An unlawful intrusion that interferes with someone else's possession of his property. A trespass gives the property owner a right to bring a civil lawsuit and collect money damages for the interference and for any harm caused. Usually a trespass is considered an intentional tort a civil wrongdoing, but some states have laws that have trespass a crime.and provide fines and imprisonment. Generally, a trespass is committed on real property, real estate or land and everything that is attached to it, but a trespass can also be to personal property, all other forms of property as well.
YLH&Co is a Lahore-Pakistan-based full service law firm committed to law and information about the law. The primary practice area of the law firm is internet law, information technology law, telecom law and cyberspace laws and security. Contact: For details contact Mr. Yasser Latif Hamdani, Attorney at Law. Email: yasser.hamdani@gmail.com; or Call: +92 300 555 2232
Showing posts with label tort. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tort. Show all posts
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Trespass
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Tortious Interference with Contracts
Book recommendation: The Law of Torts: Examples & Explanations, Third Edition
Research by Yasser Latif Hamdani and Zeeshan Zafar Hashmi
In order to state a claim for tortious interference with existing contractual relationships, a plaintiff must allege:
(1) it had a contract with a third party;
(2) the defendant knowingly induced the third party to break the contract;
(3) the defendant had an improper motive or means for doing so; and
(4) it was harmed by such actions.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Understanding Qisas and Diyat Laws of Pakistan
Book recommendation: The Long Divergence: How Islamic Law Held Back the Middle East
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
When all the heirs of those murdered by Davis pardoned him for badl-i-sulh , the religious right cried foul. Technically there was nothing wrong procedurally and legally with the way Davis’ alleged crime was pardoned under law. The religious right claims that (i) that the heirs of the two victims were pressured into accepting badl-i-sulh , (ii) that Davis should have been convicted for fasad fil arz and (iii) the judge’s decision to impose a fine of Rs.20,000 and time served under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance of 1965 was far too lenient under the circumstances.
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
When all the heirs of those murdered by Davis pardoned him for badl-i-sulh , the religious right cried foul. Technically there was nothing wrong procedurally and legally with the way Davis’ alleged crime was pardoned under law. The religious right claims that (i) that the heirs of the two victims were pressured into accepting badl-i-sulh , (ii) that Davis should have been convicted for fasad fil arz and (iii) the judge’s decision to impose a fine of Rs.20,000 and time served under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance of 1965 was far too lenient under the circumstances.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)