Berties initial contact

Berties initial contact Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work produced by our Law Essay Writing Service . You can view samples of our professional work here . Berties initial contact Bertie’s initial contact, Freddy grabbing his elbow to gain his attention and Bertie pushing him away could all arguably constitute a battery. A battery is the direct infliction of unlawful force on another person without lawful justification. In order for them to be considered a battery they must satisfy the requirements. There must be an application of force, the force must be direct and immediate and the contact must be unlawful. The law prohibits all deliberate touching as ‘it has long been established that any touching of another however slight, may amount to a battery’. There are however some exceptions. Exceptions are made for minor everyday touching, Lord Goff in Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172 states that ‘boarder exceptions has been created to allow for the exigencies of everyday life’. (Harvey, Barbara & Marston, John (6th Edition) Cases and Commentary on Tort, Oxford University Press p351) Bertie’s initi al contact could be arguably ‘not actionable’ (Harvey & Marston, Tort) because such slight jostling is ‘impliedly consented by all who move in society and expose themselves to the risk of bodily contact’ (Collins v Wilcock). He does not therefore satisfy the first requirement. The touching is perhaps negligent but not intentional. In Cole v Turner it was said that if two or more people meet in a passage and ‘without any violence or design of harm the one touches the other gently it will be no battery’ (Cole v Turner) and the aforementioned dicta highlights that a minor touch is ‘widely accepted as part and parcel of everyday life’. Freddie would therefore on this basis not be liable for a battery. Freddy intentionally grabbing Peters elbow to attract his attention similarly falls into that category. There is an application of force and it was direct, immediate and intentional, however it would not be considered unlawful. There is a clear distinction between an unlawful battery and touching to draw someone’s attention. The circumstances are clear that the purpose was to gain Bertie’s attention. Lord Goff in Collins v Wilcock opined that ‘along such forms of conduct, long held to be acceptable, is touching a person for the purpose of engaging his attention’. It is therefore also likely to be construed also as minor touching. The touching would have to be ‘unjustified for Freddy to be liable therefore Freddy’s would not be liable for battery. However Bertie pushing Freddy away could be considered a battery. In Wilson v Pringle [1986] 2 All ER 440 the court of appeal stated the essence of a battery you required a ‘hostile intentional touching’. However Lord Goff suggested that ‘qualification is difficult to reconcile with the principle that any touching of another’s body is, in the absence of lawful excuse, capable of amounting to a battery’ . This discounted the need for and ‘hostile’ act, and this was confirmed in Collins v Wilcock as the touching of the defendant was considered a battery as there was not a lawful arrest. There was no evidence of hostility in Collins v Wilcock, the requirement was therefore that the touching is merely unlawful. The mental element is also apparent. Lord Denning in Letang v Cooper [1964] 2 All ER 929 opined that ‘if one man intentionally applies force directly to another, the claimant has a cause of action in assault and battery’ (Harvey & Marston, Tort). There can be no doubts that there is an application of force, Bertie’s actions are intentional. The force is direct and immediate and the contact is not one of those excused as everyday jostling. Bertie’s actions will therefore be considered unlawful and therefore they are liable for a battery.

Financial statements for Blacksea plc for the years ended 30 June 2009 Assignment

Financial statements for Blacksea plc for the years ended 30 June 2009 and 2010 - Assignment Example The assets can be bifurcated to have current and fixed assets. Current assets can be quickly converted into the cash within a few months time in the normal course of operations. Fixed assets, also called long term investments of the company in land, plant, building, equipment, fixtures, furniture etc. have longer life period and they last for several years or decades over its useful life. It is nature of the business that decides whether the company will have more capital employed in the current assets or in the fixed assets. There is nothing good or bad per se where assets are deployed; however, when it is compared with the other companies in the same industry group, it can provide an idea whether assets are deployed efficiently or not. So goes with liabilities of the company. They can be bifurcated in the current and long-term liabilities. Current liabilities constitute those payments which are to be paid within a few months. Long-term liabilities mean long-term loans, mortgage payments and other liabilities of similar nature that are to be paid in several years. The financial analysis based on these factors will tell us about the liquidity of the company. This will also tell us about the risk that investors carry by investing in the company. It is important to know whether company’s current assets are sufficient enough to pay for the current liabilities. (Atrill & Mclaney1997) Current ratio of the company in the year ended June 2009 was noticed at 1.46:1, which further improved to 2.73:1 during the year ended June 2010. This is quite safe for the company. The current ratio for the same industry group is noticed at 2.5:1 so it can be said that Blacksea enjoys somewhat superior current ratio as per the year 2010. Creditors should have no problem in lending to the company based on the existing current ratio. Similarly, gearing ratio (debt/equity) in the year 2009 was pretty

US Weaponry advances in the Late 1800's Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

US Weaponry advances in the Late 1800's - Essay Example The bullet was driven out of the muzzle at a velocity of about 1,200 feet per second, and it could travel more than 1,000 yards. In 1874, the U.S. Army also used the Colt single action Army revolver. This pistol fired six .45-caliber cartridges. The effective range of the Colt revolver dropped off rapidly over 60 yards. During the campaign, the Army employed various kinds of artillery as well. Colonel Nelson A. Miles, for example, had two Gatling guns that fired a .50 caliber bullet. The Gatling gun was capable of firing up to 300 rounds per minute. At the Battle of Red River on August 30, 1874, Col. Nelson Miles used the Gatling against the Southern Cheyenne—the first time the gun was used in combat west of the Mississippi River. Miles also brought along a 10-pounder Parrott rifle, which was actually a small cannon. The Parrott rifle fired a shell that measured 8.8 inches long by 2.86 in diameter. The shell exploded upon impact and the shell casing became the shrapnel. The maximum range of the 10-pounder Parrott rifle at five degrees elevation was about 2,000 yards. 1 By 1877 "Bulldog" was the first Gatling gun to feature a fully enclosed bronze housing over the barrels and breech. The "Bulldog" was a five-barrel .45 cal. tripod mounted weapon. A few were mounted on a light cavalry cart. A rear mounting hand crank permitted a very high rate of fire of up to 1,000 spm(single point mooring), almost twice the rate of a typical World War II machine gun. By 1889, it was a ten-barrel .45 cal. gun fully encased in a bronze jacket. A side mounting hand crank produced a rate of fire of up to 800 spm, but could be rear mounted to increase the rate up to 1,500 spm. Internal components were strengthened to withstand the punishment from the higher rate of fire. This model had a new flexible yoke that permitted a wider angle of traverse and elevation than