Sentences with phrase «reasonable people in»

If one approaches the question by reference to what the parties would have agreed, one is not strictly concerned with the hypothetical answer of the actual parties, but with that of notional reasonable people in the position of the parties at the time at which they were contracting.

Does it offend and alienate reasonable people in the skeptics» camp?

It's time for reasonable people in animal welfare to separate themselves from the corrupt and radical fringe and bring respect and legitimacy back to their cause.

But reasonable people in the know convinced me we would be doing the wrong thing by buying these dogs.

You'd think this was a case of 1000 people rioting with an unplanned break out of reasonable people in response (1/4 million reasonable people).

, we should ask «what would reasonable people in the real world do?».

The only way Santorum gets elected is if the majority of reasonable people in this country just decide not to vote.

Reasonable people in the middle, believers and non-believers can politely argue their case and respect each others position without having to adopt it.

Beyond the shared repugnant experiences of these Miss Ghana Beauty Queens, every reasonable person in Ghana would agree that, asking young vulnerable women to move from one office to another begging for 10,000 dollars or 10,000 GHS each month in a country where «men at the top» are extensively sexually exploitative clearly suggests one thing — which is, money has always been placed ahead of the interest of these young girls by those requiring them to do so.

Is three still any reasonable person in the crooked pdp?

In a more conventional film, the police chief called out in those billboards would be Villain No. 1, but Harrelson's Chief Bill Willoughby, starched uniform and all, might be the most sane and reasonable person in the entire movie.

The owner, owner's employee, or an agent, should have had knowledge of the dangerous condition because any reasonable person in that position would have had that knowledge and would have removed, repaired, or remediated that dangerous condition.

While the plaintiff, subjectively, may have believed that the employer would find him to be a suitable employee, a reasonable person in those circumstances would also have understood that that might not happen.

The correct approach was to consider the reaction to the injury of a reasonable person in the objective circumstances of the claimant.

In Adams, it was held that constructive knowledge was likely to be deemed at the point where a reasonable person in the claimant's position would have considered the disease serious enough to be curious about its causes and origins and would have sought medical and / or expert advice.

a reasonable person in the [employee's] position would not have considered himself to have been constructively dismissed when the bonus on the sale of the Ellersie lands was refused.

The plaintiff must prove that the defendant failed to behave with the level of care that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have exercised, or violated a law or statute (negligence per se).

At the second step, the court must consider whether a reasonable person in the employee's situation would consider the employer's unilateral change to have substantially altered the employment contract.

In the case of R. v. Roy, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the trial judge erred in law by inferring from the fact that Roy had committed a dangerous act while driving that his conduct displayed a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the circumstances.

Mitigation involves taking steps that any reasonable person in a similar situation would take to find comparable employment and to accept that employment if it becomes available.

28 In my view, it can not be inferred from the conversation that Mr. Ekman regarded the officer's statement as constituting «legal advice», or that a reasonable person in his position would so regard it.

This requirement only exists if the temporary re-employment offered is similar to the employee's former role of employment and if a reasonable person in the employee's situation would likely accept the employment.

It remains necessary to ask what it is that a reasonable person in the position of this defendant ought to have done in response to the risk they could foresee.

Thus, although an objective standard must be used to evaluate whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have accepted the employer's offer (Reibl v. Hughes, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 880), it is extremely important that the non-tangible elements of the situation — including work atmosphere, stigma and loss of dignity, as well as nature and conditions of employment, the tangible elements — be included in the evaluation.

In civil medical negligence cases, the jury must determine whether the defendant acted as a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would act.

To determine whether the implied representations arose, the court considered what a reasonable person in the position and with the known characteristics of PAG would have inferred from RBS's words and conduct taken in context.

In this Court's opinion, a reasonable person in Plaintiff's place would not foresee that the statements on the website would be interpreted as a serious expression of an intent to harm or kill anyone listed on the website.

As well, the driver must show that a reasonable person in the circumstances of the pedestrian would have taken and succeeded in actions which would have avoided impact with the driver's car: Olesik v. Mackin (23 February 1987), Vancouver B860365 (S.C.); Pinto v. Rana, [1993] B.C.J. No. 1312 (S.C.).

The test of materiality is whether in the circumstances of the particular case, a reasonable person in the client's position would be likely to attach significance to the risk, or the professional is or should be aware that the particular individual would be likely to attach significance to it.

Courts must consider whether a reasonable person in the employee's circumstances would believe the employer to be acting in good faith to protect a legitimate business interest or whether that reasonable person would believe that the employer was expressing an intention to break free of the employment agreement.

The test, I believe, is objective: it is whether the conduct of the manager was such that a reasonable person in the circumstances should not be expected to persevere in the employment.

At that point, you'll need to convince Administrative Patent Judges that you're the most reasonable person in the room and what you've said throughout the IPR «just makes sense.»

The duty to «act reasonably», in seeking and accepting alternate employment, can not be a duty to take such steps as will reduce the claim against the defaulting former employer, but must be a duty to take such steps as a reasonable person in the dismissed employee's position would take in his own interests — to maintain his income and his position in his industry, trade or profession.

If there has been a breach, the second step requires the court to determine whether a reasonable person in the same situation as the employee would view the breach as substantially altering an essential term of the contract.

(3) The day on which a predecessor or agent first ought to have known of the matters referred to in clause 5 (1)(a) is the day on which a reasonable person in the predecessor's or agent's circumstances and with the predecessor's or agent's abilities first ought to have known of them.

Reasonably is an objective standard applied by the courts as to what a reasonable person in the defendant / plaintiffs position would do and depends on the state of statute law, case law and community law of the time.

The standard is what the perception of a «reasonable person» would be, considering the perspective of both a reasonable person in the applicant's position and in the respondent's position.

In most cases, breach is shown by proving that the person failed to act as a reasonable person in that situation would have acted.

Finally, the tests identified in this article, including those where there has been an implied affirmation or termination will rest on the facts of the individual case and by looking at all the circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable person in the position of the innocent party.

The standard is practically the same, and it simply asks how a reasonable person in that situation would respond to that kind of treatment.

Before holding that a person's standard of care has fallen below the objective standard expected and so finding that he acted negligently, the court must be satisfied that a reasonable person in the position of the defendant (ie the person who caused the incident) would contemplate that injury is likely to follow from his acts or omissions.

Second, Ontario contends that the trial judge erred in law in finding that it breached the standard of care because there was no evidence a reasonable person in the 1960s would have foreseen the risk a deposit of waste material 60 feet away would contaminate the well water and cause harm to animals.

Lord Justice Aikens adopted the same analysis: «Before holding that a person has acted negligently so as to be liable in an action for negligence, the court must be satisfied that a reasonable person in the position of the defendant (ie the person who caused the accident) would contemplate that injury is likely to follow from his acts or omissions.

• «Once it has been objectively established that a breach has occurred, the court must turn to the second step of the analysis and ask whether, «at the time the (breach occurred), a reasonable person in the same situation as the employee would have felt that the essential terms of the employment contract were being substantially changed» (Farber, at para. 26).

When answering our specific questions that are relevant to our decision whether to accept the risk of the insurance and, if so, on what terms, you must be honest and disclose to us anything that you know and that a reasonable person in the circumstances would include in answer to the questions.

Note: A person reasonably fears for, or reasonably is apprehensive about, his or her personal wellbeing or safety in particular circumstances if a reasonable person in those circumstances would fear for, or be apprehensive about, his or her personal wellbeing or safety.

Note: A person reasonably fears for, or reasonably is apprehensive about, his or her personal well - being or safety in particular circumstances if a reasonable person in those circumstances would fear for, or be apprehensive about, his or her personal well - being or safety.

Not exact matches

The irony lies in what is a now - accepted principle of digital goods: that when they are made easily available at a reasonable price, people usually end up willing to pay for them.

It is not inconsistent — in fact, it is wholly reasonable — to say that some people (people guilty of multiple child murders for example) absolutely «deserve to die,» but at the same time to say that the state shouldn't be trusted with the discretion to hand out that sentence.

When you're chasing after customers, trying to get some revenue — any revenue — in the door, catering to the needs of the people writing the checks seems perfectly reasonable.