The commercial law can also be referred to as business law or either corporate law.
| Running head: APPLIED COMMERCIAL LAW 1
Applied Commercial law
The commercial law can also be referred to as business law or either corporate law. This is the legal body of law which executes and applies to the entire rights, relations, and the code of conduct of entire persons in relations to the businesses they engage to, in their day to day engagements in commerce sector, while merchandising the trade and sales. Relatively it is also often being considered, to being the branch that entails civil laws whereas dealing with the entire issues of both the private law and also public law.
Referring from article Statutory Domain and the Commercial Law of Intellectual Property, by Duffy J, & Hynes M, (2016), referred liability as the state whereby one is responsible for such an occurrence in relations to law. They continue to describe it as a risk undertaken whereas someone is in charge, through event, debt or either financial obligation. Relatively, when high behavior ought is likely to cause embarrassment or either put a second party at a disadvantage or a risk through nuisance, he is proven to be liable
Inferring from the above outlay by (Duffy J, & Hynes M, 2016), a law scholar describes how such cases are handled in respect to the rule of law. Peter happened to have caused the negligence liability risk due to the outcome of the entire occurrence, shows Peter as the defendant owed an answerable case to Sue as the plaintiff. Additionally, an issue of latching of the gate arises since it was Peters' obligation that he didn't execute leading to incidence occurring. Relatively, Peter as the defendant is absolute liable towards the act that took place. Similarly, Sue is obligated by law to take a legal action toward Peter due to his negligence where he could have taken care of his pets, and latching of the gate where they could not have inflicted harm to Sue and her mother, and they were ought to lay a case as the plaintiff, towards Peter.In such an occurrence, a case as the above rather is a negligence-liability case. Whereas such a case is bound to determine whether Peter as a defendant owes a case to answer, towards Sue and her mother as the plaintiff in relations to Duffy J, & Hynes M, (2016) in a research article Statutory Domain and the Commercial Law of Intellectual Property.
Breach of Duty
A defendant Peter is liable for the occurrence since as the accused he has breached the duty where he owes a liability towards the plaintiff Sue and her mother. As a defendant, he violated and neglected and obliged his duty by the fact that he ought to have ensured that his dogs are in enclosed environment, so as to avert any harm that might be brought about by his pets. Relatively, referring to the question regarding on whether there is any breach of duty that existed, the overall issue of whether Peter as a defendant did violate his duty of caretaking of pets, can be decided by a jury as the question of fact. Additionally, in the discussion sample above, an overall jury would then decide regarding whether the defendant did exercise the reasonable care in the handling of dogs.
Cause in Fact
Inferring from to the traditional legal rules relating such cases Huang J & Tseng R (2014),outlined in the article of Commercial Law, that similar negligence cases. The plaintiff must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions did contribute to the actual cause of the plaintiff's injury, where in the above case it's vital. This can also be referred to as "but-for" causation, in law terminologies. In other words, it's through my view, that was it not for the defendant's actions, Sue and her mother as plaintiffs, this injury and harm, it would not entirely could not have been an issue to occur. As a matter of fact about the liability of incidence, Peter was directly liable to the occurrence happening--as they were passing the unlatched gate, the two dogs got out, attempting to bite Sue and her mother, causing serious harms--. This proved the actual element of defendant's negligent act Huang J & Tseng R (2014).
Inferring to the Proximity cause that is related to the entire scope of the respondent's primary responsibility, in a proximate liability case. Relatively, a defendant is solely bound in a proximate negligence case, that is not only responsible for relations to the harms in which they did occur, but in an occurrence of whereas a defendant that she could have been able to foresee through his pet actions, that he knew very well can inflict a damaging-harm risk to a second party Huang J & Tseng R (2014). In relations to the example that is described above, the injuries of Sue and her mother is an enough proof that would also prove the proximate cause that would be by showing that the entire defendant could have been foreseen the harm magnitude that could have been resulted from the pets not being latched properly. Conversely to the act, if the harm could have been something more of remote towards Peter as the defendant, then Sue and her mother as the plaintiff would have been less likely to prove this element. Assuming that Sue also died due to injuries alongside with her mother who also died due to heart attack, although the harm didn't happen within the scope of scene of incidence, the defendant did risked by his entire actions, despite not have foreseen that the respondent probably outcome he could not argue against the proximate causation liability. A plaintiff Peter in such a negligence case, Kawamura, A. (2015) a law expert advised in such a case, that he must be able to prove to a legal means recognized harm or death caused, that is usually in the form of occurred situation unto a person. Additionally, the defendant did fail to exercise the reasonable care, which in a result, did result in the damages to a person that is to whom Peter as a respondent owed to a duty of attention.
In my view, Peter was liable for the offense, due to his dogs' extreme and uncalled-outrageous conduct. Knowing their behavioral conduct quite well, despite without know-how on their eventual cause, that they can cause to someone. This ended up causing trauma that eventually that resulted in shock, which inflicted Sue mother which eventually brought about heart attack. Peter as a subject to liability in relations to such an occurrence of emotional distress, physical harm, and death that inflicted them.
Duffy, J. F., & Hynes, R. M. (2016). Statutory Domain and the Commercial Law of
Disch, L. (2016). Representation. InÂ The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Theory.
Erdem, H. E. (2015). Turkish Commercial Law: Legislative Activity.Â Turk. Com. L. Rev.,Â 1, 87.
Ellison, N. B., & Boyd, D. M. (2013). Sociality through social network sites. InÂ The Oxford handbook of
Goode, R., Kronke, H., & McKendrick, E. (2015).Â Transnational commercial law. Oxford University Press,.
Hartley, T. (2016). Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (6th edn) by Adrian Briggs [Informa Law from
Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group), 2015, Oxford and New York, 897pp, ISBN 978-1-138-82560-4,
395.00 (h/bk)(Lloyd's Commercial Law Library)].Â International and Comparative Law Quarterly,Â 65(02), 515-517.
Hammer, L. (2016). Comparative Commercial Contracts: Law, Culture and Economic Development. By
Huang, M. J., & Tseng, W. R. (2014). Taiwan's National Report: Codification in East Asia:
Commercial Law. InÂ Codification in East AsiaÂ (pp. 131-136). Springer International
Kawamura, A. (2015). 'Japanese law allows not only commercial disputes but also labour
disputes to be resolved by arbitral tribunals'.Â Kutafin University Law Review,Â 2(2), 374-376.
Tepe, B. (2014). Intermediate Appellate Review of Commercial Law Decisions in Turkey.Â Emerging
Markets Journal,Â 4(1), 59.
Wool, J. (2014, November). Compliance with Transnational Commercial Law Treaties--A Framework as
Applied to the Cape Town Convention. InÂ Cape Town Convention JournalÂ (Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 5-31).