Academic literature on the topic 'Liability for fire damages (Jewish law)'

Rosenberg, Jacob. The economic approach to the Jewish law of damages: The case of damage by fire. [Ramat Gan]: Research Center on Jewish Law and Economics, Department of Economics, Bar-Ilan University, 2002.

Hewitt, Terry-Dawn. Fire loss litigation in Canada: A practical guide. Scarborough, Ont: Carswell, 1993.

Cases in monetary halachah: Contemporary issues and answers relating to the laws of Choshen mishpat for home, school and business = Mishpeṭe ha-Torah : ʻinyene Ḥoshen mishpaṭ. Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications, 2001.

Shṭern, Mordekhai ben Yiśraʼel Meʼir. Sefer Meḥḳere erets: ʻal ʻinyene nizḳe bor : ḥidushim u-veʼurim, maśa u-matan be-verur ṿe-libun divre rabotenu ha-rishonim ; ṿe-nilṿeh elaṿ Ḳunṭres be-ʻinyan paṭur shen ṿa-regel bi-r. ha-r. ṿeha-mistaʻef. Lakewood, NJ: Mordekhai Shṭern, 2012.

Hewitt, Terry-Dawn. Fire Loss Litigation in Canada : A Practical Guide. Carswell Legal Pubns, 2000.

Horyuji Kondo enjo. Asahi Shinbunsha, 1989.

"to recover damages. If an action for damages still lies, it follows from this that the contract itself must have survived for some purposes. Accordingly, the better view is that, where there is a repudiatory breach, the innocent party is discharged from performing his obligations under the contract, but the contract itself does not necessarily come to an end. The phrase ‘rescission for breach’ is the source of the confusion when it is used to describe discharge from performance. Assuming it is merely the obligation to perform that is discharged by breach, events arising after breach which allow an action for damages do not present a problem. Moreover, terms of the contract which relate to those events are also unaffected by the discharge. Accordingly, it can be said that there are primary and secondary obligations under a contract and the effect of the innocent party seeking discharge for breach is that he is no longer bound to perform his primary obligations, although the contract will survive in order to see off any secondary obligations such as the duty of the party in breach to pay damages in respect of any loss he has caused. Similarly, the likes of exclusion and limitation clauses which generally relate to a secondary obligation may continue to operate, even if this has the effect of reducing the defendant’s liability. In Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd, the respondents were a security company employed to guard the appellants’ premises. The service provided was one of the cheapest on offer by the respondents and consisted of little more than ‘flying’ visits to the appellants’ premises. During one of these visits one of the respondents’ employees negligently set a fire which caused extensive damage to the premises. It was accepted by the House of Lords that there was a serious breach of contract which was sufficient to allow the appellants to treat as being at an end their obligation to continue paying for the security service (primary obligation). However, a clause in the contract which limited the respondents’ liability continued to operate as it related to their obligation to pay damages (secondary obligation): Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827, p 848." In Sourcebook on Contract Law, 552–56. Routledge-Cavendish, 1995. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781843141518-223.