You are in browse mode. You must login to use MEMORY

   Log in to start

Engineering Ethics

In English

Created by:
Starboard Shrine

0 / 5  (0 ratings)

» To start learning, click login

1 / 25


Honest Mistake May Defy Negligence

Ramsay and Penno v. The King, 1952

Practice Known Questions

Stay up to date with your due questions

Complete 5 questions to enable practice


Exam: Test your skills

Test your skills in exam mode

Learn New Questions

Dynamic Modes

SmartIntelligent mix of all modes
CustomUse settings to weight dynamic modes

Manual Mode [BETA]

The course owner has not enabled manual mode
Specific modes

Learn with flashcards
multiple choiceMultiple choice mode
SpeakingAnswer with voice
TypingTyping only mode

Engineering Ethics - Leaderboard

1 user has completed this course

No users have played this course yet, be the first

Engineering Ethics - Details



31 questions
Honest Mistake May Defy Negligence
Ramsay and Penno v. The King, 1952
Product Liability
Donoghue v. Stevenson, 1932
Engineer has duty to note deficiency
Conama Contracting v. Huffman, 1983
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
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
Substantial Compliance
Dakin v. Lee, 1916
Fundamental Breach
Karsales v. Wallis, 1956
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