Podcast
Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson
Download our mobile app to listen on the go
Get App
Questions and Answers
In Heaven v Pender, why was the claimant allowed to claim compensation?
In Heaven v Pender, why was the claimant allowed to claim compensation?
- The claimant's employer supported the claim
- The claimant suffered minor injuries
- A contractual obligation may extend to a non-contracting party in cases of negligence (correct)
- The claimant had a direct contract with the defendant
What was the occupation of the claimant in Winterbottom v Wright?
What was the occupation of the claimant in Winterbottom v Wright?
- Shipbuilder
- Coach driver (correct)
- Painter
- Staging supplier
In Winterbottom v Wright, why could the driver not recover compensation from the builders of the coach?
In Winterbottom v Wright, why could the driver not recover compensation from the builders of the coach?
- The Postmaster General did not support the driver's claim
- He was not a party to the contract under which the coach was supplied (correct)
- The builders of the coach were not found liable for the defect
- The driver did not suffer serious injuries as claimed
What was the occupation of the claimant in Heaven v Pender?
What was the occupation of the claimant in Heaven v Pender?
Signup and view all the answers
What principle was established in Heaven v Pender regarding non-contracting parties?
What principle was established in Heaven v Pender regarding non-contracting parties?
Signup and view all the answers
Flashcards are hidden until you start studying
