35:
The academics Mark Lunney and Ken
Oliphant argue that in reality the case was likely the result of a shipping accident with the facts fabricated to allow the court to circumvent the
27:
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had sold him a bottle of wine but, before delivery, drew off much of the wine and replaced it with salt water.
101:
96:
106:
41:
requirements which required that loss be suffered 'with force and arms' if a claim was to be brought.
50:
68:
Handford, P. (2010) 'Intentional
Negligence: A Contradiction in Terms?, Sydney Law Review, p. 34
90:
37:
19:(YB 10 Edw II (54 SS) 140) is a 1317 case in English law.
8:
81:, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 5
61:
7:
77:Lunney, M. and Olipant, K. (2013),
14:
1:
79:Tort Law: Texts and Materials
123:
17:Rattlesdene v Grunestone
102:English contract law
51:Trespass on the case
114:
97:English tort law
82:
75:
69:
66:
122:
121:
117:
116:
115:
113:
112:
111:
107:1317 in England
87:
86:
85:
76:
72:
67:
63:
59:
47:
33:
25:
12:
11:
5:
120:
118:
110:
109:
104:
99:
89:
88:
84:
83:
70:
60:
58:
55:
54:
53:
46:
43:
32:
29:
24:
21:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
119:
108:
105:
103:
100:
98:
95:
94:
92:
80:
74:
71:
65:
62:
56:
52:
49:
48:
44:
42:
40:
39:
30:
28:
22:
20:
18:
78:
73:
64:
36:
34:
26:
16:
15:
38:vi et armis
91:Categories
57:References
31:Commentary
45:See also
23:Facts
93::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.