What is the burden and standard of proof in the UK for?
969178
In the UK, the burden of proof in civil (or tort) cases is "on the balance of probabilities" and in criminal cases "beyond a reasonable doubt". \n\nOf the three examples you gave:\n\n1. Negligence is generally a tortuous claim and therefore is determined on the balance of probabilities. (ie. 51% over 49%)\n\n2. Acting with undue care or attention is an aspect of negligence.  Although with negligence, you must first prove there was a duty of care owed and then secondly prove that on the balance, that duty was breached. (For a far better explanation of the above, see: Lord Atkins dictum in Donoghue v. Stevenson, Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, and most recently, Caparo Industries v. Dickman)\n\n3. The defence of Automatism is used in criminal cases and has a variety of barriers depending on whether you are claiming insane automatism which is caused by a "disease of the mind" (R v. Quick) or non-insane automatism with is due to external factors (R v. Hennessy).
1134652
NO,\n\nThe burden of proof is on those who believe in "GOD".\n\nYou can't make up a person and say that if you can't disprove his existance then he must exist.
749418
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoplifting#United_Kingdom
901237
Sport -- I'm not a U.K. solicitor or barrister, but in the U.S., e-mails are regularly admitted in evidence for al kinds of purposes.  As you've noted, the difficulty is if someone denies that they sent the e-mail in question.  IN the U.S. we have rules for admissibility of evidence, but, generally, so long as there is someone who can testify that (a) the e-mail address is the one customarily used by the author and/or (b) there are certain charadteristics of the e-mail which indicate its source, then a court will likely admit the evidence.   If the other party denies the evidence, then that's a fact question for the factfinder (in the U.S., usually a jury) to resolve.\n\nSure, when wanting someone to be bound by "their word" -- getting something signed by them and notarized is the most solid (of course, that doesn't mean that the contract will necessarily be valid, as there are lots of reasons that a contract may be declared invalid, like lack of consideration, unconscionability / coercion, fraud, etc. etc.). Probably followed by a signed written document, signed in front of a witness (non-notary).  Followed bya signed document, with someone who can testify that the signature on the document is authentic (because that witness is familiar with the signor's signature). Probably followed by some other kind of document, like a typewritten /s/ document or e-mail.  Probably followed by a pure oral agreement (in most circumstances, oral agreements are binding, if the parties intended to bind each other.  there are circumstances, at least in the U.S. to this doctrine, however).\n\nI hope you get some response from someone in the U.K., because there certainly can be differences in the law (even with our common legal heritage), so don't take anything I say as definite.
403270
Yes, but try to get some proof first.
661924
This is a very hard question to answer and unfortunately, I'll have to advise to find some legal help (a lawyer) because you will certainly NOT going to get it here. What you want to know is called "legal advices" and it's charged from 5-50 pounds.
895581
What proof? You can suspect all you want. Without proof a simple denial is sufficient.
628726
Yes it is - (in the UK that is - hope you are in the UK?).  You can request proof that appropriate signs were in place as stipulated in the Road Traffic Act.  You may find that sending this letter may get on their wick to the point that they will drop the speeding claim - obviously they have to have photographic evidence of the offence also!  As per the RTA they also have to provide the items requested in the letter.  I managed to get off a speeding fine with it.  \n\n\nIn order that I may honestly complete the required information requested on the reverse of the form, I require the photographic evidence of the alleged offence in order that I may ascertain who was driving.\n\nI will also require:-\n\n•The name of the manufacturer, including make and model and serial number of the radar or laser gun used.\n\n•Copies of the manufacturers recommended maintenance schedule for the above device.\n\n•Copies of the manufacturer’s literature as it relates to the correct use, including but not limited to, mounting, aiming, weather and traffic limitations for the device used.\n\n•A copy of the past six months maintenance records, including but not limited to calibration specifications.\n\n•Photographic evidence that the legally required notifications of speed camera use were displayed at the site being used for speeding offence detection, or a copy of the relevant legislation that states that this in not necessary.\nPlease note that attempted delivery to the address listed on your letter, as detailed above, will be considered as valid service of this document.\n\nI look forward to your prompt response.\n\n\nGood luck with it!!  I don't know about anyone else - but I have no problem with fixed speed cameras - just the nasty sneaky mobile ones - normally hidden away in an area that has no risk to pedestrians, but significant possibility for speeding without endangerment to any other road users.  GRRR nasty money making machines!!
745101
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1988/Uksi_19880066_en_1.htm
179155
Preponderance means more than 50% or another way of looking at it is to say that when looking at the proofs on both sides it is more likely than unlikely that the thing that needed to be proven happened.  Another standard that is used is that the evidence is clearly convining.  That means that a person who hears all the evidence is convinced the thing that needed to be proven happened.  The other standard used is Beyond a reasonable doubt.  This last standard approaches the evidence from a different view.  The beyond a reasonable doubt standard means that the thing that needes to be proven can only be considered proven if there is no other reasonable way to explain the facts.
700268
Need more info in order to answer! What exactly are you asking? Are you asking whether the customer has the right to refuse payment? Are we talking UK or US law here?\n\nIn the UK the Sale of Goods Act 1994 requires the product to be of satisfactory quality and fit for the purpose for which it was intended. The customer would, therefore, have the right to refuse the goods if they differed from the samples they were shown which formed the basis of their contract with the company.
862719
Does the bill say "E&OE" or "Errors and Omissions Excepted" or "Errors and Omissions Excluded" anywhere? If so, they are entitled to reclaim the difference if they can prove the original amount was in error. They do sound unreasonable to try and ask for such a large amount so quickly, but there is nothing legally preventing it.\n\nIf it doesn't say it, they are on more shaky ground
199307
they deliver the evidence beyond a resaponbile doubt so whatever they have to do you should call a lawyer and ask
280012
Plain and simple answer.\n\nPROVE IT!!\n\nThe burden of proof lies in the hands of the applicant. If you have no proof, don't even bother. You'll get sent back even if you get the VISA!!
28977
Ask the officers what type of proof they are looking for.
290509
Can you be more specific in what you are looking for?\n\nFor example are you looking for laws that are pertinent only to England?
498942
what proof are you looking for? can you specify more details about the actual question?