The offices and shops and railway premises act 1963?
83151
Here it is https://www.hse.gov.uk/forms/notification/osr1.pdf
623836
Try this site: it gives a lot of information\n\nwww.commercialbreaksandbeats.co.uk
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?
1054353
The law states that the building must be maintained and anything\nthat breaks must be fixed
29706
Here's a good place to start:\nhttp://www.dor.state.ma.us/rul_reg/dir/dir_97_2.htm
527726
Land\nBuildings\nPlant & Machinery\nOffice equipment\nPatents,,trademarks,copyrights\nVehicles\nFixtures & fittings
472150
False in US the automobile is a good -- so it is governed by section 2 Of UCC(uniform commercial code) sale of goods. However, If there are some ambiguities as to the code the common law will govern.
759435
You can purchase a copy from Companies House.\n\nhttp://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/
1019069
Employee and public liabilty insurance is a requirement for the occupier of any business premises. It is there to ensure she can meet her liabilities if an accident occurs. Not alot of people know that occupiers of all premises are liable if someone is injured on their property, even residential owners. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (I think that's the year) makes it impossible for an occupier of business premises to attempt to exclude or limit their liability for injury sustained on the premises. Whereas an owner of residential premises can do so i.e by placing a warning sign Saying for example THE OCCUPIER ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY WHILE ON THE PREMISES. There are alot of technical points to note with this; particularly in relation to children, however, so be careful and always seek proper advice.\n\nAs an employer she also suffers from something called 'vicarious liability'. This basically means that she is liable for the acts of her employees while they are performing duties assosciated with their work. i.e say someone comes into the hairdressers who is a celebrity (david beckham for arguments sake) a trainee junior gets asked to dye his hair for him and he has an allergic reaction to the dye causing his head to swell to the point where he can no longer see, hence stopping him from playing football. As the employer she is jointly liable for any claim that david, or real madrid, may make. This is reasoned by the simple and logical point that the employer sees the sole benefit of the employees work and so should bear the burden of the responsibility for that work.\n\nAs far as I personally am aware one is only legally required to take out public liability insurance under U.K law although it has been several years since I completed my legal studies on this particular subject and I may be mistaken!! It is always advisable to take out the employees insurance though; as I have already stated the owner of the business is vicariously liable for the acts of the employee and she would be the first person any decent lawyer came after as 1- she is likely to be insured 2- she is likely to have more money than the actual offender in the event of no insurance. Depending on the type of business this is(sole trader, partnership, limited company) may mean that she could, potentially, lose her house and everything else of value in the event of a claim without it.\n\nHope that helps.
956617
An Act to make further provision for securing the health, safety and welfare of persons at work, for protecting others against risks to health or safety in connection with the activities of persons at work, for controlling the keeping and use and preventing the unlawful acquisition, possession and use of dangerous substances, and for controlling certain emissions into the atmosphere; to make further provision with respect to the employment medical advisory service; to amend the law relating to building regulations, and the Building (Scotland) Act 1959; and for connected purposes. [31st July 1974] BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: Part I Health, Safety and Welfare in connection with Work, and Control of Dangerous Substances and Certain Emissions into the Atmosphere
690529
Well even though there seems to be a contract orally for the sale of land s.53 of the law of property act 1925 applies as well as s2. law of property act 1989, which means that all sale of land must be in writing and are usual by deed. So practically there is not legally enforceable agreement until contracts are exchanged. So even if tom has spent money on a survey he may not recover.\nThere is debate in this area , but in the uk this is inherent risk in these transactions. He may bring a claim for damages under Hadley v.Baxendale, only for his loss eg the survey costs.\n\nAs far as the car is concerned, no consideration has passed so Tom has not really lost anything, he could enforce the contract, but courts are unlikley to enforce specific performance. Practically if the car is £500 there are plenty like it perhaps, but if the price was more £100,000 eg for a RUF modified porshce which are built to order then as there is nothing like it the court may order specific performance of the contract. Orally contracts cannot usually be enforced without some evidence showing intention.
715168
Of course.  They wrote the law, so it doesn't apply to them.  Political campaigns, charities and companies you've done business with before are all exempt.
223565
In January, the European Court of Human Rights declared that England's adverse possession law (which had been around for several centuries) actually effected an unconstitutional taking of property.  I've included a link that tries to make sense of this bizarre development.
790323
Visit - www.businesslink.gov.uk\n\nShould be able to find what you're looking for there.
244415
The statutes are somewhat extensive, so it would be best for you to just read it for yourself. The relevant section is Article 7 at the site below.
745101
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1988/Uksi_19880066_en_1.htm
274597
none so far, but debate over the past year regarding constitutional change (or charter change) has been quite heated. currently, they are still under the constitution of 1987.