How legal cultures differ from England to Germany Essay

How legal cultures differ from England to Germany - Essay ExampleIn the cases erectd, it is imperative to realise case proceedings depending on the legal culture of the land and identify the various means used by the courtroom in the identification of the single rulings The first case is that involving Lord Bernstein against Mr. Ashby in court. The plaintiff, Lord Bernstein, states that the defendant, Mr. Ashby failed to observe Mr. Bernsteins right to privacy when he flew around his house taking photographs of the premises without his consent. In this case, there is the protection of the plaintiffs privacy by the laws of the land through the fact that the owner has a right over the immediate tenor space above his land. This makes sure that he has some authority over the activities that take place above that area. This protection of privacy is accorded directly referring to Winfield on civil wrong (Frank, 2010, 25). Winfield on Tort is one reputable source of enactments provided by the British constitution, it is clear that the plaintiff in this case had protection of privacy as it utter that the activities carried out were an act of trespass. This information is cited from the constitution through which England is run. Chapter 2 in the bill of rights after the fourth amendment in 1996 also provides for this (Steinfield, 2010, 77). It is important to understand that the evaluator was fast to dismiss any claims stating that the defendant had committed a criminal activity by disturbing the plaintiffs peace. This is from the fact that for someone to provide a case stating any form nuisance the airplane had to have been flying at a certain height and this was not clearly declared (Baron, 1978, 484). It is from this that the judge found it rather excessive to go for the nuisance charges on top of the trespass ones already provided. The judge was also clear to identify the beam Navigation Act 1920, Section 9 replaced by the Civil Aviation Act 1949 which state s that the claims to both nuisance and trespass are excessive and should not ward up in any legal process (Lemmings, 2011, 167) This was the point where there is the identification that the judge did not have the ability to make a ending based on his views but rather had to refer to the act. Despite this being the law that governed his decision, it is important to note that the judge had the ability to express his views in that he stated that going for the nuisance charge was rather outrageous. This independence was rather clear and concise in that he also had the ability to fully fall the act and go for both charges but after looking at the facts of the case, there was the identification of various issues allowing a much lesser charge (Baron, 1978, 486). The issues determine in the case that had the judge extend his independence as to not follow the act entirely are such(prenominal) as the level at which the airplane was flying. The defendant had not gone around the premises en ough times for the plaintiff to state that there was disturbance. This is from the fact that the plaintiff stated that he had not noticed the airplane circling around his house all through until it came to his attention that the defendant had photographed the premises (Baron, 1978, 488). According to the Civil Aviation Act of 1949 infract is identified when the defendant flies as low as getting in contact with private material on the premises of the plaintiff such as trees and