Uncontrolled rocket re-entry kills my dog. What are the legal consequences? The Chinese CZ-5B rocket launched last week had no support for controlled re-entry (or other managed demise), and is substantial enough that it can survive re-entry and hit the ground. This is unusual: these days, large launchers execute a planned &quot;safe&quot; re-entry, and crash into a defined area in the ocean. Last year, a launcher of the same type crashed in West Africa, having overflown New York. It's all over the news - where will it crash? (More details). Several decades ago, the US Skylab came down into Western Australia, which was, and is, sparsely inhabited so no damage was caused. Hypothetically, space junk could crash in my garden and kill my dog. If it did, I would be expecting to instruct my solicitor to seek maximum damages! But seriously, what are the implications of this? Does the fact that it's specifically a spacecraft make any difference? It's pretty reckless - does that element play a part? (I'm in the UK. Does that make any difference? Actually the UK isn't under the flight path, so this is even more hypothetical in this case than you probably thought.) My suspicion is that it would be considered a minor international incident, and China might pay some compensation if it seemed in their interests, and wouldn't if it didn't. It might be considered a more major incident if it hit, say, the Pentagon...
Article VII of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 (of which both China and the UK are signatories) provides that all states are liable for damages caused by the objects they launch into space: Each State Party to the Treaty that launches or procures the launching of an object into outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and each State Party from whose territory or facility an object is launched, is internationally liable for damage to another State Party to the Treaty or to its natural or juridical persons by such object or its component parts on the Earth, in air space or in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies. This was further elaborated upon in the Space Liability treaty of 1972 (of which, again, China and the UK are signatories.) In particular, it lays out a procedure under which one state can bring claim against another for any space junk that lands on its territory. So if a rocket lands in your back garden &amp; crushes your schnauzer, it would be up to the Foreign Office to take it up with the PRC. If Wikipedia is to be believed, the only time such a claim has been filed under this treaty is when the Soviet satellite Kosmos 954 crashed in the Canadian Arctic in 1978. In that instance, the location was remote and the satellite was nuclear-powered, resulting in substantial cleanup costs. Your options to bring suit on your own, without the assistance of Dominic Raab, are limited. As a general rule, governments have state immunity from suit in the courts of other countries (i.e., if you tried to sue the goverment of China in a UK court), and sovereign immunity in their own courts (i.e., if you tried to sue the government of China in a Chinese court.) In particular, in the UK other countries are immune from suit according to the State Immunity Act of 1978, except for commercial transactions (which this would not qualify as.)
The consequences for the US are perhaps better addressed at Politics; if you're really interested in those consequences, you can re-post this question there. For the police officer shooting a diplomat, the officer may be charged under state law, whatever is normal for an incident of this type; it doesn't matter whether the person is a US citizen or a diplomat or any other kind of alien, regardless of immigration status or lack thereof. If the person is a diplomat, however, the officer is also liable to be prosecuted under federal law, namely 18 USC 1116, which makes it a crime to kill, among others, a "foreign official"; the definition of that term includes any person of a foreign nationality who is duly notified to the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign government or international organization, and who is in the United States on official business, and any member of his family whose presence in the United States is in connection with the presence of such officer or employee. The characterization of the response "just been revoked" as "clearly legal" is inaccurate; a police officer has no power to revoke diplomatic immunity. In fact, only the diplomat's own country can waive this immunity. The United States cannot do so; it can only expel the diplomat.
The probable answer is right there in the article: the Kim Dotcom case has been a PR coup but a legal disaster. Mr Dotcom has not, at this time, been jailed and it may have become apparent to US and NZ law enforcement agencies that he probably never will be! It is really, really easy to accuse someone of committing a crime; it can be really, really hard to prove it beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. So after initiating a case that has turned out to be a total disaster, why would you expect them to do the same thing a second time?
we would like to know whether we have sufficient legal grounds to sever/terminate/exit this contract with Superior Management Co.*, if the company does not mutually agree to do so. No. In that event the HOA is stuck with the contract at least for the remaining part of the current period. The HOA's concern that the provider could breach the contract by significantly underperforming seems speculative and does not entitle the HOA to breach it first. Changes in the name and/or ownership of a party does not alter the parties' rights and obligations pursuant to the contract. This implies that neither party is entitled to disavow his obligations by terminating the contract altogether. For early &amp; unilateral termination to be an option, it would have to be provided in the terms of the contract itself.
Barring manufacturer negligence (and even this is a dubious theory, given that recovery would be for pure economic loss), there is probably no legal theory that would allow recovery of any loss of resale value. I am assuming that the promise to replace/repair the engine if it fails is part of the contract of sale. This is typical for a warranty that the manufacturer will repair certain failures. Assuming the manufacturer fulfils what it agreed to in the warranty, then the buyer is getting exactly what they contracted for and there is no contractual theory that would support any further recovery: there is no breach. The buyer bought a car that included a warranty to repair. I cannot imagine that they bought a car that included a promise that it would not fail.
Important story, but BoingBoing also doubts the BBC's wording. It could be an attempted summary of a previous story on BBC Newsnight on 18 July: Lord Porter of Spalding, a former bricklayer, alleged corporations were running tests on the safety of their high-rise building materials but refusing to share the results. Releasing the results could allow residents and local authorities to know if their buildings are at risk of a fire following the Grenfell catastrophe which claimed the lives of at least 80 people. There Lord Porter was talking about results commissioned by private companies including manufacturers, where the labs wouldn't provide information because of 'intellectual property rights' of the client, or presumably commercial confidentiality. Under these situations, it is said the private concerns have no obligation to disclose. If this is what the BBC story was referring to, then at least investigations by government or third parties wanting to reveal characteristics of the products wouldn't have a copyright (or patent etc) problem.
You are describing a liability suit. My sense is that based on the facts you describe you will face two serious challenges to making a successful case. Damages and liability. In order to win a liability case, you must first establish that you have been damaged in some way. According to your facts, your damages are at best, the replacement value of a used controller. I'm guessing that's what, $20 or so? That doesn't cover the cost of an attorney's time to even begin to hear your version of the facts, much less give you advice or pursue a case for you. After you establish damages, you must prove the company is responsible or has some share of liability for causing your damages. Again, I think this is going to be an obstacle for you. Not placing a warning that the game will affect you by causing you to throw your controller and be mean to your mom would be unprecedented if you were to prevail. AFAIK.
There is no possibility of legally holding a country &quot;to account&quot; for an action. An individual could be legally tried for a crime (murder), and a country could via a political process be made to suffer the consequences if a leader performs some act (it need not be illegal). Germany, Iran and Russia have historically suffered certain consequences of actions held to be &quot;officially sanctioned&quot;, and individuals such as Adolf Eichmann have been specifically punished; Fahad Shabib Albalawi and 4 others were sentanced to death for involvement in Khashoggi's murder. Punitive recourse against a country is always via political / military action. Khashoggi, specifically, was apparently a lawful permanent resident of the US, which is probably sufficient connection to the US for a suit based in the Alien Tort Statute. There have been various suits filed against individuals under this act, some of which succeeded, for example Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876. An individual could be sued under the Alien Tort Statute, but a foreign government enjoys sovereign immunity (the US government has limited its liability on that grounds, but Saudi Arabia has not). His fiance might then sue some individual, but Saudi Arabia itself could not be &quot;held to account&quot;.