I Undertake That The Coursework

I undertake that the coursework presented here is my own work and is, with the

Exception of attributed quotations, written in my own words. All quotations have

Been placed within quotation marks and referenced.

I have not copied or paraphrased the words of any author, published or

Unpublished, without attribution.

I also declare that the total number of words used in my coursework assignment

Does not exceed 1,500 words.

Student Name Disha Agarwal

Student ID 18010698

Course BBALLB(Hons.)

Section A

Signature

Date 4th October 2018

Word Count 1499

MIDTERM FALL PAPER ANSWER SHEET

LAW OF TORTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Whether or not threats given by David to Peter for non-completion of his work constitutes harassment?

“Harassment is the act that creates an intimidating and degrading environment for the victim".

In this situation, David threatened Peter that he will make him suffer as he did not complete the work assigned to him. It is easily visible that David had an intention to harass Peter as he abused him which created a degrading environment for Peter.

By analyzing the issue, as the necessary elements are satisfied, David may be liable to Peter for constituting harassment.

Whether or not threatening Peter for not focusing on work constitutes assault?

In order to show if there was intentional tort of assault, there should be an attempt or threat to do harm by words or gestures by the defendant whereas claimant must apprehend that the defendant has the ability to do the act, presence of intention to carry out the act is also necessary.

In this situation, David was yelling at Peter for non-completion of work and he will make him suffer which shows that there is an attempt to do harm by words. It is also observed that David had the capacity to do the act.

By analyzing the issue, all the elements are satisfied, David is liable to Peter for assault.

Whether or not David committed false imprisonment as he stood outside the cabin with an intent of restraining Peter?

In order to prove if there was intentional tort of false imprisonment, the claimant should be totally restrained and it should be without any lawful justification. It takes place even if the claimant is unaware of the fact that he/she was falsely imprisoned at the time it happened which depicts that knowledge is irrelevant in the case of false imprisonment.

In this situation, Peter locked himself for 15 min unaware of the fact that David would prevent him from leaving even if he wanted to as David stood outside the cabin which shows that Peter was totally restrained, David left 5 min before Peter left, due to which Peter did not has the knowledge of his detention.

By analyzing the issue, as the necessary element are satisfied, David may be liable to Peter for committing false imprisonment.

___________________________________________________________________________

Whether or not David committed trespass to goods by hiding Peter’s belongings?

In order to prove if the defendant committed trespass to goods, there should be direct physical interference with the possession of good without any lawful justification.

In this situation, David committed trespass to goods as he physically interfered with the good by hiding his belongings, possession of good took place for which he did not have any lawful justification.

By analyzing the issue, as the necessary elements are satisfied, David may be liable to Peter for trespass to good.

___________________________________________________________________________

Whether or not David committed conversion by padlocking his motor scooter?

In order to prove if the defendant committed conversion, it is a wrong done to the claimant who is dealing with the good which prevents the person from using and possessing.

In this situation, in order to create problem for Peter, David committed conversion as he intended to physically interfere by padlocking his scooter to a street lamp so that he couldn’t be able to unlock it. It is observed that such act created possession of the good.

By analyzing the issue, as the elements are proved, David may be liable for conversion to Peter.

Whether or not an act of squeezing David’s hand and pushing him constitutes intentional tort of battery?

In order to prove intentional tort of battery, there should be an intention to cause harm by an offensive physical contact, presence of direct and indirect contact by the application of force is necessary. The contact with the claimant’s body must be hostile and there should be absence of consent to the contact.

In this situation, as soon as Kevin got to know about the incident, he confronted David. Both of them lost their temper and started abusing. Kevin came into a direct contact by squeezing his hand and pushing him over, which leads to a hostile act on the part of Kevin. It also appeared that there was no consent to the contact.

By analyzing the issue, as the elements are satisfied, Kevin may be liable to David for constituting battery.

Whether or not an act of swinging golf club in the direction of Kevin constitute assault?

In order to show if there was intentional tort of assault, there should be an attempt or threat to do harm by words or gestures by the defendant whereas claimant must apprehend that the defendant has the ability to do the act, presence of intention to carry out the act is also necessary.

In this situation, David threatened Kevin by his actions as he picked one of the golf club and swung it in the direction of Kevin. It is observed that David had an intention as well as the capacity to carry out the threat. He desired to cause fear to Kevin and make him apprehend that he is going to hit him.

By analyzing the issue, as the elements can be proved, David is liable to Kevin for constituting assault.

Whether or not an act of hitting Kevin’s head by an iron rod constitutes battery?

In order to prove intentional tort of battery, there should be an intention to cause harm by an offensive physical contact, presence of direct and indirect contact by the application of force is necessary. The contact with the claimant’s body must be hostile and there should be absence of consent to the contact.

In this situation, David had an intention to cause harm as he hit Kevin’s head by an iron rod, which shows that he came into a direct contact. Even though it happened in the event of a boxing match but the contact with the Kevin’s body was hostile and against the rules of a boxing match. Also, there was no consent to the contact.

By analyzing the issue, as the elements of battery are satisfied, David is liable to Kevin for constituting battery.

Whether or not David committed trespass to good as he smashed an LED light, in anger, by an iron rod?

In order to prove if the defendant committed trespass to goods, there should be direct physical interference with the possession of good without any lawful justification.

In this situation, David smashed an LED light by using an iron rod which leads to physical interference, it did not have any lawful justification. As it happened in the boxing ring it resulted in the possession of good.

By analyzing the issue, as the elements of trespass to goods are satisfied, David is liable for trespass to goods.

Whether or not Kevin committed trespass to property by entering into David’s cabin?

In order to prove if the defendant committed trespass to property, there should be direct physical interference with the possession of property without any lawful justification.

In this situation, Kevin entered David’s cabin without his permission in order to commit an offensive act, which shows that he physically interfered the property without any lawful justification.

By analyzing the issue, as the elements of trespass to property are satisfied, Kevin is liable to David for trespass to property.

___________________________________________________________________________

Whether or not Kevin committed trespass to goods by taking away a valued painting of David, without informing him?

In order to prove if the defendant committed trespass to property, there should be direct physical interference with the possession of good without any lawful justification.

In this situation, early in the morning, Kevin went to David’s cabin and committed trespass to property as he took away his valued painting which leads to physical interference with the possession of good. It is also observed that there is no lawful justification for such act.

By analyzing the issue, as the elements are satisfied, Kevin is liable to David for trespass to good.