Answer:
The types of damages that would be needed in order for them to be equally happy as they were before the garage fiasco are:
a) Compensatory damages
b) Consequential damages
Explanation:
a) Compensatory Damages are claims paid to directly to compensate the non-breaching party for the value of what was damaged, not done, or performed. For this purpose, compensatory damages will be equal to the cost of getting the garages fixed.
b) Consequential Damages address the costs incurred by the non-breaching party as a result of damages done to other facilities. Example, the sliding off of the garage could have led to flood water damaging some other property, which were not the direct subject of the claim.
Answer: That’s cool! I hope it goes well :)
Explanation:
C
More than likely
Hope it helps
Answer:
Blind plea can go against or in favor of Defendant depending upon jugde.
<u>Explanation:</u>
The Plea means a request. A Blind plea is one made without considering the punishment the defendant will get. A Blind plea is one where it is up to the judge to take any decision. There is no plea agreement in the case of a blind plea.
This plea can have two possibilities:
- it Might help the defendant or
- it might go against the defendant.
If the judge is lenient than there is a scope that the defendant might not get severe punishment but on the other hand if the judge can also give harsh punishments.
Answer:
current societal norms rendered the charitable immunity doctrine inapplicable to this case and that fundamental fairness allowed the court to deviate from established case precedent and find for Flagiello.
Explanation:
In Appeals, Nos. 293 and 351, Jan. T., 1964, from judgments of Court of Common Pleas No. 4 of Philadelphia County, Dec. T., 1963, No. 4018 is found a case of Mrs. C Mary, and her husband Thomas Flagiello against the Pennsylvania Hospital, in which the Flagiellos rightly stated that Mrs Mary was injured in the Pennsylvania Hospital where she paid $24.50 a day for hospital facilities and nursing care. An action of trespass was brought against the medical institution and two employees were said to be involved.
The hospital accepted their wrong doings but they should not be liable since they are an organization dependent on charity. After series of legal proceedings, the court finally affirmed that precedents would not be followed in the case and that charities, like the hospital, must be liable