留学论文代写：物权法案例研究
该测量师是由贷款人委任，为贷款人的买方客户测量住宅物业。由于测量员没有在报告中包括关于损坏屋顶的信息，这是一种疏忽行为，可能会对贷款人和买方购买房屋的能力造成严重的估价差异。测量师的疏忽是一种侵权行为，如果买方后来购买并发现损坏的屋顶，他们有责任提出索赔。他们还可以要求贷款方降低估价，因为贷款方曾通过任命测量员间接参与交易。买方有权向贷款行和验船师索赔由此造成的损失。如果他们之前没有做过购买决定并且发现了，那么他们可以选择取消购买决定或者要求重新评估住宅物业。因此，鉴定人应对过失侵权行为承担责任，并对贷款人和买方所遭受的损失承担责任。
案例研究2
艾米决定在她的花园后院自己种蔬菜，这是她的权利，除非它不伤害任何其他邻居，给他们造成任何麻烦。此外，只有当法律规定自己种植蔬菜是可取的，才允许种植蔬菜。如果国家法律规定这是允许的，那么艾米就有权自己种蔬菜，并使用合理的方法来种植，而不会给邻居带来麻烦。艾米还带了许多小鸡和公鸡，它们在她的花园里自由地漫步，发出各种各样的叫声。这种噪音对隔壁邻居谢尔盖来说有点麻烦，因为他不能在花园里自由走动，有一天早上6点突然被吵醒。这是对谢尔盖的妨害行为妨害侵权行为适用于艾米她带来了这些动物这些动物制造了很多噪音干扰了谢尔盖。
考虑到艾米已经把鸡和公鸡带进了她的花园，这是一个直接的麻烦，因为她知道这些动物会制造噪音，这可能是一个讨厌的邻居除了谢尔盖。如果英国物权法允许，艾米有权在她的花园里种蔬菜。考虑到这是允许的，她已经做了合法的事情，遵守法律。然而，她把鸡和小公鸡带进来的行为很容易给邻居带来麻烦。不可否认，艾米不知道鸡和公鸡发出的噪音，这是对邻居的一种侵权行为。艾米要对谢尔盖造成的麻烦负责，他不能在她的花园里散步，因为小鸡和公鸡在制造噪音。此外，谢尔盖有权要求对她造成的精神伤害，以及她能向艾米证明的任何其他伤害。艾米使用的化肥的气味也使谢尔盖失去了活动能力，因为他不能在她的花园里自由漫步。这是艾米造成的麻烦，因此谢尔盖不得不把他的门窗大部分时间都关着。艾米是承担责任的原因讨厌谢尔盖和她有责任履行侵权损害下的损害赔偿,因为她一直缺乏注意义务,故意造成麻烦与她知识噪声是一个讨厌的邻居。
留学论文代写：物权法案例研究
The surveyor had been appointed by the lender to survey a residential property for a purchaser client of the lender. Since the surveyor has missed to include the information about a damaged roof in the report, it is a negligent behaviour and can cause severe valuation difference to the lender and the purchaser’s ability to purchase the house. The negligence of the surveyor is a tort and is liable to be claimed against by the purchaser if they purchase and find about the damaged roof later. They can also claim reduction in valuation from the lender as it had been vicariously involved in the transaction by being the appointee of the surveyor.The purchasers have the full right of claiming the losses incurred by them from the lender and the surveyor. If they have not made a purchase decision and find out before, then they have the choice of cancelling the purchase decision or requesting a reassessment of the residential property. Thus, the surveyor is held liable for the tort of negligence and is liable for the losses incurred by the lender and the purchaser.
Case study 2
Amy has decided to grow her own vegetables in her garden backyard and this is her right to do so, unless it does not harm any other neighbours and causes any kind of nuisance to them. Also, it is permissible only when the law states that it is advisable under law to grow one’s own vegetables. If the country law is stating that it is permissible, then Amy has the right to grow her own vegetables and use reasonable means to conduct it without causing nuisance to the neighbours. Amy further brings in lots of chickens and cockerels that roam in her garden freely and make noises of crowing and all sorts. This noise is some kind of a nuisance to the next door neighbour Sergei, due to which he cannot roam in his garden freely and is woken up abruptly one day at 6am. This is a nuisance to Sergei and a tort of nuisance is applicable to Amy who has brought in these animals which make a lot of noise and disturb Sergei.
Considering that Amy has brought the chickens and cockerels into her garden, it is a direct nuisance as she knew that such animals cause noises and this can be a nuisance to the neighbours in addition to Sergei. Amy has the right to grow vegetables in her garden if it is permissible by law of property in the UK. Considering it is permissible, she has done the lawful thing of obeying the law. However, her act of bringing in the chickens and cockerels is a thing which is prone to cause nuisance to the neighbours. It is undeniable that Amy did not know of the noise that the chickens and cockerels make and this is a tort of nuisance to the neighbours. Amy is liable for the nuisance caused to Sergei and his inability to roam in her garden due to the chickens and cockerel making noise. Additionally, Sergei has a right to claim the emotional damage caused to her in addition to any other damage that she can prove to Amy.The smell of the fertilisers used by Amy is also causing a loss of activity to Sergei as he is not able to roam freely in her garden. This is a nuisance caused by Amy due to which Sergei has to keep his doors and windows closed most of the time. Amy is liable for the causes of nuisance to Sergei and it is her duty to fulfil the damages under the tort of nuisance as she has been lacking a duty of care and is intentionally causing a nuisance with her knowledge of the noise being a nuisance to the neighbour.
