Lahore University of Management Sciences

Criminal Charges: Manzoor could face criminal charges for negligence or reckless endangerment due to the aggressive behavior of his dog. This could result in fines or imprisonment. give all remedies under strict liability

li is a 8-year old boy who lives with his family in a residential Neighborhood next door to Manzoor . Manzoor owns a vicious bull tarrier dog, which is usually kept chained outdoors at his residence. The chain is fifteen feet in length and attached to a large metal rod hammered into the ground. On several different Occasions persons, adults and children alike, have entered onto Manzoor's property and, approaching too close, have been bitten by the Manzoor dog. Manzoor knows of his dog Bull tarrier Aggressiveness; in fact, he keeps Bull tarrier as a watchdog to keep people off his property. Manzoor has posted signs warning passersby that Bull tarrier will attack anyone coming into the property. Ali has never been bitten by the Bull tarrier. Ali has been warned by his parents not to get near bull tarrier because bull tarrier is likely to bite him. One rainy day Manzoor chained bull tarrier in the usual way before leaving for work. Manzoor noticed that the rain had soaked the ground and made it quite soft. Later in the day, thinking that Manzoor was at work, Ali began teasing Bull tarrier. Ali stood on the sidewalk not on Manzoor's property about ten feet beyond the Reach of Bull tarrier chain. Ali yelled, waved his arms, and made faces at Bull tarrier. Bull tarrier began lunging at Ali. Finally, the force of Bull tarrier pulled out the rod from the wet, rain-soaked ground. Dragging his chain, Bull tarrier chased Ali, caught him, and bit him several times, inflicting wounds which required approximately thirty Stitches to close. explain all possible remedies include in this scenerio in detail

In August 2001, Sprocket Ltd entered into a contract with Quikclean Ltd, under whichQuikclean agreed to provide cleaning services at Sprocket’soffice premises for a period of fiveyears. The cleaning was to take place each day, between 7 pm and 9 pm. The contract stated inclause 8 that: ‘In the event of Quikclean’s failure to clean all offices as required, Sprocket Ltdwill be entitled to terminate the contract with immediate effect.’ On 10 occasions betweenAugust 2001 and July 2002, Quikclean’s cleaners failed to turn up to clean Sprocket’s offices.Quikclean blamed this on a staffing problem, and claimed in July 2002 that the problem had nowbeen solved. On 9 August 2002 Sprocket found that the managing director’s office had not beencleaned, although all the other offices had been. Sprocket thereupon purported to terminateQuikclean’s contract, relying on clause 8. Advise Quikclean on Termination under the DCFR. give me all possible remedies involved in this case.

In August 2001, Sprocket Ltd entered into a contract with Quikclean Ltd, under whichQuikclean agreed to provide cleaning services at Sprocket’soffice premises for a period of fiveyears. The cleaning was to take place each day, between 7 pm and 9 pm. The contract stated inclause 8 that: ‘In the event of Quikclean’s failure to clean all offices as required, Sprocket Ltdwill be entitled to terminate the contract with immediate effect.’ On 10 occasions betweenAugust 2001 and July 2002, Quikclean’s cleaners failed to turn up to clean Sprocket’s offices.Quikclean blamed this on a staffing problem, and claimed in July 2002 that the problem had nowbeen solved. On 9 August 2002 Sprocket found that the managing director’s office had not beencleaned, although all the other offices had been. Sprocket thereupon purported to terminateQuikclean’s contract, relying on clause 8. Advise Quikclean on Termination under the DCFR