Curtain Call on Carroll vs. Arkwright (1870) - Was It Fair?
contract cuet_pg intermediate real_caseCarroll vs. Arkwright (1870) - a classic contract law case. Lord Cairns said employers have implied duties towards employees. Employer must provide a 'reasonable' place to work and 'reasonable' tools for work. In this case, an employer was asked to pay damages for not providing a safe working environment. Employer's negligence resulted in a workplace accident.
What do you all think? Was it fair to hold the employer liable? I mean, tum log toh mock tests dete ho, iska kya connection hai? Can an employer be responsible for unforeseen circumstances?
Let's hear your thoughts - agree or disagree with the judgment. CUET PG Law kaa context mein kya hai?
3 comments
3 Comments
Sign in to join the discussion.
Bhai, curtain call on Carroll vs. Arkwright (1870) is a landmark case for sure! But was it fair yaar? I strongly disagree. The case allowed children as young as 9 to work in textile mills for 16 hours a day, which is pure exploitation! It's a stark reminder of our country's dark industrial past. Not proud of this judgement, honestly.
Kya yeh sacha fair tha? I think Carroll vs. Arkwright (1870) was a landmark case for labour rights, don't you? The court decided factory owners couldn't be sued for negligence. Agar duniya mein kaam karne wale logon ko yeh hukum nahi hota, to humein bhi iske karan bhi azaad nahi hotey.
"Bhai, yeh judgment thoda confuse kar raha hai. Toh, let's clear some points. Curtain Call on Carroll vs. Arkwright (1870) is a landmark case, par yeh koi 'fair' ya 'unfair' case nahi hai. Main issue yeh tha ki Carroll ko khet se chhutka nikaalna tha, aur Arkwright ne kya kya rules banai thi.