Business Law

This document provides an overview of potential plaintiffs, defendants, remedies, and defenses in a business law case. It discusses the issues raised by the plaintiffs and the available defenses of the defendants, and concludes with the potential winning decision. The document also includes references for further reading.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW
Table of Contents
1. Potential Plaintiffs of the case................................................................................................2
2. Defendant...............................................................................................................................2
3. Remedies for the Plaintiffs.....................................................................................................3
4. Defences for the Defendant....................................................................................................4
5. The winning decision.............................................................................................................5
References..................................................................................................................................6

2BUSINESS LAW
1. Potential Plaintiffs of the case
In the given case study, the following person or group of person can potentially be the
plaintiffs:
a) Davis
b) Yang Family
c) Parm
2. Defendant
a) Davis is a potential plaintiff who can bring an action under law of Torts accusing the Yang
family for nuisance. Nuisance refers to the trouble annoyance or injury caused upon the
aggrieved party who is deprived from enjoying his land peacefully. The depreciation is of
such degree that the aggrieved party e has no other option but to bring a legal action under
law of torts. Davis can bring an action against the Yang family for affecting his use or
enjoyment of his property or land (Cornford 2016).
b) The Yang family could be a plaintiff who could sue the real estate company for
deceiving them by not disclosing material fact about the property, that it had a municipal
easement at the rear end.
c) The Yang family could also sue Davis:
 Firstly, for false imprisonment and trespass to land that he had caused when he had
locked the children while they were having a noisy gathering in the shed.
 Secondly, for defaming the Yang family by calling them “neighbours from hell” on
social media, thereby maligning the social prestige of the family.
 Lastly, for Assault that he caused to the children when he went to the yard swearing
at them, holding a machete in his hand and threatening to cut the children into pieces.

3BUSINESS LAW
d) Lastly, Parm can sue the Yang family for negligence for sustaining an injury in his ankle
while playing basketball in the basketball court of the Yang family house.
3. Remedies for the Plaintiffs
a) Under common law, the remedy for a tort of nuisance is the payment of damages. While
under the courts of equity, an injunction could also so be taken for a remedy available to the
plaintiff for preventing the defendant from continuing the nuisance that is bothering the
plaintiff. Therefore Davis could win an order of injunction against the Yang family to stop
their noisy gatherings and late night basketball matches so that he could enjoy in his property
peacefully (Cornford 2016).
b) While the Yang family could sue the real estate agent for misleading them to buy the
property by suppressing the fact that the rear end of the property had a municipal easement
and also that the property contained and old stove oil tank. The family can pray for the
rescission of the contract that they had signed for buying the house from the real estate
company or they can claim damages from the real estate company for sustaining such
monetary loss when the municipality remove the last 5 meters from the property.
For any material loss for injuries sustained by the plaintiff due to the defamation,
trespass, assault and false imprisonment committed by the Davis, the family can claim for
damages for such loss or injury caused by the defendant (Goldberg, Sebok and Zipursky
2016).
c) Parm can sue the Yang family for sustaining the ankle injury while playing on the
faulty basketball court which had eroded due to the extensive spraying of coke on the asphalt.
Parm could prove that it was a negligent act on the part of the children of the family to spray
Coke on the asphalt basketball court which led to the erosion of the asphalt thereby by
creating soft spots on the ground. it was the duty of the Yang family to mend the soft parts on

4BUSINESS LAW
the Asphalt Court which they had breached, thereby causing the injury to Parm. The
condition of the eroded asphalt as well as the consequences of playing on it was foreseeable,
therefore holding the family liable to pay for the medical expenses of Parm’s treatment along
with the damages for losing his scholarship of studying in an American University.
4. Defences for the Defendant
a) As for the allegations of nuisance, the Yang family can defend themselves by saying that
they had no intention to disturb Davis from enjoying his quiet possession of his property. The
Yang family can put forward that they had acted in good faith and that they had not caused
any such issues that the plaintiff is alleging against them (Best, Barnes and Kahn-Fogel
2018).
b) Davis, on the other hand, can defend his actions as a form of self defence and an outburst
of anger for the nuisance created by the Yang family. He could state that he had not falsely
imprisoned the children, but just locked them for a short while to teach them a lesson. As for
the allegation pertaining to defamation, Davis can state that he had to call out the matter on
the social media for bringing public attention and importance to the matter. For the allegation
of assault, he shall have no defence to provide. Davis can state that the trespass to land and
was necessary in order to safeguard his right to peaceful and quiet enjoyment of environment
(Goldberg, Sebok and Zipursky 2016).
c) On the other hand, the Yang family can defend themselves from the claim of negligence by
Parm by stating that the children could never foresee that spraying Coke on the asphalt
basketball court would erode the asphalt and would create soft parts in the asphalt Court.
5. The winning decision
Evaluating the issues of the plaintiffs and the available defences of the defendants, it
could be held that the issue raised by Davis could be justified against the Yang family for

5BUSINESS LAW
disrupting the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of Davis’s property. The claim of Parm would
also be held as justifiable for it is not sensible to spray an asphalt court with coke in order to
improve its gripping quality. The claim of the Yang family against the real estate agent would
also be justified by showing the evidence of general as well as economic loss (Best, Barnes
and Kahn-Fogel 2018). Lastly the claims of yang family as against Davis for his aggression
and assault could be also addressed by the court.

6BUSINESS LAW
References
Best, A., Barnes, D.W. and Kahn-Fogel, N., 2018. Basic tort law: cases, statutes, and
problems. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Cornford, T., 2016. Towards a public law of tort. Routledge
Goldberg, J.C., Sebok, A.J. and Zipursky, B.C., 2016. Tort Law: Responsibilities and
Redress. Aspen Publishers.