Tuesday, July 4, 2023
Monday, July 3, 2023
Negligence Essay : A Laptop Recovery
1. Introduction
1.1. Problems with the computer. Dr.John Bown worked as a faculty in
a prestigious university in
1.2. A better computer. Dr.John Bown felt
desperate as a result of the technical problems with the laptop. He decided to purchase
the most expensive computer model of SONY VAIO, made in
1.3. Seeking a reasonable technical
service. For a workshop, he luckily
had to go
1.4. Unreasonable
solution for repaired shop. Then, his computer was delivered through Canada Post
two weeks later. He was sure with the result of the computer
repairs because he had taken it to the service
and explained the entire story based upon the
face to face communication. First, he looked at the receipt showing the
cost of their conduct ($180) that was the cost of
the battery change and their testing of computer
hardware, implied that nothing technically wrong.
Additionally, a four month warranty for the computer
repair was offered in the receipt. It seems
that they assured with a detailed receipt that
the computer was fully recovered. He opened the computer and expected it would
be ready to properly work. John had to wait several
hours and realized in the end that the same problem still existed with his
computer. This is a matter discussed below.
1.5. Solution based on a reasonable service.
Finally, John went to ask IT services of the
2. Negligence Analysis:
2.1. A
duty of care: Let’s take a look what
a duty of care means that is owed to foreseeable plaintiff in order to
prevent others from unreasonable risk of the economic loss. As a professional technical service of the Sony,
they have a duty to act as a reasonably prudent consultant in the same similar
circumstances. In this case, John Bown
will elaborate whether he can be qualified to be a foreseeable plaintiff. Since the mainly representative service of the
Sony VAIO is responsible to keep up the professional duty of care in
2.2. Breach
of that duty: Let’s overview the meaning of what the Breach is
that occurs when the defendant’s conduct/service falls
below the standard of care. In this case, John Bown will propose his arguments
in order to show that the Sony Services breached their duty standard of care
because they were granted as the only official service,
Since the problem is still over John Bown’s computer, it clearly shows that a
breach of their duty is presently available under the Foreseeability Test (FT)
that is related to find an answer for a question whether the problem would have
been solved by a reasonable person. The answer for raised question under the FT
is obviously positive since the technical staff of
2.3.
Causation: The fact that
defendant did not live up his responsibility, negligence, caused the Plaintiff
to be suffered with the same problems.
The promise of technical service appeared to be ironic because they
breached the standard of their care.
Therefore, they failed to conduct their regular works and promises for their
job. The reason for the damage is associated to a negligence of the
defendant under the availability of foreseeable test. Instead, they just replaced the battery
simply, that is just needed to use computer without plugging in, and did not
touch the real problem itself. Even they
demanded an advance, $ 50, for a diagnostic test but in the end, they were
failed to solve reported problem itself. The plaintiff was disappointed with
their failure in repairing problems and this caused him to be severely
depressed.
2.4. Damage:
The damage caused here is both physical and mental. There is a significant loss of time and
physical cost, due to fact that the John Bown could not perform his conduct on
his work due to the sustainable existence of the problem with his
computer. Additionally, another loss of
John Bown’s feeling is immeasurable because he was insulted to face up with
Sony’s negligence.
3. Conclusion
The authorized technical services of
any company are supposed to live up a good quality of services to meet the
standard of the customer’s satisfaction or keeping a standard of their
care. As a result, the cased story
discusses so far, both the negligence of the Sony service and Sony
Negligence Essay: A Car Accident
1. Introduction
It was very nice weekend; therefore, we decided to go to the remote area of the city for swimming. I was driving the car in the city, and I recognized the traffic signal and I pressed the brake pedal and stopped my car. After a while, I heard that the car behind me severely smashed my car and caused a significant fear for all my family in the car as much as a certain damage on the back of my car. It was the first car accident I have ever had in my life. Thus, I did not know how to react and how to approach the person who damaged my car. I got out of the car, and recognized that there was a long left trace of the tires , say 20 meters, over the road because the driver was appeared to be speeding and careless in following the front car. The driver got out of the car, and approached me to ask, “Is this your first accident?” I said, “yes”. I understood that the driver had previous history of car accidents. Then, we called the police, and they prepared a report of the accident an hour later. I asked the police how to recover my damage because I was innocent. I was informed that the damage would have been recovered by the car insurance of the driver; therefore, I had to find a car repair shop for getting my car repaired together with the police inspection report.
1.2. Insurance: I found a car shop and left my car for a couple of days under the recommendation of my uncle, who was a police officer during the accident. The car repairer informed me that he would have nothing to repair unless the inspector of the insurance company completes the report of the car accident. Therefore, I had taken my car back one week later.
2. Negligence Analysis:
2.1. A
duty of care: Let’s take a look what
a duty of care means that is owed to foreseeable
plaintiff in order to prevent others from unreasonable risk of the economic
loss. As a professional driver, he has a
duty to act as a reasonably prudent driver in the same similar
circumstances. In this case, I will
elaborate whether I can be qualified to be a foreseeable plaintiff.
2.2. Breach
of that duty: Let’s review the breach that occurs when the defendant’s conduct falls below the standard of care
during his driving. In this case, I will propose my arguments in order to show
that the driver breached his standard of care because he was driving very fast
more than he was allowed to speed up (say more than 60 km/h); therefore, he was
unable to stop and ultimately crashed my car.
Hence, the report of the police showed he was fully responsible for the
car accident.
It clearly
shows that a breach of his duty is presently available under the Foreseeability
Test (FT) that is used to find an answer for a question whether the crash would
have not been conducted by a reasonable driver. The answer for raised question under the FT
is obviously positive since he was charged to be fully responsible by police
inspection of the car damage.
2.3.
Causation: The fact that
defendant did not live up his responsibility, negligence, caused a damage of my car and caused me not to use my
car at least for one week. Additionally,
he damaged the weekend plan of my family as much as he caused us to be
significantly afraid with a sudden car smash.
2.4. Damage: The damage caused here is both physical and mental. There is a significant loss of time even we have no physical damage since I was not able to use my car from my home to work; I had to waste my time due to fact that I had to use public transportation. In the meantime, the originality of my car was broken due to fact that some parts of my car were changed.
3. Conclusion
We have been significantly afraid
due to a sudden car crash, and I was unable to use my car as much as that my
car had a certain damage. Therefore, the
negligence of the driver owed me a duty of care that need being compensated.
NOT: 14 Haziran 2010 tarihinde, Kanada'da İŞ HUKUKU dersi kapsamında hazırladığım ESSAY. Risk Yönetimi ve Sigortacılık Diploma Programı kapsamında almam gereken bir dersti, oldukça zor geçen bir ders oldu.
Jeofizik Tehlikeler ve Gayrimenkul Risk
Jeofizik Tehlikelere karşı bütünleşik risk inceleme yapılarak, gerçek anlamda Gayrimenkul Değerleme yapılabilir. Gayrimenkul Değerleme raporlarında Jeofizik Tehlikeler esas alınmalı, ancak bu şekilde risk odaklı değer ve eder dengesi ortaya çıkarılabilir.
Kaya Zemin'de Güvenli Yaşam!
Sunday, July 2, 2023
The Cost of Staying True: The Struggle Between Humanity and Conscience 🌿
"It doesn't matter how good a person you are; you will be seen as the worst person the moment you make your first mistake." 📜...
-
Dünya'nın yüzeyi, yer kabuğundaki sürekli hareketler ve sıcaklık değişimleri nedeniyle sürekli olarak değişir. Bu değişimler, levha tekt...
-
17 Ağustos 2016'da veda etmek zorunda kaldığım İstanbul Üniversitesi Cerrahpaşa Üniversitesi Jeofizik Mühendisliği Bölümü'ne bugün, ...
-
Dünya'nın Tükenmeyen Hikayesinde Gezinirken: Artan Depremler Son yıllarda Dünya'nın deprem aktivitesinde belirgin bir artış gözlemle...