Hello, I am looking for someone to write an essay on Law case study. It needs to be at least 1500 words.Download file to see previous pages... For a claim of negligence to succeed, the claimant must e

Hello, I am looking for someone to write an essay on Law case study. It needs to be at least 1500 words.

For a claim of negligence to succeed, the claimant must establish that the defendant owed him a duty of care, and that the defendant was in breach of that duty. If a breach occurred or not is more a question of actual fact which is to be established on the basis of the evidence. However, the standard of care (expected) is a matter of law. In English law, the prevailing principle is that the standard of care is absolutely objective. The defendant’s actions or lack of actions are measured against the standard established by society for the task performed. In practice, the objectivity of the standard of care means, if a person purports to have a certain skill, or initiates endeavors which imply his possession of a specific skill, then he must display a level of competence associated with that skill. When we view the case of Wells v. Cooper 1958 DIY home repairs must meet the standard of a reasonably competent tradesman. On a whole the law of negligence is focused on who will pay the cost for the loss or damage. Generally, the motive of the defendant is irrelevant to the determination whether he breached the duty of care. We will first look at the Housing Act, 1966 s 39 which empowers the council to make loans for the acquisition of houses. To satisfy the necessary requirements in qualifying the borrower as a bone fide recipient and all the property as fit, the council must perform (via its agent or representative), an inspection of the dwelling on the basis of two pertinent criteria. (1) establishing the actual value and (2) that the dwelling will provide sufficient security for the loan....

as a result of the report by the Council's valuer, as to the actual value of an existing

houseand thatis so situated as to be readily saleable, in the event of a sale by the

Council becoming necessary, due to default by the borrower" (Ward). In an

accompanying opinion in this case, Castell J., [1985] I.R. 29 at p 52 held that, "In light

of the facts to which I have referred it seems to me that there was a sufficient relationship

of proximity or neighborhood between the plaintiff and the council such as that in

reasonable contemplation of the council carelessness on their part in carrying out of the

valuation of the bungalow the plaintiff (in view of his knowledge that they were going to

value the premises and his very limited means), would himself employ a professional

person to examine it and so they should have known that if the valuation was carelessly

done it might not disclose defects in the premises and as a result the plaintiff might suffer

loss or damage. So it seems to me that a prima facie duty of care existed and there is

nothing in the dealing between the two parties which should restrict or limit that duty on

any way. In particular no warning against reliance on the proposed valuation was

given" (Costello 1985)

Also in Siney v. Corporation of Dublin [1980] IR400, O'Higgins, CJ states at

p.