Compensation is the financial reward offered on behalf of authorised bodies such as councils or government after the execution of compulsory purchase powers to affected party known as claimant in the acquisition of their properties. However the evaluation and judgement concepts of compensation cases are based on specific and profound law binding ethics where each and every individual case are assessed in particularity.
Hence professional advices are therefore normally sought from both acquiring authorities and claimants where issues and concerns are dealt, negotiated and agreed in accordance to key elements of extensive law which covers compulsory purchase powers and compensation aspects, so Estate Ltd is entitled to compensation from the local authority. Research Ltd asked a large number of volunteers to test eat one of their new products, this new product had been contaminated with dangerous bacteria and 50 of the volunteers became seriously ill.
In this case the 50 volunteers can sue and make a claim for damages under personal injury claim in trot which covers physical or psychiatric harm, disease and illness raise problems not encountered with other, however in this case of research Ltd who got large number of volunteers there new product cause a seriously illness to the volunteers so there well be liable.
Its not so easy to calculate the value of a lost limb or permanent loss of general good health and even if it were money can never really compensate for such losses, even though personal injury cases may take years to come to trial, the degree of recovery to be expected may be still be unclear and new symptoms may not appear until years later. In some cases a statute may impose duties without men harm as a result of the breach of duty will try to sue in tort.
He could either sue in negligence or for the tort of breach of statutory duty. To show the latter he must show that parliament intended liability in tort to ensue, despite its not having mentioned such liability in the statute. Adam v Cape industries plc  CH 433, The Court of Appeal in Cape industries recognised that the rigid doctrine now espoused by the English courts differs markedly from that of the European Court of justice where a group of companies may be treated as a single economic entity.
Clearly, English courts applying EU law to groups of companies must follow the lead of the European Court of justice. The court of Appeal structured its new and more restrictive approach to lifting the veil of incorporation which will prevent the Parent companies liable for the debts of subsidiary companies.
In this case Healthy Eating Ltd is the parent company to Research Ltd which means Healthy Eating Ltd is not liable for Research Ltd debts and in this case research Ltd who got large number of volunteers there new product cause a seriously illness to the volunteers so there well be liable for the serious illness on the volunteers and the volunteers have every right to make a claim under personal injury in trot and get the compensation which they should get.
Healthy Eating Ltd contacted the company's solicitor Mr Brown of Brown, Black & Co, for investment advice. Mr Brown informed Robert of an investment scheme which Mr Brown stated provided very good returns and that everybody gets paid. Mr Brown also stated that he would ensure that the company's funds would be protected and that there was no risk to the money. At a later meeting Robert signed the investment agreement and an escrow agreement.
In this case Robert asked Mr Brown for an advice but Mr Brown as got a scheme of investment which turns out to be fraud, in the sense that Robert paid in 100,000 in to Brown, Black & Co hoping in six months time to get back 500,000 but the money was never seen or not even the 100,000 came back, this turns out to be fraud. Escrow agreement was made this means a settlement of payment, which mean they are prove of the money been paid in and an agreement was made, also their can make a claim for tort of deceit.
A company itself like Healthy Eating Ltd can sue for fraudulent statements made by those for whom it is vicariously responsible and those who are responsible for the prospectus, so long as they have knowledge of the Falsity of the statements made, are liable in deceit whether or not rescission of the allotment is obtained. ?it's for the claimant to prove the facts (whether in a claim or in a defence) that give rise to the fraud, including the state of mind of the person making the representation and reliance.
Such is the seriousness of allegations of dishonesty are treated, a court will look for persuasive evidence that the dishonest conduct is more likely than not. According, it is simply a question of having evidence of dishonesty, but convincing evidence of an intrinsic better quality proving the facts that the person making the misrepresentation did so with a guilty mind". Lord Hershell
In the case of Robert they have been a negligent misrepresentation by Brown, black & Co as well as it was also fraud. Misrepresentation Act 1967 states a person who has committed negligent misrepresentation he shall be so liable as if the misrepresentation had been made fraudulently. In the case of Royscot trust v Rogerson  3 All ER 294 was held Damages were awarded on the trot of deceit basis.
The finance company was therefore able to recover all losses which flowed from their having entered into the contract, even unforeseeable losses, as long as these were not too remote, as well as in this case Robert the managing director of Healthy Eat Ltd has every right to get all the money they paid into Brown Black, and their reward for this breach of contract should be them going back to the situation they were before this contract was signing just as was decided in the case just above.
Furthermore, in this case of Macnaghten in Gluckstein v Barnes  AC 240, if by a number of statements you intentionally give a false impression and induce a person to act upon it, it is no one the less false although if one takes each statement by itself there may be difficulty in showing that any specific statement is untrue.
Healthy Eat Ltd should make a claim under the trot of Deceit and in making this claim they should prove an Escrow agreement made to Brown, Black & Co as well as Healthy should prove an Escrow agent which is the bank to prove that the money was paid into Brown account, also some reward healthy Eat can get back is their 100,000 and compensation of any future loss it must have cause the company.
Bibliography and References
- Business Law Keenan and Riches' Apr 2009 Law for Business Students fifth edition Apr 2008 Essentials of Business Law Ewan MacIntyre2nd Edition Company Law Fundamental Principles 4th Edition www.gillhams.com