Engineering Ethics
🇬🇧
In Inglés
In Inglés
Practique preguntas conocidas
Manténgase al día con sus preguntas pendientes
Completa 5 preguntas para habilitar la práctica
Exámenes
Examen: pon a prueba tus habilidades
Pon a prueba tus habilidades en el modo de examen
Aprenda nuevas preguntas
Modos dinámicos
InteligenteMezcla inteligente de todos los modos
PersonalizadoUtilice la configuración para ponderar los modos dinámicos
Modo manual [beta]
El propietario del curso no ha habilitado el modo manual
Modos específicos
Aprende con fichas
elección múltipleModo de elección múltiple
Expresión oralResponde con voz
EscrituraModo de solo escritura
Engineering Ethics - Marcador
Engineering Ethics - Detalles
Niveles:
Preguntas:
31 preguntas
| 🇬🇧 | 🇬🇧 |
| Honest Mistake May Defy Negligence | Ramsay and Penno v. The King, 1952 |
| Product Liability | Donoghue v. Stevenson, 1932 |
| One Party Relies on Special Skills of 2nd party and 2nd party knows, 2nd part duty bound to take reasonable care | Hedley Byrne v. Heller, 1963 |
| Disclaimer Absolves 3rd Party if Disclaimer is clear | Wolverine Tube v. Normanda, 1994 |
| Engineers have duty that extends to 3rd party if failure creates dangerous effects | Winnipeg Condominium v. Bird Construction, 1995 |
| Engineer has duty to note deficiency | Conama Contracting v. Huffman, 1983 |
| When Disclaimer involved, test is if disclaimer is clear and reasonable | Micron v. Hong Kong Bank |
| Employer also held responsible | Dutton v. Bognor Regis United Building, 1972 |
| Concurrent Tortfeasors - both architect and engineer responsible | Corp Dist. Of Surrey v. Carrol - Hatch, 1972 |
| Can be liable for both tort and contract | Central Trust v. Rafuse, 1986 |
| Manufacturer must provide proper labeling and instruction | Lem v. Barotto Sports & Ponsness - Warren, 1976 |
| Instructions must be reasonable and provide level of detail not known to consumer | Lambert v. Lastoplex Chemical 1971 |
| Indirect Economic Loss via forseeability and negligible duty of care | Rivtow Marine v. Washington Iron Works, 1973 |
| Mailbox Doctrine | Queen v. Commercial Credit Corp, 1983 |
| Consideration can be agreement to not do something | Stott v. Merit Investment Corp, 1988 |
| Equitable Estoppel (deadline change) | Conwest Exploration v. Letain, 1963 |
| Earlier indulgence does not imply change to contract | John Burrows v. Subsurface Survey, 1968 |
| Actions lead to default, plantiff estopped from ending contract | Owen Sound Public Board Library v. Mial Developments, 1979 |
| Freedom from Duress | Mutual v. John Wetton & Sons, 1937 |
| Illegal activity voided contract | Kocotis v. D'Angelo, 1958 |
| Pay for materials, not illegal labour | Monticchio v. Torcema Const., 1979 |
| Implied terms are valid | Moorcock Doctrine, 1889 |
| Tender process 2 contracts, both considered binding | Ron Engineering, 1981 |
| Substantial Compliance | Dakin v. Lee, 1916 |
| Fundamental Breach | Karsales v. Wallis, 1956 |
| Damages, not liable for unforeseen damages | Hadley v. Baxendale 1854 |
| Fundamental breach, quantum of damage | Harbutt's Plasticine v. Wayne Tank & Pump, 1970 |
| Clearly Stated Disclaimer | Hunter v. Syncrude, 1989 |
| Clarify Levels of Inspection | Demers v. Dufrense, 1977 |
| Held to estimate of cost | Kidd v. Mississauga, 1979 |
| Engineers must check on project progress | B.C Rail v. Canadian Pacific Consulting, 1988 |