Question
The Wagan Mound Case
discusses:Solution
In order to calculate the damages remoteness test of directness was replaced with foreseeability in the Wagan Mound case. In this case a large quantity of oil was spilt into Sydney Harbour from the Wagon Mound and it drifted under the wharf where the claimants were oxyacetylene welding. The resulting fire caused extensive damage to the wharf and to vessels moored nearby. The Privy Council replaced the direct consequence test with the requirement that, in order to be recoverable, damage must be foreseeable in all the circumstances, thus, although pollution was a foreseeable consequence of the spillage, an outbreak of fire was not.
In a certain code language, if BAND is written 21144, how will LESS be written in the same language?
A, B, C, P, X, Y and Z are sitting around a circular table facing the centre (but not necessarily in the same order). Y sits third to the left of A. B s...
Which two numbers should be interchanged to make the given equation correct?
6 × 4 − (60 ÷ 5) + 15 + (33 ÷ 3)× 2 = 59
(Note: Inter...
Two statements are given followed by two conclusions numbered I and II. Assuming the statements to be true, even if they seem to be at variance with com...
Select the correct mirror image of the given figure when the mirror is placed at MN as shown.
In a certain code language, 'FORCE' is written as '641832' and 'MIST' is written as '1331920'. How will 'URANUS' be written in that language?
Select the figure from among the given options that can replace the question mark (?) in the following series and complete the pattern.
Select the correct mirror image of the given figure when the mirror is placed at MN as shown below.
Three statements in this question and three related conclusions have been given to them, assuming that the statements given in the statements to be true...
Relevant for Exams:
