Consider Criminal Liability Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Consider Criminal Liability - Case Study Example Similarly in the case of Jane, under s3 Theft Act 1968, she innocently or intentionally is keeping the money with her, however in the case of candles which Jane borrows refers to the s2 (1) (b) where Jane is not considered under Theft Act s 3 as she has borrowed them and is in intention to gave them back. (Harvey et al, 1998, p. 43) But then she uses the candles which comes under the case of an offence under the Theft Act 1968, where the property in question is recovered, any damage to the property occurring while it was out of the owner's possession shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (1) as having resulted from the offence, however and by whomsoever the damage was caused. This is similar to the case Jackson v. Horizon [1975]2 It is now possible to commit the crime of false pretences in many jurisdictions by borrowing money with the intent not to repay it. Receipt of the money satisfies the element of acquiring title. Though the borrower falsely promises to repay the loan, he engages in no deception about the external world that is subject to proof at the time of his act. His deception, if any, is about his plans for the future, and the best evidence of that is what he does when the debt falls due. Though the crime is technically committed at the time the loan is received, the critical evidence of liability is furnished by his failure to repay at some future time. (Fletcher, 2000, p. 11) Although the result of Jackson's case is sensible and probably correct, Lord Denning's reasoning has since been disapproved in the House of Lords in Woodar Investment Development Ltd v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd [1980] 1 All ER 571, [1980] 1 WLR 277, HL. As a rule of Law, Lush LJ as an insurance broker may sue on a contract which is made by him on behalf of the principal provided the contract gives him such a right and is no authority for the proposition required in Jackson's case 3. However if a person X made a contract for a sum of money to be paid to Y, X can, without notifying the loss he has suffered can sue for damages for non-payment of that sum which would certainly not be an established rule of law, nor was it quoted as such authority by Lord Pearce in Beswick v Beswick4. A similar view was expressed by Lord Russell. Whether the disapproval will make any difference in practice to the quantum of damages awarded in family holiday cases is unclear. A sympathetic judge might choose to place more emphasis on the distress of the contracting party in witnessing the family suffering. (Harvey et al, 1998, p. 44) Jane situation is critical as she receives 70.00 instead of 50.00. Under this situation the law states a person who receives a gift has no right of redress against the donor merely because the gift is of unmerchantable quality or does not correspond with the donor's description of it. The person receiving the gift may have a remedy in tort if the gift causes injury or damage which is attributable to negligence on the donor's part. But that is another matter: he has no remedy in contract against the donor for the simple reason that there is no contract between them. To the extent that the offer of worthless goods, without charge, as part of a sales promotion, is against the public