本篇代写assignment-物权法案例研究讲了考虑到谢尔盖不是打扰艾米是自由进行她的蔬菜种植演习的帮助下鸡,公鸡、化肥,这仍然是一个侵权的麻烦,她是用动物和导致噪声危害的邻居和不能出来各自的花园。侵权行为是一种民事错误，即使在法律的伪装下，艾米也在做一些本不应该发生的事情，打扰邻居。一个人可以和平地遵守法律。然而，如果该行为对任何人(包括邻居)造成干扰，则属妨害侵权行为，并无注意义务防止其行为以任何方式干扰他人。如果邻居没有报告噪音干扰，违规者不能免于妨害侵权的指控。因此，艾美无论如何都得接受妨害罪的指控，因为她做了一件制造噪音并给邻居带来其他不便的事。本篇代写assignment文章由新西兰第一论文 Assignment First辅导网整理，供大家参考阅读。
Considering that Sergei is not disturbed and that Amy is freely conducting her vegetable growing exercises with the help of the chickens, cockerels, and the fertilisers, it is still a tort of nuisance that she is using animals and means which cause noise nuisance to the neighbours and are not able to come out in their respective garden. A tort is a civil wrong and even under the disguise of the law, Amy is doing something that is disturbing the neighbours which ought not to have happened. One is allowed to follow the law peacefully. However, if it is causing disturbance to anyone including the neighbours, it is a tort of nuisance and a lack of duty of care for preventing their activity from disturbing others in any manner. The noise disturbance if not being reported by a neighbour does not entitle the violator to be free of the charges of a tort of nuisance. Thus, Amy would anyway have to accept the nuisance charges as she had done something that was creating noise nuisance and causing other discomfort to the neighbours.
Considering that Sergei is woken up abruptly at 6am due to the voice of the chickens and the cockerels, it is to be proved by him that his waking early and abruptly was specifically due to the noise of the chickens and cockerels. This is much complicated and has multiple variations as he could have woken up even before 6am and not due to the noise, and could be falsely complaining about the noise waking him up. Any tort of negligence or nuisance would have to be proven by the plaintiff as it is natural for anyone to complain about any act of the defendant even though it would have been a coincidence on the part of the plaintiff (O’Callaghan, 2013). This is much complicated and would require Sergei to prove that his waking up abruptly was due to the noise of the chickens and cockerels and not anything else. In addition, it would be required for Sergei to prove that the smell of the fertilisers was also a reason for his not being able to come out in his garden in the summer and had to keep all his doors and windows closed. This needs to be proven for the tort of nuisance being applicable to Amy before claiming the damages caused to Sergei.
It is also a matter of concern whether Amy has taken full permission about growing vegetables in her garden from the relevant authority. This is essential to be checked because if the permission is not taken, then before applying the tort of nuisance the violation of a different law is applicable here and Amy is liable for all her violations including the tort of nuisance and the damages to life and property caused. When Amy is proven guilty in her permission violation, then there are two cases on her of the violation of the law of permission from the relevant authorities and the tort of nuisance caused to Sergei. Again, it will have to be proven that Amy has not taken the viable and required permission to grow vegetables in her garden and then the damage claim is applicable to her.