A party is said to be ‘aggrieved’ when something that they may have been enjoying has been taken away from them by another party. This is an infringement of a party’s rights and it is treatable by law. A legal remedy is one such treatment. When the aggrieved person is taken back to the position that they were enjoying before their rights were infringed, they are said to have been provided with a legal remedy. There are various types of legal remedies. For instance, if something that belongs to you has been taken away from you by a party, the court can either ask them to pay you back in money, or ask them to return your belongings as they were, and may also punish the party in some cases. There are two broad types of remedies in Tort Law. Judicial Remedies..Extra-Judicial Remedies.As the term suggests, these are the remedies that the courts of law provide to an aggrieved party. Judicial remedies are of three main types:Damages.Injunction.Specific Restitution of Property.On the other hand, if the injured party takes the law in their own hand (albeit lawfully), the remedies are called extra-judicial remedies. These are of five main types: Expulsion of trespasser,Re-entry on land,Re-caption of goods,Abatement,Distress Damage Feasant.
Which one of the following statement is correct?

A party is said to be ‘aggrieved’ when something that they may have been enjoying has been taken away from them by another party. This is an infringement of a party’s rights and it is treatable by law. A legal remedy is one such treatment. When the aggrieved person is taken back to the position that they were enjoying before their rights were infringed, they are said to have been provided with a legal remedy. There are various types of legal remedies. For instance, if something that belongs to you has been taken away from you by a party, the court can either ask them to pay you back in money, or ask them to return your belongings as they were, and may also punish the party in some cases. There are two broad types of remedies in Tort Law. Judicial Remedies..Extra-Judicial Remedies.As the term suggests, these are the remedies that the courts of law provide to an aggrieved party. Judicial remedies are of three main types:Damages.Injunction.Specific Restitution of Property.On the other hand, if the injured party takes the law in their own hand (albeit lawfully), the remedies are called extra-judicial remedies. These are of five main types: Expulsion of trespasser,Re-entry on land,Re-caption of goods,Abatement,Distress Damage Feasant.
Exemplary damages,which are awarded in excess of the material loss suffered by the plaintiff with a view to prevent similar behaviour in future,are also called

A party is said to be ‘aggrieved’ when something that they may have been enjoying has been taken away from them by another party. This is an infringement of a party’s rights and it is treatable by law. A legal remedy is one such treatment. When the aggrieved person is taken back to the position that they were enjoying before their rights were infringed, they are said to have been provided with a legal remedy. There are various types of legal remedies. For instance, if something that belongs to you has been taken away from you by a party, the court can either ask them to pay you back in money, or ask them to return your belongings as they were, and may also punish the party in some cases. There are two broad types of remedies in Tort Law. Judicial Remedies..Extra-Judicial Remedies.As the term suggests, these are the remedies that the courts of law provide to an aggrieved party. Judicial remedies are of three main types:Damages.Injunction.Specific Restitution of Property.On the other hand, if the injured party takes the law in their own hand (albeit lawfully), the remedies are called extra-judicial remedies. These are of five main types: Expulsion of trespasser,Re-entry on land,Re-caption of goods,Abatement,Distress Damage Feasant.
Damages when given are taken to embrace all the injurious consequences of the wrongful act,unknown as well as known,which may arise hereafter,as well as those which have arisen,so that the right of action is satisfied by one recovery are called

A party is said to be ‘aggrieved’ when something that they may have been enjoying has been taken away from them by another party. This is an infringement of a party’s rights and it is treatable by law. A legal remedy is one such treatment. When the aggrieved person is taken back to the position that they were enjoying before their rights were infringed, they are said to have been provided with a legal remedy. There are various types of legal remedies. For instance, if something that belongs to you has been taken away from you by a party, the court can either ask them to pay you back in money, or ask them to return your belongings as they were, and may also punish the party in some cases. There are two broad types of remedies in Tort Law. Judicial Remedies..Extra-Judicial Remedies.As the term suggests, these are the remedies that the courts of law provide to an aggrieved party. Judicial remedies are of three main types:Damages.Injunction.Specific Restitution of Property.On the other hand, if the injured party takes the law in their own hand (albeit lawfully), the remedies are called extra-judicial remedies. These are of five main types: Expulsion of trespasser,Re-entry on land,Re-caption of goods,Abatement,Distress Damage Feasant.
Mark the incorrect statement:

A party is said to be ‘aggrieved’ when something that they may have been enjoying has been taken away from them by another party. This is an infringement of a party’s rights and it is treatable by law. A legal remedy is one such treatment. When the aggrieved person is taken back to the position that they were enjoying before their rights were infringed, they are said to have been provided with a legal remedy. There are various types of legal remedies. For instance, if something that belongs to you has been taken away from you by a party, the court can either ask them to pay you back in money, or ask them to return your belongings as they were, and may also punish the party in some cases. There are two broad types of remedies in Tort Law. Judicial Remedies..Extra-Judicial Remedies.As the term suggests, these are the remedies that the courts of law provide to an aggrieved party. Judicial remedies are of three main types:Damages.Injunction.Specific Restitution of Property.On the other hand, if the injured party takes the law in their own hand (albeit lawfully), the remedies are called extra-judicial remedies. These are of five main types: Expulsion of trespasser,Re-entry on land,Re-caption of goods,Abatement,Distress Damage Feasant.
Mark the incorrect statement:

To establish negligence it is not enough to prove that the injury was foreseeable, but a reasonable likelihood of the injury has to be shown because “foreseeability does not include any idea of likelihood at all.
“1 The duty is to guard against probabilities rather than bare possibilities. In Fardon v. Harcourt-Rivington,
2 the defendant parked his car by the road side and left a dog inside the car. The dog jumped about and smashed a glass panel.
A splinter from this glass injured the plaintiff while he was walking past the car. It was held that the accident, being very unlikely, there was no negligence in not taking a precaution against it and, therefore, the defendant was not liable. Lord Dunedin said that “if the possibility of danger emerging is only a mere possibility which would never occur to the mind of a reasonable man, then there is no negligence in not having taken extraordinary precautions….People must guard against reasonable probabilities but they are not bound to guard against fantastic possibilities.”
The expression “due” means

To establish negligence it is not enough to prove that the injury was foreseeable, but a reasonable likelihood of the injury has to be shown because “foreseeability does not include any idea of likelihood at all.
“1 The duty is to guard against probabilities rather than bare possibilities. In Fardon v. Harcourt-Rivington,
2 the defendant parked his car by the road side and left a dog inside the car. The dog jumped about and smashed a glass panel.
A splinter from this glass injured the plaintiff while he was walking past the car. It was held that the accident, being very unlikely, there was no negligence in not taking a precaution against it and, therefore, the defendant was not liable. Lord Dunedin said that “if the possibility of danger emerging is only a mere possibility which would never occur to the mind of a reasonable man, then there is no negligence in not having taken extraordinary precautions….People must guard against reasonable probabilities but they are not bound to guard against fantastic possibilities.”
The standard of care generally used in cases of negligence is:

To establish negligence it is not enough to prove that the injury was foreseeable, but a reasonable likelihood of the injury has to be shown because “foreseeability does not include any idea of likelihood at all.
“1 The duty is to guard against probabilities rather than bare possibilities. In Fardon v. Harcourt-Rivington,
2 the defendant parked his car by the road side and left a dog inside the car. The dog jumped about and smashed a glass panel.
A splinter from this glass injured the plaintiff while he was walking past the car. It was held that the accident, being very unlikely, there was no negligence in not taking a precaution against it and, therefore, the defendant was not liable. Lord Dunedin said that “if the possibility of danger emerging is only a mere possibility which would never occur to the mind of a reasonable man, then there is no negligence in not having taken extraordinary precautions….People must guard against reasonable probabilities but they are not bound to guard against fantastic possibilities.”
To establish negligence it is not enough to prove that the injury was foreseeable, but a reasonable likelihood of the injury in contributory negligence

To establish negligence it is not enough to prove that the injury was foreseeable, but a reasonable likelihood of the injury has to be shown because “foreseeability does not include any idea of likelihood at all.
“1 The duty is to guard against probabilities rather than bare possibilities. In Fardon v. Harcourt-Rivington,
2 the defendant parked his car by the road side and left a dog inside the car. The dog jumped about and smashed a glass panel.
A splinter from this glass injured the plaintiff while he was walking past the car. It was held that the accident, being very unlikely, there was no negligence in not taking a precaution against it and, therefore, the defendant was not liable. Lord Dunedin said that “if the possibility of danger emerging is only a mere possibility which would never occur to the mind of a reasonable man, then there is no negligence in not having taken extraordinary precautions….People must guard against reasonable probabilities but they are not bound to guard against fantastic possibilities.”
In which one of the following cases is the occupier liable for negligence?

To establish negligence it is not enough to prove that the injury was foreseeable, but a reasonable likelihood of the injury has to be shown because “foreseeability does not include any idea of likelihood at all.
“1 The duty is to guard against probabilities rather than bare possibilities. In Fardon v. Harcourt-Rivington,
2 the defendant parked his car by the road side and left a dog inside the car. The dog jumped about and smashed a glass panel.
A splinter from this glass injured the plaintiff while he was walking past the car. It was held that the accident, being very unlikely, there was no negligence in not taking a precaution against it and, therefore, the defendant was not liable. Lord Dunedin said that “if the possibility of danger emerging is only a mere possibility which would never occur to the mind of a reasonable man, then there is no negligence in not having taken extraordinary precautions….People must guard against reasonable probabilities but they are not bound to guard against fantastic possibilities.”
The owner of a building adjoining a road has