Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Acceptance in postal rule
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Acceptance in postal rule
THE RELEVENT CASES OF POSTAL ACCEPTANCE RULE Adam v Lindsell In cases between Adams v Lindsell. The defendant, Lindsell wrote the to the plaintiff, that state Lindsell offering to sell them some quantity of wool on 2nd September. Lindsell requested that the plaintiff, Adam to reply in course of post. However the letter was contained the offer that should be sent to Adam was wrongly addressed lindsell should sent the letter of the offer to Bromsgrove Leceister but it’s sent by the mistakes to Bromsgrove Worcestershire. Adam didn’t received any letter of the offer from Lindsell until 5th September. As the result of this delay, the letter of an offer does not received by Adam until 9th September, and to receive it. Because of the mistakes, this was two day later, Lindsell would have expected to received it. On 8th September Lindsell had sell he wool and gived the offer to the third party. Adam have brought of suits for the losses their sustained by not receiving the fleeches. The cases between Adam v Lindsell is the case was consider when mutual assent to an mutual agreement occur in the particular circumstances of a mail contract. If nce was effective when it arrived at the address or when the defendant saw it, then no contract would have been made and sale to the third party would a mount to revocation of the offer. However, the courts held that the offer had been accepted as soon as the letter had been posted . Adam v Lindsell was indeed a contract in existence before the sale of the wool to the third party, even though the letter had not actually been received by defendant. The trial court was held that Adam’s acceptance was valid when Adam put it in the mail, and that any postponed in process of receiving the acceptance that w... ... middle of paper ... ...n wanted to sue the offeree, Stahag for breach of the contract. The postal rule does not apply to direct or an instant forms of communication and including telex. As telex was used here the postal rule did not apply and the contract is was formed in Vienna. The Court is also are observed that even though with telex the message may not be received by the intended recipient immediately or there are may be agents or other third parties who receive the messages to be passed on to the intended recipient, a telex that goes directly from the offeree’s business to the offeror’s business. This is unlike a telegram which employs the use of a post office and should be treated as if it were an instantaneous communication. If a telex is sent to an office acceptance occurs when the telex reaches the place of business, not when it actually gets to the person it is addressed to.
The case of Graham v. Connor is about DeThorne Graham a diabetic that had an insulin reaction, and was pulled over and stopped by Officer Connor. The case is important because it has set the bar when it comes to other cases and the use of force and violation of Fourth Amendment rights.
In America’s time there have been many great men who have spent their lives creating this great country. Men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson fit these roles. They are deemed America’s “founding fathers” and laid the support for the most powerful country in history. However, one more man deserves his name to be etched into this list. His name was John Marshall, who decided case after case during his role as Chief Justice that has left an everlasting mark on today’s judiciary, and even society itself. Through Cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he established the Judicial Branch as an independent power. One case in particular, named Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), displayed his intuitive ability to maintain a balance of power, suppress rising sectionalism, and unite the states under the Federal Government.
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
In the 1996 Supreme Court case Romer v. Evans, the voters of the state of Colorado approved a second amendment to their state Constitution through a referendum, in order to prevent homosexuals from becoming a protected minority. Before the referendum occurred, many of the major cities in Colorado passed laws prohibiting people to be discriminated against based on their sexuality, including whether or not they are homosexual. The citizens of Colorado who disapprove of homosexuality then created a petition to put the second amendment to a vote, and won with a majority of 53% of the votes. Richard Evans, with the support of many others, took the amendment to court claiming it was unconstitutional, and should be removed from the constitution, going on to win in the Colorado Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court.
George Eldridge resided in Norton, Virginia, which is a small coal mining city located in the southwestern corner of Virginia. Mr. Eldridge worked for the Interstate Railroad, he was a member of the military, and worked for Royal Crown Cola. While at Royal Crown Cola, Mr. Eldridge became totally disabled; chronic anxiety, back strain, and diabetes. In the 1940s, Mr. Eldridge had been diagnosed with spinal arthritis. Mr. Eldridge’s health continued to degenerate as a result of his strenuous delivery jobs. However, over the years Mr. Eldridge had acquired a family and purchased a house. After working eight years as a delivery driver, he was no longer able to perform his job. Shortly after Mr. Eldridge became disabled, he began to suffer from diabetes
Many citizens know their rights. There have been cases where people’s rights have been violated in law enforcement.The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution) This amendment protects individuals from unlawful searches and seizures, depending on the situation, and requires probable cause and a warrant in order for a police officer to commence their search.
Davis v. Davis deals with a couple from Knoxville, TN, Junior Lewis Davis and Mary Sue Davis (now Stowe), who eventually turned to in vitro fertilization (IVF) after having much difficult conceiving naturally. Five unsuccessful tubal pregnancies and six attempts of IVF implantations later, the couple allowed the facility to cryogenically preserve their last remaining ova in their final efforts. Their marriage ultimately came to an end, resulting in this dispute regarding the disposition of their “frozen embryos”. The couple was unable to come to an agreement from the very beginning to the end, with Mary Sue initially wanting the embryos with the intent to transfer to her own uterus and Junior wanting them to remain frozen until he decided to
Lawrence v. Texas In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults who were acting in privacy.
Miller v. Alabama was a case that was taken to trial on March 19, 2012. The case was resolved on June 24, 2012. The case involved Evan Miller and violating the eighth amendment with respect to life sentences. The eighth amendment states that excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The main impact this case had on criminal law was the United States Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to give a life-without-parole sentence on someone who was a minor at the time of the crime committed. Miller v. Alabama was a case where the eighth amendment was violated due to unusual punishment placed upon a fourteen year old boy and a impact
It is never enough to create a great product; it has to be coupled with a desire for that product. The competitive advantage that Wedgwood brought to his company was the ability to create demand for goods. He was able to see the needs of the market before the market did and then cultivating market demand to satisfy those needs with his goods. A differentiation strategy was put into place by Wedgwood for his products as there were already a number of pottery options available on the market. Instead of the low quality, irregular options that were available on the market, Wedgwood’s pottery was made from clay, rather than wood, and was a more uniform finished product. A method of increasing demand by raising the perceived value of the pottery is to drive up demand by the high affluent. One of the ways that he accomplished this was through a technique called inertia selling. By putting a high quality and reputable product in the hands of the elite with no penalty, Wedgwood can display first-hand his high-end craftsmanship and design. With the working class working in the homes of...
Bounds v. Smith was argued November 1, 1976 and the case was decided April 27, 1977 by THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fourth circuit. MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., filed a concurring opinion. BURGER, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion. STEWART, J., post, and REHNQUIST, J filed dissenting opinions, in which BURGER, C.J., joined.
Also the prime suspect had other charges pending against him such as possession of illegal substances and the homeowner of the vacant crime scene said the man was a recovering addict. During the conversation with the officers Johnson refused to give up his DNA sample. The man profess he had not commit any murders and did not commit any crimes regarding the matter. Officers then compel him to give his DNA sample with a warrant compelling him to follow the order. Moreover, after the crime was committed it was discovered that Johnson try to sell one of the victims’ cell phone. He was trying to get rid of the evidence that could implement him on the crime. Witness came forward to verify this story that Johnson indeed try to sell the cell phone for cash. In addition, witness said that Johnson try to be the pimp of the victims that he was
Dred Scott was born a slave in the state of Virginia around the 1800's. Around 1833 he was purchased from his original owner, Peter Blow, by John Emerson, an officer in the United States Army. Dr. Emerson took Dred Scott to the free state of Illinois to live, and under it's constitution, he was eligible to be free. In around 1836, Dred Scott and his owner moved to Wisconsin territory, a territory that was free under the Missouri compromise. It was in Wisconsin that Dred Scott met and married Harriet Robinson. John Emerson was transferred in 1837 to Ft. Jessup, Louisiana, were he met and married Irene Sandford. Dred Scott and his wife followed Dr. Emerson and his wife from duty station to duty station; they ended up in St. Louis Mo. In May 1840 Dr. Emerson was ordered to war in Florida. Dred Scott remained in St. Louis with his family and Mrs. Emerson. Dr. Emerson returned home after the war, and relocated to Iowa. This time he left the Scotts behind and rented them out. This would be the last time Scott would see Dr. Emerson. Dr. Emerson passed away in 1843, leaving the Scott family to his wife, Irene. In 1846 Dred Scott attempted to buy his freedom from Mrs. Emerson, who refused his offer. With the help and encouragement of John Anderson, their minister, Dred Scott decided to sue.
This judgment given set criterion which is still been used in the modern court system and due to this case it was developed that an offer of contract can be unilateral and doesn’t have to be made to a specific party only. Also it was developed to that the acceptance of an offer does not require a notification and that once the concerned party purchases the product the contract is active then and there itself. And it was also established that purchase of an item is a fine example of consideration and therefore makes it a valid contract. (Smith, 2000).
In Krell v. Henry {1903} a plea of frustration succeeded because the court held that the common purpose for which the contact was entered into, could no longer be carried out. But in the same year for similar set of facts, the Court of Appeal decided in Herne Bay v. Hutton [1903] that the contract had not been frustrated because the "common formation of the contract" had not changed. It clearly was a policy decision which shows the reluctance of the courts to provide an escape route for a party for whom the contract ha...