extra (did not see, finf it relevant)

Question 1

What are the requirements to prove intrusion per seclusion

Answer 1

(1) that the defendant’s conduct was intentional;
(2) that the defendant invaded the plaintiff’s private affairs without lawful justification;
(3) that a reasonable person would regard such conduct as “highly offensive causing distress, humiliation or anguish.”

Question 2

What is the best substitute for an “after the fact debate”

Answer 2

preventive measures as risk management

Question 3

sysnonimus for justification

Answer 3

complete defense

Question 4

fair comment

Answer 4

(a) concerned a matter of public interest,
(b) was factually based,
(c) expressed a view that could honestly be held by anyone.

Question 5

What is the definition of remoteness

Answer 5

examines whether the actual harm suffered by the plaintiff was “too unrelated to the wrongful conduct to hold the defendant fairly liable” and, in this way, not reasonably foreseeable. ( reasonable foreseeability of damages)