Assignment: You Are A Lawyer In A Fictional Country

Assignmentyou Are A Lawyer Working In A Fictional Country Called Nambi

Assignmentyou Are A Lawyer Working In A Fictional Country Called Nambi

Assignmentyou Are A Lawyer Working In A Fictional Country Called Nambi

Assignment You are a lawyer working in a fictional country called Nambia. In this country there is a city called Nambia One (NB1). It is the capital city and it is on the coast next to the Atlantic Ocean. The infrastructure of the city is being extensively damaged by various natural phenomenon such as hurricanes, rising sea level, flooding and so forth. Evidence will be led that all the problems are caused by climate change and this in turn is caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

The cost of repairing the infrastructure is $300 billion dollars. Your client, the city NB1, has obtained documents held by five oil companies American Oil, British Oil, Dutch Oil, Royal oil and Big Greedy Oil which shows that in 1975 they were fully aware that the burning of fossil fuels caused climate change. However, they were afraid the if they made this known that Governments around the world would implement special regulations that would either impose a climate change tax on them or that Governments would implement laws that weaned society off fossil fuels. These companies then set about on deliberate attempts to mislead the public and governments around the world about the impact of fossil fuels.

These efforts included the following: 1) World-wide advertising campaigns alleging that burning fossil fuels did not cause climate change; 2) Paying scientists to conduct studies that showed that burning fossil fuels did not cause climate change; 3) Deliberately discrediting those scientists who showed that burning fossil fuels caused climate change using various underhand strategies; You are to write a 6 page essay in which you advise NB1 whether they have an action against the oil companies. This question is to be answered in FIRAC form. These will be as follows: F Facts By this is meant that your “introduction” will be a summary of the facts of the case. ½ page I (LEGAL) ISSUE You are to identify the legal problem(s) that are being raised in the question.

Here, you name the legal issue or action raised by the facts of the problem question, and mention the ‘elements’ of each action to determine whether the facts and conduct of the parties involved satisfy the requisite legal requirements of the action. ½ - 1 R Rule(s) This is a re-statement of the law as you learned from your textbook and other sources. This will involve a detailed study of the law Here you will also be required to look at similar cases and explain what the court decided in those cases. He a short summary may be necessary to explain the case and/or even excerpts from the judgment. Give a case citation for each element. Example: The elements of the tort of negligence are: Duty of Care The elements of the duty of care are….. (here you identify the elements using Donoghue v Stevenson and Caparo v Dickman and all other relevant cases.

You must state the elements in full and if necessary include a short summary of the cases that you are relying upon. You are to cite the cases properly. Breach of the Duty Set out the law plus the relevant cases as stated above.

Causes Set out the law plus the relevant cases as stated above.

Damages Set out the law plus the relevant cases as stated above.

Other issues that you may identify should also be canvassed You will be required to look at cases from United Kingdom (see your book) and you may also look at the following jurisdictions such as USA, South Africa, European court of Human Rights. South African sources can be found at SAFLII European Court of Human Rights cases can be found at 2 ½ - 3 pages A Application The application should be the simplest part of your writing.

If you know the facts, can see the issues, and know the rules pertaining to those issues, the application will write itself. Simply state the issue, state the facts & rules that give rise to the issue, and tell explain how those facts do or do not meet the requirements laid down by the rules. 2 pages C Conclusion The conclusion is a statement that explains what the result of your argument is, or what it should be. But, as with all good writing, the conclusion should be redundant. All of your application sections should have already clearly stated the conclusion for each individual issue. Thus, you are here “wrapping up using the conclusions that you arrived at in the application section. ½ page Style guidelines can be found here:

Paper For Above instruction

This paper assesses the potential legal action that the city of Nambia One (NB1) in the fictional country of Nambia could pursue against major oil companies—American Oil, British Oil, Dutch Oil, Royal Oil, and Big Greedy Oil—for their alleged role in climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The investigation centers on whether the evidence of their prior knowledge and deliberate misinformation supports a claim for damages to repair the city’s infrastructure, which has suffered extensive damage due to climate-related natural disasters. The analysis employs the FIRAC (Facts, Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) structure to systematically evaluate the legal grounds for action.

Factual Background

The city of NB1 faces significant infrastructure destruction estimated at $300 billion, attributed to climate change effects such as hurricanes, rising sea levels, and flooding. The city authorities discovered documents from five oil companies dating back to 1975 indicating the companies' awareness that fossil fuel combustion caused climate change. Despite this knowledge, the companies allegedly engaged in coordinated efforts to suppress this information through advertising campaigns denying fossil fuel impact, funding studies to deny causality, and discrediting scientists highlighting the connection.

Legal Issues

The primary legal question is whether NB1 has sufficient grounds to sue these oil companies for damages and, if so, what legal basis—such as tortious liability for nuisance, negligence, or fraudulent misrepresentation—can be established based on their actions. Key issues include establishing the companies' duty of care, breach through deliberate misinformation, causation linking their conduct to the climate damage, and damages resulting directly from their misconduct.

Legal Rules and Precedents

In examining potential liability, the analysis draws from relevant UK, US, and South African case law on environmental harm, negligence, and misrepresentation. Cases such as Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) establish the duty of care principle, emphasizing foreseeability and proximity. The Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990) ruling refines the test for duty of care in novel situations, including intentional misinformation. The US case Connecticut v American Electric Power Co. (2011) considers the causation of climate-related harm, recognizing that corporations can be held liable if their emissions significantly contribute to environmental damage. Similarly, South African cases inform the principles related to environmental negligence and strict liability for environmental harms.

The law recognizes that a duty of care can extend to prevent foreseeable harm caused by negligent or reckless conduct, including deliberate misinformation or conspiracy, especially when such conduct leads to tangible damages. Fraudulent misrepresentation, as established in Derry v Peek (1889), requires proof of false representations made knowingly or recklessly, with the intent to deceive, and reliance by the victim resulting in damages.

Application of Law to Facts

Applying these principles, NB1 can argue that the oil companies had a duty of care to disclose accurate information about the impact of fossil fuel combustion due to their knowledge and the foreseeable environmental harm resulting from their actions. Their deliberate misinformation campaigns—denying causality and discrediting scientific evidence—constitute breaches of this duty. The evidence from 1975 documents suggests they concealed critical information, amounting to fraudulent misrepresentation if proven that their actions were made knowingly and with intent to deceive.

Causation can be established by demonstrating that the companies’ denial and disinformation campaigns significantly contributed to the delay in international regulation and failure to mitigate climate change impacts, leading to specific damages in NB1. While climate change is a complex and global phenomenon, legal principles adapted for environmental law recognize that large corporate emitters can be held liable when their misconduct directly or substantially contributed to local environmental damage.

The damages suffered by NB1—extensive infrastructure repair costs—are quantifiable and directly linked to climate change, which the oil companies knowingly exacerbated through their misconduct. The argument hinges on establishing that their conspiracy and efforts to mislead substantially increased the risk of harm to NB1, fulfilling the causation element.

Conclusion

Based on the facts, the applicable legal principles, and the precedents, NB1 appears to have a robust basis to bring actions against the oil companies for damages caused by their misconduct related to climate change. The key elements—duty of care, breach through intentional misrepresentation, causation, and quantifiable damages—are likely to be satisfied, especially given the documented evidence of the companies' awareness and deliberate efforts to suppress science. While legal challenges include proving the intentionality of the misrepresentations and the direct link to damages, the case is compelling under tort law frameworks for environmental harm and fraudulent misrepresentation. Therefore, NB1 has a substantial legal position to pursue compensation and accountability from these oil companies in the courts of Nambia or in other jurisdictions recognizing similar principles.

References

• Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562.
• Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605.
• Connecticut v American Electric Power Co., 582 U.S. ___ (2011).
• Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337.
• European Court of Human Rights. European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8.
• South African Institute of Race Relations v Minister of Law and Order 1982 (1) SA 795 (A).
• United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). "Liability for Climate Change." EPA Reports, 2014.
• Jones v. Kaney [2011] UKSC 13.
• R v Department of Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd (No 2) [1991] 1 AC 603.
• Rajamani, L. "Climate Change Law," Cambridge University Press, 2012.