There are two separate questions here, it seems to me.
First: are law enforcement officers required to respect your house rules and avoid making a mess? At least in the United States, the answer is unequivocally no. If the only "damage" suffered is that you need to sweep the floor, or put your clothes back in drawers, that's not the police's problem. You ...
What remedies are therein the United States? I would imagine that the
witness could be prosecuted for perjury. My guess is that the
plaintiff could prosecute the witness for the lost damages. Are there
any other remedies like reopening the original trial or declaring a
mistrial so that the plaintiff could sue the (deep-pocketed)
defendant, or would ...
The officers could incur liability under 28 U.S.C. 2680 (h) with jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1346 (b). This would probably be considered "loss of property" or a "wrongful act".
It is very rare for cases to go forward for this because of the costs of litigation against an officer.
"[I]t is well recognized that ‘officers executing search warrants on ...
TL;DR: No. But maybe there should be.
Here is a Law Review article addressing the sub-question: Does the Fifth Amendment Mandate Compensation When Property is Damaged During the Course of Police Activities?
The author concludes that in practice the remedies offered seem to fall short of the Constitutional mandate:
The Fifth Amendment of the United ...
But even then, to my understanding, a contract can't prohibit a party
from seeking legal remedies.
You are mistaken. A contract settling a bona fide dispute regarding people's legal rights can mutually (or unilaterally for that matter) release or waive their legal rights. In fact, a waiver or release of rights is routinely a part of a settlement agreement....
Rather than saying "for Project®" which might fairly be interpreted to indicate an affiliation with Microsoft, you ought to say something like "intended to be compatible with Project® (not affiliated with or endorsed by Microsoft)."
can you imagine a worse scenario than Microsoft sending a Cease and
Desist notice? In that case, I can imagine re-branding ...
Under 17 USC 504(b),
The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered
by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the
infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken
into account in computing the actual damages.
Plaintiff has to establish gross revenues, then defendant has to ...
The judgement actually gives reasons:
The criminal law insists that every person driving a car must attain an objective standard measured by a skilled, experienced and careful driver. That is shown by McCrone v Riding ... the
standard is an objective standard, impersonal and universal, fixed in relation to the safety of other users of the ...
Defamation is a tort1
It has all the remedies available to any tort. The typical ones sought are damages and an injunction requiring the defamer to issue an apology.
Of course, the parties are free to agree on any restitution they like in alternative dispute resolution.
1It can also be crime in many jurisdictions. either generally or in specific ...
"Quasi contracts" and "contracts implied in law" largely refer to the same thing, as far as I'm aware. For example,
The law recognizes two distinct types of implied contracts; namely, contracts implied in fact and contracts implied in law, commonly referred to as quasi contracts...
Paschall's, Inc. v. Dozier 219 Tenn. 45, 53 (Tenn. 1966);
The ‘clean hands’ doctrine only applies to equitable remedies, not remedies at law.
Breaking confidence is, in this case, breach of an implied term of a contract. It is also a tort and this might be argued as well. Both of these are legal, not equitable, remedies. When you bring an action at law rather than at equity your hands can be as filthy as you like. ...
It is a breach. It is a mistake. The contract is not voidable based on the mistake, because it is a unilateral mistake and the breaching party bore the risk of that mistake.
Pete can sue for damages: either restitution (a refund) or expectancy (the market price of the CD).
tl;dr: The courts have tended to sharply limit attempts to characterize the reasonable or ordinary person as having particular caveats (age and gender are notable exceptions).
As an example, drawn from provocation, consider:
State v. Kilmas, 94 Wis. 2d 288 (1979) (in which the court declined to define an ordinary person with psychological issues)
Regina v. ...
Why is this so?
Because that is the law.
When you have a duty, the standard you are held to is that of a reasonable person in that circumstance. For a driver, that is a qualified, competent and prudent driver; if you don't behave as one then you have prima facie failed to discharge the duty.
Note that this standard applies equally regardless of experience ...