No. Marital and domestic arrangements are not actionable under contract or torts law. You can of course seek a divorce, with rights to property.
Generally, it means that a plaintiff does not have to show actual damages before having a viable lawsuit. For example, in slander and libel law, before a slander suit can win damages there must be proof that the person slandered suffered some type of harm like loss of prestige in the community or loss of business. However, some slanders, like saying a particular person is a convicted criminal, are actionable per se, meaning that the plainitff does not have to prove loss of prestige in the community. The law presumes that a false statement that some person is a criminal necessarilly causes damage. A jury would be permitted to award damages without the plaintiff proving that any were actually suffered.
Per Se - restaurant - was created in 2004.
John G. Fleming has written: 'Supplement to The Law of Torts' -- subject(s): Torts 'Fleming's the law of torts' -- subject(s): Torts 'An Introduction to the Law of Torts (Clarendon Law)' 'An introduction to the law of torts' -- subject(s): Torts 'The solicitor and the disappointed beneficiary'
Persephone Pronunciation (PER- SE - PHUH - NY) NOT (PER - SE - PHONE)
Per se is a Latin phrase that means in itself. It means by, for, of, or in itself or themselves; intrinsically.
The questioner is not interested in the answer per se but in completing his homework assignment.
No, there can't be torts that are not negligent or intentional because then they are not torts. They are called accidents.
John Lewthwaite has written: 'Law of torts' -- subject(s): Cases, Torts 'Law of torts : learning text' -- subject(s): Torts
'per se' in latin and means 'by itself' or 'of itself' = inherentlyPer se is not a term that will have a literal definition but this is closest way to "describe" Per Se. It is used after a group of words to ensure that you, the writer/speaker, knows the clause that comes before Per Se is not true or not to be taken seriously word for word. You are telling the reader/listener that you dont take that clause literally either. Basically, it shows that the previous phrase was similar to an expression. Or, it could mean that the previous phrase was an exaggeration, expression, or sarcasm.
The King of Torts was created in 2003.
It would be more effective to say actionable in civil court.