Class Notes (808,092)
Canada (493,058)
BUSA 391 (11)
Lecture 7

Lecture 7.docx

2 Pages
Unlock Document

McGill University
Business Admin
BUSA 391
Leslie Beck

Lecture Seven  Botfor test, does not tell you who is liable, but tells you who  If you have 5 people who might be defendants, if you apply the butfor test, and it says but for this person, this will not have happened, you know this person COULD be the defendant, but not for sure  Do not use butfor test to work yourself through a case of negligence  If for example you have something were you can’t say but for their actions, the plaintiff will not have been armed, ten you know they are not the defendant  If they would have suffered the same loss anyway, even if the defendant hadn’t acted carelessly, the defendant ad to be held liable  If there are two defendants, a particular person may be held partially liable The reasonable person  Who is the reasonable person? A normal person with normal intelligence in a normal state of alertness (never under the influence, person with a clear mind)standard  What does society expect from you, did you meet the standard of care, what did you actually do o The first one is a duty, an abstract, what society expects (duty of care) o The second one is what did you actually do, did you meet the duty of care (standard of care)  Professionals (part of a group, normally identified as the group you need to pass multiple exams to enter, group that charges fees for their services, group that determines who stays in the group, etc. Doctors, lawyers, etc. o in relation to their duty, have higher duty of care than normal people because they have been trained to a higher standard  If there is an accident on the road, someone crashed their car and it their throat on the steering wheel, if I take the pen knife from my pocket and cut him and cause an infection, my duty and care would be lower than if a doctor made the cut and used a sterilized scalpel, and caused an infection (compared to the ordinary doctor, higher duty of care on level of doctors) Case Study #1 – pg 121  Manufacturer sells to retailerretailer sells to purchaser  These are contracts. Under the sale of goods act; Purchaser has the rights to sue the retailer instead of the manufactures  Consumer protection act says that while manufacture or retailer can limit their liability by putting it in a contract (receipt, notice on cash register), if it’s a consumer purchase, the sale of goods act are still yours (not for business purchases)  Suppose the purchaser is buying a good for their own use, they can sue the retailer, then the retailer can blame the manufacturer of mis-manufacturing and can sue the manufacturer  This chain of contracts allow you to get to the manufacturer  The purchaser gives the gift to their friend, and the good injures the friend who it was given to there is no contract with the friend and the retailer (gratuitous gift)  Ouse of lords says, the manufacturer knows there is going to be an end user of the goods, and if the end user does not know how the product is once they receive it, they are allowed to s
More Less

Related notes for BUSA 391

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.