Sentences with phrase «criminal liability purposes»

Parliament has, for criminal liability purposes, set out a distinct test as to what acts can be ascribed directly to the corporation.

Not exact matches

You will not, and will not allow or authorize others to, use the Services or the Sites to take any actions that: (i) infringe on any third party's copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other proprietary rights or rights of publicity or privacy; (ii) violate any applicable law, statute, ordinance or regulation (including those regarding export control); (iii) are defamatory, trade libelous, threatening, harassing, invasive of privacy, stalking, harassment, abusive, tortuous, hateful, discriminatory based on race, ethnicity, gender, sex or disability, pornographic or obscene; (iv) interfere with or disrupt any services or equipment with the intent of causing an excessive or disproportionate load on the Animal League or its licensors or suppliers» infrastructure; (v) involve knowingly distributing viruses, Trojan horses, worms, or other similar harmful or deleterious programming routines; (vi) involve the preparation and / or distribution of «junk mail», «spam», «chain letters», «pyramid schemes» or other deceptive online marketing practices or any unsolicited bulk email or unsolicited commercial email or otherwise in a manner that violate the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN - SPAM Act of 2003); (vii) would encourage conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, federal or international laws, rules or regulations; (viii) involve the unauthorized entry to any machine accessible via the Services or interfere with the Sites or any servers or networks connected to the Sites or disobey any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the Sites, or attempt to breach the security of or disrupt Internet communications on the Sites (including without limitation accessing data to which you are not the intended recipient or logging into a server or account for which you are not expressly authorized); (ix) impersonate any person or entity, including, without limitation, one of the Animal League's or other's officers or employees, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity; (x) forge headers or otherwise manipulate identifiers in order to disguise the origin of any information transmitted through the Sites; (xi) collect or store personal data about other Animal League members, Site users or attempt to gain access to other Animal League members information, or otherwise mine information about Animal League members, Site users, or the Sites; (xii) execute any form of network monitoring or run a network analyzer or packet sniffer or other technology to intercept, decode, mine or display any packets used to communicate between the Sites» servers or any data not intended for you; (xiii) attempt to circumvent authentication or security of any content, host, network or account («cracking») on or from the Sites; or (xiv) are contrary to the Animal League's public image, goodwill, reputation or mission or otherwise not in furtherance of the Animal Leagues stated purposes.

Notwithstanding criminal prosecution, if you deliver or attempt to deliver any damaging code to this website, whether on purpose or negligently, you indemnify and hold TravelGround.com harmless, without limitation, against any and all losses, liabilities and damages which TravelGround.com may suffer as a result of such delivery, attempt or damaging code.

It was relevant that the statement, and supplementary statement, of objections had been issued and Tesco was contesting the allegations, that the OFT was determining Tesco's liability for a potential breach of the Competition Act and Tesco faced the possibility of a significant fine as a result, and that the proceedings were regarded as criminal for the purposes of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The purpose of this article is to discuss instances in which negligent conduct is criminal, the problems associated with prosecuting medical negligence, and the reasons why civil liability should ultimately be the sole legal system for resolving medical negligence.

To date, three of the four DPAs secured in the United Kingdom have not faced any difficult application of corporate criminal liability: Standard Bank plc related to the strict liability offence of failing to prevent bribery under section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010; XYZ Ltd applied to a small company in which the directing mind and will was easily identified; Rolls - Royce related to the strict liability offence of failing to prevent bribery as well as substantive offences of bribery and corruption involving, on the facts as admitted by Rolls - Royce for the purposes of the DPA, controlling minds of the company.

Examples of such cases are Chandler v Cape Plc [2011] EWHC 951 (QB)(liability of non-employer for exposure to asbestos), Kynixa Ltd v Hynes and others [2008] EWHC 1495 (QB)(claims arising from alleged breaches of restrictive covenants in employment contracts), Romantiek BVBA v Simms [2008] EWHC 3099 (QB) a claim alleging that a public official had committed the tort of misfeasance in public office when discharging a licensing function, OOO and others v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [20011] EWHC 1246 (QB)(claims by young foreign females that they had been trafficked into the UK by foreign nationals for the purpose of slavery and that officers of the Metropolitan Police Force breached their human rights in failing to investigate their complaints adequately or at all) and Mouncher and others v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2016] EWHC 1367 (QB)(claims by retired and serving police officers for false imprisonment, misfeasance in public office and malicious prosecution against South Wales Police arising from an investigation by officers of that force into alleged criminal conduct on the part of the claimants during the course of an investigation into a notorious murder in South Wales.

Eventually, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that certain provisions of the MMAR were contrary to the rights to liberty and security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter, as they failed to provide reasonable access to a legal source of supply of marihuana for medical purposes, required some applicants to have the support of two specialists to establish medical need (depending on the nature of their illness), and exposed those in need of medical marihuana to criminal liability if they could not comply with the MMAR (see Hitzig v. Canada (2003), 231 D.L.R. (4th) 104, 2003 CanLII 30796 (ON C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [2004] S.C.C.A. No. 5).

Possible issues include intellectual property, product liability, and use for criminal purposes.

User represents, warrants and covenants that (a) they will use the Web Site for lawful purposes only (b) no materials of any kind submitted through their account which (i) violate or infringe in any way upon the rights of others, (ii) are unlawful, threatening, abusive, defamatory, vulgar, obscene or profane in the sole discretion of DriveSafeToday.com, Inc., (iii) encourage conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any law, or (iv) contains any advertising or solicitation with respect to products or services (without the express prior written approval of DriveSafeToday.com, Inc.).