Posts

Rylands v Fletcher, Facts, Decision, Requirements, Defences

  What is Rylands v Fletcher This case is concerned with nuisance in tort law As the law of nuisance has occasionally been applied to isolated events causing damage to neighbour’s property. It was argued earlier that in such cases liability is more  properly to be founded on the law of negligence rather than nuisance. However an exception must be made for these cases falling within the ambit of the rule in rylands v fletcher. Where there has been an escape of a dangerous thing in the course of a non-natural use of land, the occupier is liable for damage to another as a result of the escape. This is so irrespective of whether the occupier has been at fault (i.e it is a tort of strict liability). However liability is not absolute, there are defences, and the defendant is only liable for the foreseeable consequences of the escape. Facts of rylands v fletcher The defendant hired some independent contractors to build a dam on the land they occupied. Unknown to the i

Fisher v Bell [1961] QB 394, Facts, Issue, Decision

 This case is concerned with invitation to treat (ITT) in offer and acceptance chapter of contract law Facts of fisher v bell The defendant had displayed flick knives on the window of the shop. He was charged with offering for the sale of flick knives, contrary to s. 1 (1) of the  Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. Issue The issue in this case was whether the displayed flick knives was an offer or an invitation to treat (ITT) Decision: It was held that the displayed flick knives were an invitation to treat not an offer. But what would a normal person think of this situation. If you are passing by a shop and you see some item displayed with a price tag. It would appear to us that they are offering us that product to buy. But the courts tend to choose that the displayed items are Invitation to treat (ITT). So the defendant was not guilty under  the S.1(1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.