of work done. However, there are exceptions to this. There can be direct liability if the principal hired an incompetent agent, if harm resulted from nonemployee agent’s failure to perform a duty of care that the principal bestowed on them (a duty of care is an action whose successful performance is so important that if it is delegated to an agent and not accomplished, the principal is still liable), and a principal is liable if the nonemployee agent did not take the correct precautions required to complete very dangerous activities.

    An employer should also be aware on how the extent of their liability can change based on the agreements their agents make. An agent is a person who has the power to act on behalf of another party (typically the principal). Usually, a principal is liable for a contract made by the agent if the agent had actual or apparent authority to make the contract. Actual authority is the ability an agent has to pursue and complete certain activities based on communication and manifestations from the principal. Express authority is when the principal clearly states what the agent has the authority to do while implied authority is based on what is reasonable to assume that the agent is allowed to do based on what the principal wants of the agent. Express and implied authority are both types of actual authority. The second type of authority is apparent authority. This occurs when a principal’s actions lead a third party to reasonably assume that the agent can act in a certain way and create contracts with the third party on behalf of the principal. To determine if an agent is liable for a contract, one must look at the type of principal. There are four types of principals. A disclosed principal is known to the third party, and the third party knows that the agent is acting for this principal. The agent is not liable on authorized contracts made for a disclosed principal since all parties are aware of the contract and who is participating in the contract. An unidentified principal is seen when the third party knows the agent is acting for a principal but lacks knowledge on the principal’s identity. The agent is typically liable for contracts made for an unidentified principal. An undisclosed principal is seen when the third party does not know the principal’s existence and identity and reasonably believes the agent is the other party in the contract. In this instance, the agent can be held liable for the contract. A nonexistent principal refers to when an agent knowingly acts for principal that does not exist, such as an unincorporated association. The agent is liable here if they knew the principal had no capacity to take part in the contract even if the third party knows that the principal does not exist. An agent can also bind themselves to contracts by expressly agreeing to be liable. To avoid this, agents should make no express promises in their own name and should make sure the contract only obligates the principal. An agent may also be liable to a third party if they lack the authority to contract for a principal. The agent may escape liability in this scenario if the third party knows the agent lacks authority, the principal ratifies/affirms the contract, or the agent notifies the third party of his lack of authority.

    Additional concepts

    Economists use the term “legal liability” to describe the legal-bound obligation to pay debts.

  • Veep Meaning

    Grave episode featuring the last person to meet The Pope?

  • Consulates Meaning

    Harry Cole at Sun’s missions

  • Comity

    In law, comity is “a principle or practice among political entities such as countries, states, or courts of different jurisdictions, whereby legislative, executive, and judicial acts are mutually recognized.” It is an informal and non-mandatory courtesy to which a court of one jurisdiction affords to the court of another jurisdiction when determining questions where the law or interests of another country are involved. Comity is founded on the concept of sovereign equality among states and is expected to be reciprocal.

    Etymology

    The term comity was derived in the 16th century from the French comité, meaning association and from the Latin cōmitās, meaning courtesy and from cōmis, friendly, courteous.

    Comity may also be referred to as judicial comity or comity of nations.

    History of comity (thirteenth century to nineteenth century)

    The doctrine of international comity has been described variously “as a choice-of-law principle, a synonym for private international law, a rule of public international law, a moral obligation, expediency, courtesy, reciprocity, utility, or diplomacy. Authorities disagree on whether comity is a rule of natural law, custom, treaty, or domestic law. Indeed, there is not even agreement that comity is a rule of law at all.” Because the doctrine touches on many different principles, it is regarded as “one of the more confusing doctrines evoked in cases touching upon the interests of foreign states.” The principle of comity has been questioned and even rejected by many scholars throughout the years; however, the use of the term remains present in case law.

    European jurists have been wrestling with the decision to apply foreign law since the thirteenth century. As the popularity of commerce outside of the locality grew, the need to find a new way to resolve conflicts of law issues arose. The preexisting system known as statutism became too complex and arbitrary to keep up with the societal values of the time.

    A group of Dutch jurists created the doctrine of international comity in the late seventeenth century, most prominently Ulrich Huber. Huber and others sought a way to handle conflicts of law more pragmatically to reinforce the idea of sovereign independence. At the core of his ideas surrounding comity was the respect of one sovereign nation to another. Huber wrote that comitas gentium (“civility of nations”) required the application of foreign law in certain cases because sovereigns “so act by way of comity that rights acquired within the limits of a government retain their force everywhere so far as they do not cause prejudice to the powers or rights of such government or of their subjects.” Huber “believed that comity was a principle of international law” but also that “the decision to apply foreign law itself was left up to the state as an act of free will.”

    Huber did not believe comity was a stand-alone principle but rather saw it as a basis for building concrete rules and doctrines of law. At the time of its inception in the common law, comity was an attractive principle as the United States and England were in search for a foundational principle by which they could build conflicts of law rules.

    A century after Huber, Lord Mansfield, known for being Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench in England for three decades, introduced the doctrine of comity to the English law. Lord Mansfield viewed the application of comity as discretionary, with courts applying foreign law “except to the extent that it conflicted with principles of natural justice or public policy.” He demonstrated this principle in Somerset v Stewart (King’s Bench 1772), which held that slavery was so morally odious that a British court would not recognize the property rights of an American slaveholder in his slave out of comity. English courts and scholars adopted Lord Mansfield ideas on comity and provides a new means for courts to recognize foreign law where the application of English law would lead to injustices.

    Comity was most famously introduced to the American common law by the American jurist Justice Joseph Story in the early nineteenth century. Much like Huber, Story sought to develop a new system of private international law that reflected the new commercial needs of the United States. Similar to Lord Mansfield, Story stressed the importance of justice in comity and that comity is a stand-alone principle that derives from mutual benefit. Story’s view, which ultimately prevailed, was that the consensual or voluntary application of comity doctrine would foster trust among states, “localize the effect of slavery,” and reduce the risk of civil war.

    In the mid-nineteenth century, John Westlake advanced further the idea that States ought to act with comity for reasons of justice in his Treatise on Private International Law. Westlake is praised for adopting Huber’s comity in the English law; he rejected Story’s approach. Westlake states that conflict rules are an instance of domestic sovereignty and therefore, the duty to recognize foreign law must be found as a reason within English law itself.

    Modern approaches to comity by legal system

    United States

    In the law of the United States, the Comity Clause is another term for the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Article Four of the United States Constitution, which provides that “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Article Four as a whole—which includes the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Extradition Clause, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause—has been described as the “interstate comity” article of the Constitution.

    In the case of Bank of Agusta v Earl, the court adopted Justice Joseph Story’s doctrine of comity. At the end of the ninetieth century, the US Supreme Court delivered the classic statement on comity in the decision of Hilton v. Guyot (1895). The court stated that the enforcement of a foreign judgment was a matter of comity is viewed as the “classic” statement of comity in international law. The Court held in that case:

    “Comity,” in the legal sense, is neither a matter of absolute obligation, on the one hand, nor of mere courtesy and good will, upon the other. But it is the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws.

    This case continues to be the leading case cited by American courts when articulating the doctrine of comity. It is an important decision for the country as it articulates the definition of comity and does so in a more broad way than previously. Despite the broad definition in Hilton v Guyot, the court refused to enforce the French judgment based on reciprocity, as France would not have enforced an equivalent judgment. This decision differed from Justice Joseph Story’s idea of comity as his idea of comity was concerned with sovereign interests and was rather concerned with reciprocity.

    The United States faced significant advancement in its global standing as a military and economic power after the Second World War, and this transformed the principle of comity into something that more closely resembled an obligation to apply foreign law. After the Cold War, the Supreme Court heard the case of Hartford Fire Insurance Co v California. In this case, Justice Souter gave the opinion that one only considers comity where there is a “true conflict between domestic and foreign law”. In the dissent, Justice Scalia argues that extraterritorial jurisdiction must consider international comity to ensure international law is not violated. More than ten years later, the Supreme Court heard the decision of F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v Empagran, S.A. where Justice Kennedy writing for the majority adopted Justice Scalia’s dissent.

    In the United States, certain foreign defamation judgments are not recognized under the SPEECH Act (a federal statute enacted in 2010), which supersedes the comity doctrine. The Act aims to stop “libel tourism.”

    Professional Licensure

    In the United States, some states and territories recognize professional engineer licenses granted in a different jurisdiction, depending on the holder’s education and experience (a practice called “licensure by comity”). Rules differ significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

    England and Wales

    By the end of the nineteenth century, comity had received judicial approval in English law as a foundational principle to private international law. In 1896, Professor Dicey published “Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws” that criticized the doctrine of comity on the basis that it is too vague as it promoted the recognition of foreign laws depending on option.

    Despite the debate on the role of the principle of comity in academia, the Supreme Court and the House of Lords have recognized the role of comity in England and Wales. However, the courts have yet to adopt a precise definition of comity. The case law indicates that comity is relevant in the consideration of determining what effect another state’s laws or judicial power should have in England in a given case.

    Canada (excluding Quebec)

    Unlike the United States of America and Australia, the principle of comity or Full Faith and Credit of recognizing judgments across the country is not recognized in the Canadian constitution or other authoritative bases. However, beginning in the 1990s the courts started to discuss the principle of comity as it relates interprovincially and internationally in a series of cases and adopted the principle of comity as a critical feature underlying Canadian private international law.

    Morguard Investments Ltd. v De Savoye was the first case in this series considering comity in Canadian law. The common law reflected the principle from England that one of the basic tenets of international law is that sovereign states have exclusive jurisdiction in their territory. Therefore, before this decision, Canadian courts were conservative in recognizing foreign judgments, including those obtained in other Canadian provinces’ courts. Justice La Forest acknowledges that the common law approach is not grounded in the realities of modern times as states cannot live in complete isolation due to travel, flow of wealth, skills and people. Especially interprovincially, the Canadian Constitution was created to form a single country; therefore, there is no foundation for differential quality of justice in the Canadian judicial structure. In response to modern-day values, Justice LaForest notes the Supreme Court of the United States’ approach to comity in Hilton v Guyot and explains that comity is a necessary principle to ensure order and fairness in modern-day transactions. Still, it is not a matter of absolute obligation but rather a voluntary matter based on common interests. Comity is not only based on respect for foreign sovereignty but also convenience and necessity, and the court held that the principle of comity called for a more liberal approach to foreign judgments. The court chose to revise the common law test and enforce a judgment with a “real and substantial connection” between the action or damages suffered and the adjudicating jurisdiction. This decision had important implications for both interprovincial and international litigations as Canadian courts began to engage with the comity in judgment enforcement.

    The following case addressing comity was Hunt v T&N; the court elaborated on their decision in Morguard by stating that comity is “grounded in notions of order and fairness to participants”. Hunt v T&N is not about enforcement of judgment but rather about the constitutional validity of provincial legislation and its effect on another province’s legislation to the proceeding before it. In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada rewrote the rules on the extraterritorial effects of provincial legislation. These extraterritorial effects of provincial legislation will be assessed according to the principle of comity.

    In the case of Tolofson v Jensen, the court answers the question of which law should govern in tort when the interest of more than one jurisdiction is involved. The court determines that the law of where the tort occurred should apply, this is known as lex loci delicti. Justice La Forest clearly reaffirmed the importance of comity in private international law in the decision. The court states that the choice of law is where the tort occurred for reasons of comity, order and fairness. The court states that international comity helps ensure “harmony” in the face of potential conflicts of law.

    Australia

    The Australian Constitution recognizes that the Full Faith and Credit should be afforded to all common law countries:

    “Full faith and credit shall be given, throughout the Commonwealth, to the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of any State.”

    In case law, the High Court of Australia has never defined the meaning of comity in Australian law. However, the High Court has adopted and approved the definition of comity from the United States Supreme Court in Hilton v Guyot, with the first reference to it being in 1999 in the decision of Lipohar v The Queen. Comity has played an important role in the development and application of Australian private law. It has been used by courts most frequently in navigating sovereign sensitivities and economic realities.

    European Union

    The Brussels 1 Regulation requires that the judgment of the court of one member states of the European Union (absence non-consenting defendants) shall be enforced by the court of another member state.

  • Incur Meaning

    Take on popular rogue

  • Dragon Meaning

    Monster overcomes doctor with endless pain

  • Massif Meaning

    High area’s service condition

  • Dropper Meaning

    Get rid of each medical dispenser

  • Spiteful Meaning

    Nasty fuel’s blended around place for racing cars