Question 1

The tort of conspiracy always requires proof that the conspirators committed a crime.

Accepted Answer

The tort of conspiracy does not always require proof that the conspirators committed a crime. It only requires proof that they had an agreement to commit an unlawful act, and that they took some action to further that agreement. The unlawful act doesn't necessarily have to be a crime, but it can be any tortious or wrongful conduct.

Question 2

Connor and Sierra operated competing garages.Most of the work at Sierra's garage was performed by Vanessa, who was an excellent mechanic.One evening, Connor saw Vanessa at a bowling alley.He waited for the right moment and then deliberately dropped a bowling ball on her hand.Vanessa suffered a severe and permanent injury that will prevent her from working as a mechanic.Sierra wants to sue Connor for the unlawful means tort.To succeed in that action, Sierra must prove that

Accepted Answer

The best choice is E because it accurately describes the elements that Sierra must prove to succeed in an action for the unlawful means tort. Specifically, Sierra must prove that Connor intended to cause economic harm to Sierra, that he succeeded in doing so by injuring Vanessa, and that he may be held liable to Vanessa for her resulting injuries. Options A, B, and D are not relevant to the unlawful means tort, while option C is not necessary for Sierra to succeed in her action.

Question 3

Casey published an untrue, unfounded, and unfavourable statement about Acme Corp, but not about any of its employees.He nevertheless may be held liable if the statement would tend to make reasonable people have a lower opinion of the corporation.

Accepted Answer

Defamation can apply to corporations in addition to individuals, and if Casey's statement negatively impacts the reputation of Acme Corp and would cause reasonable people to have a lower opinion of the company, he may be held liable for defamation. It is important to note that there are certain defenses to defamation, such as truth or privilege, that may come into play in specific circumstances.

Question 4

Because Katelyn has a disability, she receives daily care from her neighbour, Savannah.Savannah provides that care out of the goodness of her heart.She does not have an contract of any sort with Katelyn.Caleb held a grudge against Katelyn as a result of a business dispute.He wanted to find some way of hurting her.He therefore told Savannah that he would burn her house down if she continued to care for Katelyn.Caleb's plan backfired.Savannah told Katelyn of the threat, and together they reported Caleb to the police.He was convicted of a crime.Katelyn, however, also wants to sue him for the tort of intimidation.The claim in intimidation will fail because

Accepted Answer

The claim in intimidation will fail because intimidation requires the victim to give into the threat in some way, and Katelyn did not do so. Therefore, Caleb's threat did not result in the required element of harm to give rise to a claim in intimidation.

Question 5

Salvatore and Carolyn conducted lengthy negotiations that led to her purchase of his business.At the start of those negotiations, Salvatore made a number of statements regarding the business's profitability.Those statements were accurate when they were made.However, before the sale was finalized, the facts changed such that the earlier statements were no longer true.Salvatore knew of that change, but he intentionally did not provide Carolyn with the updated truthful information and allowed Carolyn to think that the previous, now untrue information, was the true information.Consequently, he may be held liable to her under the tort of deceit.

Accepted Answer

Salvatore intentionally withheld updated truthful information and allowed Carolyn to rely on outdated information, which constitutes the tort of deceit.

Question 6

Joel was injured while walking on Maureen's property.Under the statutory rules, it will generally be necessary for a court to determine Joel's precise status as a visitor before choosing the appropriate standard of care.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Joel was injured while walking on Maureen's...

Question 7

The tort of intimidation always requires proof that the defendant used a threat to cause a third party to act in a way that hurt the plaintiff.

Accepted Answer

Intimidation does not require proof that the defendant used a threat to cause a third party to act in a way that hurt the plaintiff.

Question 8

Jessica was injured while trespassing on Zach's land.Under the modified common law rules for occupiers' liability, a court will use the standard of common humanity in determining whether or not Zach exercised sufficient care with respect to a Jessica.

Accepted Answer

Under the modified common law rules for occupiers' liability, a court will use the standard of common humanity in determining whether or not an occupier exercised sufficient care with respect to a trespasser. Therefore, in this scenario, Zach's duty of care towards Jessica would be evaluated using the standard of common humanity.

Question 9

Juan entered into a contract with Makayla, under which he promised to add a solarium on to her house for $25 000.After starting the project, he threatened to abandon the job unless she agreed to pay him an additional $5000.Makayla did not agree to pay the additional $5000. Juan did not finish the work.Makayla wants to sue Juan for the tort of intimidation.Which of the following statements is TRUE?

Accepted Answer

Makayla did not give into the intimidation; therefore, the claim for the tort of intimidation will probably fail. Makayla should sue for breach of contract instead, as Juan breached the contract by not finishing the work.

Question 10

A person cannot be held liable for occupiers' liability unless he or she owned the premises upon which the plaintiff was injured.

Accepted Answer

A person who is in control or responsible for the condition of the premises, such as a tenant or occupier, can also be held liable for occupiers' liability, even if they do not own the premises.

Question 11

Sarah made several statements to John.Because he acted in reliance upon those statements, John suffered a loss.Assuming that the other elements of the tort are established, Sarah may be held liable for deceit as long as John proves that she carelessly failed to realize that her statements were false.

Accepted Answer

The last part of the statement is incorrect. In order for Sarah to be held liable for deceit, John would have to prove that Sarah knew her statements were false or made them recklessly without regard for their truth. Careless failure to realize the falsity of the statements would not be enough to establish liability for deceit.

Question 12

Jerome worked for Kerasic Corp.He left that job, however, when he received the promise of better pay from Goldshlager Inc.Goldshlager may be liable to Kerasic as long as, among other things, Goldshlager should have known that Jerome had a contract of employment with Kerasic.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Jerome worked for Kerasic Corp.He left that...

Question 13

Under the unlawful means tort, the plaintiff must prove, among other things, that the defendant committed a civilly actionable wrong against a third party.

Accepted Answer

This is correct. To establish the unlawful means tort, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant committed an unlawful act that caused harm to a third party. This can include acts such as breach of contract, interfering with business relations, or trespassing.

Question 14

Mohana visited Ian's home.She was injured when his pet wolverine escaped from its cage and bit her while she sat in his kitchen.Under the traditional approach to the tort of Rylands v Fletcher, Ian may be held liable to Mohana.

Accepted Answer

The tort of Rylands v Fletcher applies to non-natural use of land where something escapes and causes damage. A pet wolverine in a home does not typically constitute a non-natural use of land under this doctrine.

Question 15

During recent proceedings, a member of Parliament stood in the House of Commons and made an outrageously defamatory statement about the prime minister.The prime minister will not be able to successfully sue for the tort of defamation because the statement in question is protected by the defence of absolute privilege.

Accepted Answer

Members of Parliament have absolute privilege in the House of Commons, which means they cannot be sued for defamation for any statements made during parliamentary proceedings, including statements about the prime minister. This privilege is necessary to protect the freedom of speech and debate in Parliament.

Question 16

Alan had purchased all of his business supplies from Alpha Supplies Inc for almost two decades.He became angry with the company, however, after it refused to repair a widget that it had sold to him.Alan knew that the company was not legally obligated to do the repairs, but he believed that he should have received preferential treatment after so many years.He consequently switched all of his business to Omega Ltd.Alpha Supplies is devastated.It acknowledges that it did not have any contractual right to Alan's business, but it has proof that Alan knew that he accounted for nearly 75 percent of its sales and that his decision would force Alpha Supplies out of business.Now that it has indeed ceased to operate, Alpha Supplies wants to sue in tort.Which of the following statements is most likely to be TRUE?

Accepted Answer

Alan's decision to switch suppliers, even if motivated by a desire to harm Alpha Supplies, does not constitute a tort because customers generally have the right to choose their suppliers freely.

Question 17

An action for the tort of nuisance can succeed only if the plaintiff and the defendant occupied neighbouring pieces of land.

Accepted Answer

An action for the tort of nuisance does not strictly require that the plaintiff and defendant occupy neighboring pieces of land. Nuisance claims can also arise from non-adjacent properties or from activities that affect the plaintiff's enjoyment of their property, even if the source of the nuisance is not directly next to it.

Question 18

The defence of statutory authority applies only if a nuisance was the inevitable result of the defendant's performance of a statutorily authorized activity.

Accepted Answer

The defence of statutory authority can only be used by the defendant if the nuisance was an inevitable result of their statutorily authorized activity. If the nuisance was avoidable or could have been prevented with reasonable care, the defence of statutory authority will not apply.

Question 19

Emily was involved in a business dispute with Jacob.During a private conversation with Jacob, Emily threatened to spread a rumour that he was having an affair with her unless he agreed to sign a certain document.She knew that that rumour was entirely untrue, but she also knew that Jacob was afraid of upsetting his wife, who is very jealous.On the basis of those facts alone, which of the following statements is TRUE?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Emily was involved in a business dispute...

Question 20

Suki used her property in a way that interfered with the ability of her neighbour, Dick, to enjoy his property.If that interference is sufficiently severe, Suki may be held liable even if her actions in interfering with her neighbour's ability to enjoy his property were not unreasonable.

Accepted Answer

In tort law, specifically in nuisance claims, the interference must be both substantial and unreasonable for liability to be established.

Quiz 5: Miscellaneous Torts Affecting Business