The First issue in this case is whether of not there was assent, a meeting of the minds between Oberon and Puck. The rule for assent is the objective standard of whether one party reasonably believes they had manifested an intent to be bound. However, there is a subjective standard when only one party knew of the other’s intent. For example, in Lucy v. Zehmer, one must look to the outward expression of a person as manifesting his intention rather than to his secret and unexpressed intention. In this case, it would be reasonable for Puck to think that Oberon had an intention to be bound, when discussing the details of a potential deal. However unlike the Zehmer case, there were multiple occurrences where Oberon outwardly expressed that he could …show more content…
The rule is that for an offer to be present, there must be an act whereby one person confers upon another the power to create a contractual relation between them. For example, in Owen v. Tunison, Owen inquired about buying Tunison’s property for $6,000, and Tunison replied that “he would not able to sell for anything less than $16,000”. The reply to the first inquiry was a quote on the price and an did not convey a desire to sell his property. Tunison did not intend his reply to be a binding offer but an opening of negotiation, he does not confer the power to accept the contractual relationship to Owen through his response. In this case, there is a similar initial question, by Puck, asking how much Oberon would sell his tavern for. Oberon responds telling him that if he was to give him a buck and take on whatever tax debt that my come up then, he would “almost” surely give him the tavern. Here, when Oberon says almost he does not intend to be bound by the price quote, but is expressing that, if he was to sell the tavern, it would be for those conditions. He does not confer the ability to conclude the contractual agreement to Puck. There is no valid offer by Oberon to sell his tavern to Puck, his response was a price
On September 4, 1958, Dollree Mapp’s was convicted in the Cuyahoga County Ohio Court of Common Pleas (Mapp v. Ohio - 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). On March 29, 1961, Dollree Mapp v. Ohio was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States after an incident with local Ohio law enforcement and a search of Dollree Mapp 's home (Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). In the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment protects and prohibits all persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, can evidence obtained through a search that was in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights still be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This is the issue that will be thoroughly examined in the landmark case of Dollree Mapp v. the State of Ohio (henceforth
A decision that is still very influential to Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is Schmerber v. California. After Schmerber and a friend drank at a bowling alley, Schmerber got behind the wheel of his car, and crashed his car into a tree. Because of their injuries, Schmerber and his friend were both taken to a hospital for treatment. Once at the hospital, a police officer requested that Schmerber submit to a chemical test of his breath so that officers could test for the presence of alcohol in his body. Schmerber again refused to comply with the test. After being directed to do so by a police officer, a physician took a blood sample from Schmerber – over Schmerber’s continued objections. The analysis of his blood showed that Schmerber was legally intoxicated at the time of the accident. Schmerber was charged with driving while intoxicated, a misdemeanor, and the subsequent report from the blood analysis was entered into evidence at a trial. Schmerber objected to the introduction of this evidence at trial, specifically arguing that the report
In the same year that Zimpfer was rejected, Palm Beach County filled only 4 percent of managerial positions with persons over 55 years of age and only 16 percent with persons over 39. Do these data indicate illegal discrimination using disparate impact theory? Should Zimpfer's lawyer use disparate impact theory for his claim of age discrimination?
Roper v. Simmons is a perfect example of the evolving role of the Supreme Court, the sources the Supreme Court used to reach the ruling in this case is quite questionable. While I agree with the Supreme Court about protecting the younger citizens of America the Supreme Court must have the law to back up their ruling. Though in this case they do not the Supreme Court used a combination of foreign policy, moral decency, and state laws as the legal foundation for this decision. None of these things are appropriate sources for deciding what is constitutional and what is not. The sources used for deciding the constitutionality of a case are the constitution and federal statues. While the case can be loosely tied in with the eighth amendment clause of “cruel and unusual punishment” there is no backing for the decision made. The Supreme Court with this case decided that it did not overturn the previous case of Stanford v. Kentucky, which ruled on this same issue fifteen years earlier. Yet the court stated that the prevailing moral code had altered therefore they changed their opinion. The truly shocking issue with this is that the neither law nor constitution had changed regarding this issue in the interceding fifteen years. The grave problem with this case is that the Supreme Court used the case of Roper V. Simmons to create law based of invalid sources.
On September 9th, 1993 at around two in the morning, 17 year old Christopher Simmons, 15 year old Charlie Benjamin and 16 year old John Tessmer met at the home of 29 year old Brian Moomey. Moomey drove the three teens to the house of 46 year old Shirley Crook. Tessmer refused to go with them and ended up going back to his house. Simmons and Benjamin went to the back of Shirley Crook’s house, found a window and cracked it open. When they reached though to unlock the back door and entered the house, Simmons turned on the hallway light. The light woke her and she yelled out, “Who’s there?” Simmons walked into her bedroom and told her to get out of bed and lay on the floor. They duct taped her mouth and eyes and wrapped an electrical cord around
The Schenck case in the early 1900s dealt with the freedom of speech as it related to the draft of World War I. Charles Schenck sent mass mail that stated “the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system” (Schenck v. United States). The federal government found this to be in violation of the Clear and Present Danger Test as well as the Espionage Act and arrested Schenck for his actions. The case proceeded to the Supreme Court and was ruled in favor of the United States unanimously. The opinion of the court violates the free speech clause as well as a right to have peaceful protest by denying Schenck to share his opinions of the draft with others despite the opinion of the government on this action. Due to these violations the ruling on the Schneck v. United States case should be overturned in order to protect the right of free speech and protest to all citizens.
Blackburn was candid that most of his clients were “in the (drug) life at some level” and many of them had prior arrests. For instance, Billy Wafer, was on probation for possession of marijuana at the time when he was accused of selling cocaine to Coleman. “I ain’t an angel but I’ve never sold drugs,” said Wafer. Wafer, unlike most of the other defendants, had his charges dropped because he had a rock solid alibi with time cards from his job. Also, his supervisor testified verifying he was at work when Coleman claimed he sold him cocaine.
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963); Clarence Earl Gideon is the plaintiff, and Louie L. Wainwright is the defendant.
This assignment will cover a fictitious name of Mary Cooper a woman accused of harboring a fugitive, and illegal stolen equipment. The police attempted an illegal search and seizure in her home without a search warrant. This violates her Fourth Amendment rights. Cooper held that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the exclusion of evidence found though an illegal search by state and local police officers, extending to the state a rule that previously applied onto to federal law enforcement.
Is a person's sudden flight from identifiable police officer, patrolling a high crime area, suspicious to justify the officer's stop and frisk of that person? This was the question that the justices of the Supreme Court were addressing when they heard the argument of the case Illinois v. Wardlow on November 2, 1999.
In colonial America, the court structure was quite different from that of their mother country, Great Britain. The system was a triangle of overlapping courts and common law. Common law was largely influenced by the moral code from the King James Version of the Bible, also known as moral law. In effect, these early American societies were theocratic and autocratic containing religious leaders, as well as magistrates. Sometimes these men were even one and the same. The criminal acts in colonial America were actually very similar to the crime prevalent in our society today. However, certain infractions were taken more seriously. Through the documents provided, we get a look at different crimes and their subsequent punishments in colonial
Was Dred Scott a free man or a slave? The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is about a slave named Dred Scott from Missouri who sued for his freedom. His owner, John Emerson, had taken Scott along with him to Illinois which was one of the states that prohibited slavery. Scott’s owner later passed away after returning back to Missouri. After suits and counter suits the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court with a 7-2 decision. Chief Justice Taney spoke for the majority, when saying that Dred Scott could not sue because he was not a citizen, also that congress did not have the constitutional power to abolish slavery, and that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. The case is very important, because it had a lot
Glassroth v. Moore, Maddox v. Moore United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 2003 335 F.3d 1282 Facts Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy S. Moore placed a 5280-pound ton granite monument displaying the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building. Procedure A group of lawyers consisting of Stephen R. Glassroth, Melinda Maddox and Beverly Howard filed two separate civil suits (Glassroth v. Moore and Maddox v. Moore) in Federal Court against Justice Moore in his official capacity as Chief Justice and in his official capacity as Administrative Head of the Alabama Judicial System, respectively, to have the monument removed. The United States District Court For The Middle District Of Alabama, Northern Division ordered the monument removed because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The injunction was stayed pending appeal. Issue: Did Chief Justice Moore’s placement of a 5280-pound monument displaying the Ten Commandments in the center of the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?
Facts: Two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter a colored woman and Richard Loving a white man, got married in the District of Columbia. The Loving's returned to Virginia and established their marriage. The Caroline court issued an indictment charging the Loving's with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. The state decides, who can and cannot get married. The Loving's were convicted of violating 20-55 of Virginia's code.
Generally the price is fixed by the person who has made the offer but sometimes negotiation take place between two parties and then the price at which both parties agree is paid by the offeree. It is essential that the paid price should be that on which both parties agrees otherwise the contract will be considered as void. Some problems such as mistake, duress and non est factum can prevent mutuality between two parties. The case of Petelin v Cullen gives a better understanding about mistake and non est factum. In this case Petelin was deceived and was made to sign a document written in English but Petelin could not understand English, so the court announced that the contract was not enforceable.