Shopping on line can be easy, simple and save you lots of money. It can also take a lot of your time, frustrate you, and result in unwanted purchases. Now the same can be said for regular high street shopping, but with the vast opportunity presented by the Internet it will pay you to spend a few minutes reading this and understanding how to better optimize your Strict Liability shopping experience:

1. Compare - without doubt the biggest advantage that the Strict Liability offers shoppers today is the ability to compare thousands of Strict Liability at a time. This is a great thing, but not necessarily all the time! Too much can be daunting at times so take advantage of the great comparison sites and where possible let them do the hard work for you.

2. Research - if it has been said it will be on the internet. Ignorance is no longer a justifiable reason for buying the wrong thing. Take the time to research in detail everything that you could possible want to know about

3. Testimonials - don't know anybody that has bought a Strict Liability? Wrong! If the Strict Liability is good the internet will let you know. Use the Internet as a friend and get testimonials before you buy.

4. Questions - Got a question about Strict Liability then search the Forums, FAQ's, Blogs etc. Don't be afraid to ask .....

5. Reputation - Never heard of the company selling Strict Liability? Don't worry, no reason why you should know every company in the world, but you know someone that does! Use the internet to find out what people are saying about Strict Liability and build up a picture of their reputation for sales, returns, customer service, delivery etc.

6. Returns - still worried that even after all of the above your Strict Liability wont be what you want? Check out the returns policy. There is so much competition now that someone, somewhere is bound to offer the terms that you are comfortable with.

7. Feedback - happy with your Strict Liability then let people know, after all you are depending on others people input in your buying decision, so why not give a little back.

8. Security - check for the yellow padlock on the Strict Liability site before you buy, and the s after http:/ /i.e. https:// = a secure site

9. Contact - got a question about Strict Liability, or want to leave a comment then check out the sites contact page. Reputable companies have them and respond.

10. Payment - ready to pay for your Strict Liability, then use your credit card or PayPal! Be aware of companies that don't accept them, there may be genuine reasons but given the huge amount of choice you have when buying online there is no reason at all not to buy via credit card or PayPal.

Strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes a person responsible for the damage and loss caused by his/her acts and omissions regardless of culpability (or fault in criminal law terms, which would normally be expressed through a mens rea requirement; see Strict liability (criminal). Strict liability is important in torts (especially product liability), corporations law, and criminal law. For analysis of the pros and cons of strict liability as applied to product liability, the most important strict liability regime, see product liability.

Tort law In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortious intent). The plaintiff needs to prove only that the tort happened and that the defendant was responsible. Neither good faith nor the fact that the defendant took all possible precautions are valid defenses. Strict liability often applies to those engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous ventures

Strict liability is sometimes called absolute liability to distinguish those situations where, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defense of absence of fault.

A classic example of strict liability is the owner of a tiger rehabilitation center; no matter how strong the tiger cages are, if an animal escapes and causes damage and injury, the owner is held liable. Another example is a contractor hiring a demolition subcontractor that lacks proper insurance. If the subcontractor makes a mistake, the contractor is strictly liable for any damage that occurs.

The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous. It discourages reckless behavior and needless loss by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution. It also has the effect of simplifying litigation and allowing the victim to become whole more quickly.

The doctrine's most famous advocates were Learned Hand, Benjamin Cardozo, and Roger J. Traynor.

In English and Welsh law, where tortious liability is strict, the defendant will often only be liable for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his or her act or omission (as in nuisance).

Criminal Law The concept of strict liability is also found in criminal law, though to a lesser extent. Strict liability often applies to vehicular traffic offenses. In a speeding case, for example, whether the defendant knew he or she was exceeding the posted speed limit is irrelevant. The prosecutor would need only prove that the defendant was indeed operating the vehicle in excess of the speed limit.

Strict liability laws can also prevent defendants from raising diminished mental capacity defenses - since intent does not need to be proven.

See also

• Command responsibility
• Public liability

References "Garnett v. State" briefed by Joel Samaha, Department of Sociology at the University of Minnesota, June 9, 2001, retrieved July 30, 2006

Strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes a person responsible for the damage and loss caused by his/her acts and omissions regardless of culpability (or fault in criminal law terms, which would normally be expressed through a mens rea requirement; see Strict liability (criminal). Strict liability is important in torts (especially product liability), corporations law, and criminal law. For analysis of the pros and cons of strict liability as applied to product liability, the most important strict liability regime, see product liability.

Tort law In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortious intent). The plaintiff needs to prove only that the tort happened and that the defendant was responsible. Neither good faith nor the fact that the defendant took all possible precautions are valid defenses. Strict liability often applies to those engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous ventures

Strict liability is sometimes called absolute liability to distinguish those situations where, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defense of absence of fault.

A classic example of strict liability is the owner of a tiger rehabilitation center; no matter how strong the tiger cages are, if an animal escapes and causes damage and injury, the owner is held liable. Another example is a contractor hiring a demolition subcontractor that lacks proper insurance. If the subcontractor makes a mistake, the contractor is strictly liable for any damage that occurs.

The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous. It discourages reckless behavior and needless loss by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution. It also has the effect of simplifying litigation and allowing the victim to become whole more quickly.

The doctrine's most famous advocates were Learned Hand, Benjamin Cardozo, and Roger J. Traynor.

In English and Welsh law, where tortious liability is strict, the defendant will often only be liable for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his or her act or omission (as in nuisance).

Criminal Law The concept of strict liability is also found in criminal law, though to a lesser extent. Strict liability often applies to vehicular traffic offenses. In a speeding case, for example, whether the defendant knew he or she was exceeding the posted speed limit is irrelevant. The prosecutor would need only prove that the defendant was indeed operating the vehicle in excess of the speed limit.

Strict liability laws can also prevent defendants from raising diminished mental capacity defenses - since intent does not need to be proven.

See also

• Command responsibility
• Public liability

References "Garnett v. State" briefed by Joel Samaha, Department of Sociology at the University of Minnesota, June 9, 2001, retrieved July 30, 2006

Strict liability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes a person responsible for the damage and loss caused by his/her acts and omissions regardless of culpability (or fault in criminal ...

Strict liability (criminal) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus ...

Roadpeace - Strict liability
Strict liability ... Strict liability What is strict liability? In road traffic personal injury cases in the UK, the burden of proof is on the victim to prove the other party was ...

The K-Zone: Strict liability
Home > Law > Law glossary > Law glossary Strict liability Last modified: Thu Feb 23 16:37:38 2006. 1. In criminal law, offences of strict liability are those where liability is ...

Power, 'Sexual offences, strict liability and mistaken belief: B v ...
Summary Recent developments in the criminal justice system evidence a protectionist, crime control approach to dealing with sex offending, yet the sexual offences law enforced by ...

Strict liability - take two : Simpson & Marwick law firm
Simpson and Marwick specialises in civil litigation from offices in Scotland and London. Profile, services and locations with information about traineeships.

Strict liability - take one : Simpson & Marwick law firm
Simpson and Marwick specialises in civil litigation from offices in Scotland and London. Profile, services and locations with information about traineeships.

Cambridge Crimininology - Strict Liability
Strict Liability is a project of the Centre for Penal Theory and Penal Ethics ... Criminal liability without fault (that is, without the need to prove intent or gross negligence on ...

Strict liability for data breaches? | The Register
Black Hat organizers punt totally hackable RFID badges; Researcher gives Elvis and bin Laden fake e-passports; Gmail uses DomainKeys to lock out eBay phishing attacks; Dutch ...

Scottish Green Party :: GM: STRICT LIABILITY NEEDED AS BIOTECH ...
Gm: Strict Liability Needed as Biotech Companies Hide From Costs. Thu., February 26, 2004. 00:00.