Posts Tagged ‘McCanns: A penny for your thoughts’

McCanns: A penny for your thoughts

January 30, 2010

McCanns: A penny for your thoughts

Tort law is a body of law that addresses, and provides remedies for, civil wrongs not arising out of contractual obligations“.

It goes onto say: “A person who suffers legal damages may be able to use tort law to receive compensation from someone who is legally responsible, or liable, for those injuries”.

A person needs to show a judge that he/she has personally suffered a loss to bring an action into court. Sometimes a judge may only award nominal damages to the claimant, for example, one penny. By the same token, legal damage suffered can be as little as one penny.

The plan is this. I intend to donate the sum of one penny to the ‘Madeleine’s Fund : Leaving No Stone Unturned’. Then I can claim that I have legitimately suffered by the McCanns fraud, and take the matter into court.

In simple terms, fraud occurs when somebody makes a misrepresentation of material fact, in order to obtain action or forebearance by another person, where the other person relies upon the misrepresentation and suffers injury as a result of the act or forebearance taken in reliance upon the misrepresentation. In most fraud cases, there is active misrepresentation by the defendant. In some, the misrepresentation occurs through the defendant’s silence on a key issue”.

“A material fact is a fact which, if known, would have affected the judgment of one or more of the parties to a transaction. In an action for fraud, a material fact must be of sufficient importance to the matter that a reasonable person would have been likely to rely on it. A material fact cannot be an opinion, belief, prediction, or speculation, and typically must relate to something in the past or present that can be proved or disproved”.

“Within the context of fraud, reliance means that plaintiff would not have taken the particular action which underlies the fraud action (e.g., would not have entered into a contract with the defendant), had the defendant had not made the representation, promise or created the false impression, even if the representation, promise, or false impression was not the only reason for plaintiff’s action”.

“To establish fraud, a plaintiff typically has the burden of proving each of the following elements:

*

The defendant made a representation of one or more material facts;
*

The representation was false when it was made;
*

The defendant knew the representation was false when the defendant made it, or defendant made it recklessly (i.e., without knowing whether or not it was true);
*

The defendant made the representation with the intention that the plaintiff rely upon it;
*

The plaintiff relied upon the representation; and
*

The plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the reliance“.

This is an interesting bit of info…

[i]t would…be a grave lacuna in our system of public law if a pressure group…or even a single public sprited taxpayer, were prevented by outdated technical rules of locus standi from bringing the matter to the attention of the court to vindicate the rule of law and get the unlawful conduct stopped.

Advertisements