STATEMENT RELIEF UPON AS CONVEYING INTENTION

TOPIC OF THE DAY

- THE STATEMENT OF INTENTION OR OPINION

- WHAT WE MEAN BY THAT THE DEFENDANT INTENDED THE PLAINTIFF TO RELY ON THE STATEMENT

- WHAT WE MEAN BY THAT THE PLAINTIFF RELIED ON THE INFORMATION

THE STATEMENT OF INTENTION OR OPINION

The statement of intention or opinion refers to an expression of one's planned actions or subjective beliefs. It can be found in various legal contexts, such as contracts, where parties may declare their intentions or opinions regarding the terms or performance of the agreement. While not always legally binding, such statements can provide insight into the parties' understanding and expectations. The validity and enforceability of these statements may depend on factors such as clarity, specificity, and the surrounding circumstances.

WHAT WE MEAN BY THAT THE DEFENDANT INTENDED THE PLAINTIFF TO RELY ON THE STATEMENT

This referrs to the concept of "reasonable reliance" in legal terms. This means that the defendant made a statement or took an action knowing that the plaintiff would likely rely on it. In legal cases, this principle often arises in contract law and fraud cases. See the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893) where the defendant company offered a reward for anyone who contracted influenza after using their product according to the instructions. The court held that the company intended for the public to rely on their advertisement and, therefore, was bound to fulfill the promise. Also, section 90 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts stated that a promise may be enforced if the promisor should reasonably expect the promise to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee, and such action or forbearance is foreseeable.

WHAT WE MEAN BY THAT THE PLAINTIFF RELIED ON THE INFORMATION

This is a situation where the plaintiff acted or refrained from acting based on the information provided by the defendant. This reliance is crucial in various legal contexts, such as contract law and tort law. See the case of Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928) where the plaintiff was injured by falling scales caused by a distant explosion. The court held that there was no liability because the plaintiff's injuries were not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant. Also, section 90 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts emphasizes the significance of reliance, stating that a promise may be enforced if the promisee's reliance on the promise was foreseeable to the promisor.