Date of publication: 2017-07-08 17:19
A second connection between private and public nuisance occurs where the invasion of the claimant's interest arises from the defendant adopting or continuing a nuisance that was begun by a third party: the rules on who is deemed to be responsible for such an interference are the same.
With the aid of case law, discuss and evaluate the current legal ingredients of a contract. To answer this question you should examine the concepts of: invitation to treat, offer, acceptance and consideration.
Another important point to consider in nuisance is the character of the neighborhood as well as the type of interference caused. If a physical damage is caused, there is less tolerance.
A key difference between private and public nuisance law is that private nuisance is brought by the person directly affected. In contrast, public nuisance is by persons in the group affected and hence the action can be more extensive.
In the case of Butler Machine Tool Co. Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corporation (England) Ltd  6 All ER 965, Lord Denning stated: "In many cases our traditional analysis of offer, counter offer, rejection, acceptance and so forth is out of date. The better way is to look at all the documents passing between the parties and glean from them or from the conduct of the paties, whether they have reached agreement on all material points.
However, the decision from case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company  6 QB 756 from Court of Appeal can create that a situation that advertisement can be an offer, where the statement is a conditional promise, a unilateral offer. For example, if someone put an advert offering award for finding a lost dog. In Carlill case, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company offered £ 655 reward to anyone who used their product (smoke ball) and then contracted influenza. The claimant bought the ball and usied as directed but then caught influenza. It was held by Court of Appeal that this advert is an offer of a unilateral contract, not an invitation to treat.
(e) the provision and maintenance of a working environment for his employees that is, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe, without risks to health, and adequate as regards facilities and arrangements for their welfare at work.
occupancy duty and activity duty. The common law of occupier's liability, with its distinctions between licensees, invitees, trespassers and the like, was limited to application todangers due to the state of the premises, sometimes known as occupancy duties. 6957 Act essentially preserves this distinction and hence its scope is limited to the general area of occupancy duties.