Pre Litigation Procedures in Civil and Criminal Law

Pre Litigation Procedures in Civil and
Criminal Law
Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................3
Main body..................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................5
References..............................................................................................................................6
Introduction
Defending oneself at the court has been considered as a common right of any person whether
they are guilty or not. The act of tort has been recognized as the most commonly practices by
individuals who intends to inflict harm intentionally to anothers life by doing materialistic
destruction. In the context of this report a case draft has been presented while depicting the
case scenario and delivering relevant laws in this regard. Thus, the main aim of this project is
to evaluate relevant laws in the relation to the given scenario.
Main body
Case scenario:
Reimbursement of Money
Between
Simon Simple Claimant
And
Horrid Motors Limited Defendant
Particular of Claim
1. The claimant is Simon Simple who is a traffic warden in rural Worcestershire.

2. The defendant is Henry Horrid who is the owner of Horrid Motors Limited Motors
Limited.
3. As per the written draft dated on 1st January 2016. the claimant is Simon Simple,
who has purchased a second hand sports from the defendant Henry Horrid, the owner
of Horrid Motors Limited in exchange of 3500 plus VAT Simon had purchased a car
and paid extra 350 plus VAT in order to obtain 6 months of warranty period. After 6
week, the car started disturbing like became heavy, difficult to drive and frequent
topping of oil. In order to resolve the issues regarding car Simple had approached
Henry who was busy then and had requested for leaving his car to him for a night
dated on 23rd FebruaryThe charges were not covered in the warranty and
possessing no issues in this regard Simon had paid 95 plus VAT. The
agreement was a mutual contract in which both the parties have acted as per the
guidelines of entering into a contract. Simon and Henry had agreed to the terms and
conditions of the car as Simon had paid extra 350 plus VAT in order to obtain a
warranty period. The purpose of the contract can be considered as to agree all the
terms incorporated by both the parties in relation to legally accomplish the act of
buying and selling.
Therefore, in this case the claimant has demanded the reimbursement of his money
that he had spent in relation to the entire process of car purchasing and servicing from
the defendant. On the other hand, the statement like Simon has suffered from anxiety
since that time has delivered that fact that the claimant had suffered from mental
disturbance due to the traumatic experience (Baez, 2016). Thus in this context the,
negligence of duty of care can be implemented in this regard and the mental harm can
also be determined under tort law that depicts that mental harm can be done by
negligence regarding ones mental disturbance by another person. In accordance with
the statement of the local mechanic Noel Neutrals Horrid Motors Limited were
known in the industry as dodgy traders, it can be asserted that company owned by
Henry Horrid had intentionally delivered a damaged car to the claimant, even after the
check up for the second time. Thus, it can be determined that the defendant had
intentionally caused mental ad financial damage to the defendant and the act of tort
can be considered n this regard (Columbiaforensic.com. 2016).
Thus, as Simon wanted his money back the case can be presented trough a draft of statement
while the first statement in this regard is the claim of breach of contract which Simon Simple
v Horrid Motors Limited has depicted in a precise manner. Here the claimant is Simon
Simple, who has purchased a second hand sports from the defendant Henry Horrid, the owner
of Horrid Motors Limited on 1st of January 2016. In exchange of 3500 plus VAT Simon had
purchased a car and paid extra 350 plus VAT in order to obtain 6 months of warranty
period.
The agreement was a mutual contract in which both the parties have acted as per the
guidelines of entering into a contract. Simon and Henry had agreed to the terms and
conditions of the car as Simon had paid extra 350 plus VAT in order to obtain a warranty
period. The purpose of the contract can be considered as to agree all the terms incorporated
by both the parties in relation to legally accomplish the act of buying and selling.
On the other hand, in the case of Garratt v. Dailey, 46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 (Wash.
1955) the claimant has claimed the act of intentional tort as the defendant has pulled the
chair of the claimant, causing her to get injured in her hipbone (Casebriefs.com. 2016). Thus,
in the case of Simon v Henry, it can be cited that Henry (defendant) had caused intentional
tort to Simon (claimant) through intentionally ignoring the harm and inconvenience that the
claimant may suffer from. Therefore, it can be drafted as the statement on behalf of the
claimant that the defendant is subject to financial reimbursement as the negligence and
intentional destructive actions of the defendant had caused him huge financial loss (Keith,
2004).
5. It has been realized that this case can be considered under the Tort law as the damages
had been intentionally done by Horrid Motors Limited to Simon. In order to prove the
act of tort in this regard several statements can be recorded (Horsey and Rackley,
2011).At the first place, the tort of law depicts the act of delivering harm to any
person by another one intentionally while causing materialistic damage. In this case,
Horrid Motors Limited had caused huge financial loss to Simon Simple as due to his
car wreck Simon had faced worst weather condition and got traumatized in this
regard. The basic principle of tort law is that every single individual is subjected to
protect the common benefits. Tort can be of many types, but in this regard it has been
observed to the punitive damages had been delivered to the claimant (Baez, 2016).
Conclusion
In order to conclude the case, it can be said that the draft statement regarding the case has
delivered the fact that the claimant has approach the court for justice as he demanded the
reimbursement of his money that he has spent in the context of purchasing and servicing his
new second hand sports car. Therefore, the draft statement has depicted the fact that the case
can be considered under the tort law that is the defendant had caused intentional tort while
causing punitive damage to the claimant. In accordance with the tort law intentional
negligence had caused the claimant a huge financial as well as mental loss. On the other
hand, as it has been confirmed that horrid motors limited is famous an as doggy trader
therefore, through quoting apt evidences the defendant is subjected to reimburse the amount
of the claim.
References
Baez, H. (2016). Intentional Torts. 1st ed. Cork: BookBaby.
Casebriefs.com. (2016). Garratt v. Dailey | Casebriefs. [online] Available at:
http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-prosser/intentional-interference-
with-person-or-property/garratt-v-dailey-2/ [Accessed 2 Dec. 2016].
Columbiaforensic.com. (2016). Mental Injury and Tort Laws. [online] Available at:
http://www.columbiaforensic.com/mental-injury-tort-law.html [Accessed 2 Dec. 2016].
Horsey, K. and Rackley, E. (2011). Tort law. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press,
USA.
Keith, M. (2004). Intentional torts. 1st ed. [Adelaide]: Law Society of South Australia.

Pre Litigation Procedures in Civil and Criminal Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pre Litigation Procedures in Civil and Criminal Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pre Litigation Procedures in Civil and Criminal Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pre Litigation Procedures in Civil and

1. The claimant is Simon Simple who is a traffic warden in rural Worcestershire.

You might also like