Business law assignment

so we are a good number 27 it’s reach our decorously number k ac3 139 and other group member from my group is him in the South Cota and at e3 GG edit we are doing test number 20 it’s Australian tours versus chillers now the fat is involved in these situations are they safe or supermarkets that is a different lid and the other is zelos naho clips in the wig flow in the bed Manning and see in being a plaintiff similarly in this case we can found some issues issues that happened in the case and issues that we can discuss is that the defendant where the plaintiff a duty of care a duty of fear is the most important part in this care and over the defendant in the breach of the duty of care because of the plaintiff was injured in the wet floor due to lack of the warning sign or due to the failure to obey this service to the plaintiff from the supermarket and other issues may arise as the way the plaintiff’s injuries a consequences of the defendants failure to obey the tube clear similarly we have some facts that can be reveal in this case and me being as a plaintiff claim against the defendant separate stairs because while entering the Safeway stores as a supper I slipped on a break floor and wait learning and I am being injured there was no annulus warning time so we can seek further further advice for the advice for this Crillon store supermarket as if the risk warning sign is the same – did the plaintiff safety if the spume surface storage levers for the compensation for the injured that is me myself and what is the response of the stepped occupier towards its visitors there gsst adopted in the supermarket regarding the visitor safety so that they can wander within red flow and others like advice could be as if the injuries caused by the occupiers negligence of course it seems to be like if they have put the warning signs and that we determine myself couldn’t have been slept in a red floor I might get concerned about the with closed sign further we can have some like lose some readers rules and laws that can be discussed in this case so we can have a like Xcode allows we can address the legal concerns ready relieve any laws that for the acquires liability and it is very important to be to mind whether the visitor was a trespasser that is a person who enters with all the occupiers invitations and a licensee a person permitted or in invited to adhere so we have got so much issues with in this case so we can like summarize the rules and regulations it’s like that the law of the occupiers liability is concerned with the duty of care UTS clear obeid occupiers so we have got some of the legal rules as a duty of care the breach of Duty oh dear and we can apply the rules and in this case like in reference to the in reference to details will EJ in endemic versus Thames in 1856 ll1 CP 274 at P Tony 8/8 it was the occupied obligations to prevent damage onions and ended up weeks picking you that was exactly I was about to go that if occupiers make it ends so that they could have get a warning sign and meaning as a plaintiff I could get one from being harmed so we could seek a further you know for the service that lack need the occupiers then to have future damage thank you [Music]

Related posts