Question 1 The issues: The problem is Wendy she will succeed in legal claiming the money back? The first step is to look at the agreement legal approach of offer and acceptance (James 2012). The legal agreement checklist (James 2012), firstly, the offeror has made the offer. Dave, he is the offeror to make the offer to Wendy sponsor her $3000, if she decides to complete the run”. Second, the offeree has accepted the offer, at that moment Wendy did not accept the offer immediately, that cannot be become legally obliged, but Wendy’s behaviour is interest the offer. In this case, if Dave did not change his mind and the offer has not cancelled, Wendy can accept the offer without saying anything, therefore, the parties become legally obliged (James 2012). Thirdly, they both have communicated in an unclear way, Dave …show more content…
The important thing is a statement alleged to be an offer and willingness in both parties without further negotiation (Dowler & Miles 2003, p.129). If we took this case back in today, Mrs. Carlill would much easier win her case, especially we got Australian Competition and Consumer Commission or Department of Fair Trading would research and follow these complaints (Dowler & Miles 2003, p.133). Same as Dave v Wendy case, Dave delightful to make an offer to Wendy, and hope Wendy can take the offer, just the point is Dave short of money, but Dave keeps the offer to Wendy, and also Dave need the runner the show after three days. The argument is Dave made an offer in the social agreement the court was not intended to be a contract. For example, case Balfour v Balfour (1919) (James 2012), friend and relatives cannot make contracts, the wife and husband are not legally enforceable arrangement of the court. Look back on Wendy v Dave case, they are relationship could be the only business
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
Chief Justice John Marshall was an intelligent man who served in the United States Supreme Court from 1801 until the year 1835. During this time, Marshall heard over 1,000 cases and wrote 519 decisions (Fox). One of the cases he heard took place in 1824, and it’s known as Gibbons v. Ogden. This case is a rather simple one, but an important one nonetheless. A problem arose when two men, named Thomas Gibbons and Aaron Ogden, found out that they were both operating steamboat ferries along the same route. These men had both received permission to operate their steamboats from two different places. Gibbons received permission from the Federal Government, while Ogden had received his from a state government. When the case reached the Supreme Court,
The book, Celebrated Cases of Judge Dee (Dee Goong An), takes place in China, during the Tang dynasty. The Tang dynasty took place from 618-907 CE and included both Confucian and Legalist influences. Located in the Province of Shantung, is the town district called Chang-Ping, where Dee Goong An served as the town 's magistrate. A magistrate is a judge, detective, and peacekeeper who captures criminals and is responsible for their punishments. The people of China looked at magistrates as the "mother and father" of their town. Magistrates received a large amount of respect from the people due to the amount of authority and power they had. With so many people relying on him to make their home
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.
The duty of prosecutorial disclosure is one that is safely entrenched in our understanding of the legal system. The prosecution must disclose evidence that relates to the case and is favorable to the defendant. While not explicitly stated in that duty, it also means that the histories of the witnesses are available to the defense. And when police officers are called to testify at cases, their disciplinary histories come into play as a factor in their credibility. Taking all this prior information into account when addressing the dilemma of the police officer with a good record who used the department computers to look at pornography using his login information, and then lied about it only to confess when the internal investigation proved
Facts: The P (Kendra Knight) was participating in a coed touch football game, while playing the D (Michael Jewett) broke the plaintiff's finger by knocking her over and stepped on her finger during an informal touch football game. Where Knight had to get a number of four surgeries and she lost her finger. According to the D claim he was only trying intercept a pass and when he came down he stepped on her hand. He did not mean to hurt or injured Knight. The P says otherwise she says Jewett came behind and knocked her down. She put her arms out to break the fall and Jewett ran over her, stepping on her hand. The P is suing the D for negligence and assault and battery. Knight appealed the ruling of the decision.
The Lilah R. vs. Anthony Smith case has several consequences for administration. First, it tells students that they are powerless in sexual harassment cases when facing school officials. The courts ruled that Lilah did not have enough evidence to support her claims of sexual harassment. However, the district found Mr. Smith guilty for “engaging in inappropriate and unprofessional behavior contrary to District policy.” Even though the district found him guilty, he was not removed from his position at the school. Lastly, the outcome in this case shows that the school supports sexual harassment. Again, Mr. Smith was allowed to keep his job even though he was found guilty by the district. This was also contradictory to the districts and state’s
In Contract Law, presumptions can become vague, misunderstood, misinterpreted and when used inappropriately can lead to ineffective judgments. To combat this and improve the process used to determine intention to create legal relations, The High Court of Australia has effectively re-characterised the role of presumptions, which has positively impacted other courts in the hierarchy. This began through the judgement made in Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community which positively changed the way judges dealt with both Contractual Presumptions and the Intention to create legal relations. This case inspired positive change which transpired through proceeding cases and judgements made by Australian courts.
Skinner v state of oklahoma The first case of many cases dealing with the topic of the reproductive system , the rights of an individual to have the rights to a choice in reproduction . Though Roe v Wade is the most commonly known of the Supreme Court cases regarding reproductive rights it was not the first Supreme Court case regarding this topic. Reproductive rights was in fact not Roe v. Wade , but rather this case had no element that discussed the principle of abortion or contraceptive use.Skinner V, State of oklahoma Rather this case dealt with the topic of a discipline/ punishment based forced sterilization,( the removal of the reproductive capabilities
In 1985, Christine J. Amos, Judy Bawden, Deniece Kanon, April Joy Reding, Arthur Frank Mason, Ruth Arriola, Shellen Adamson, and Ralph L. Whitaker sued The Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, for discrimination based on religion due to being fired for being unable to or unwilling to qualify for a “temple recommend”, in Utah District Court and “won”. By “won” it is meant the court decided, based on the three prong test[1] set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, that § 702 of Title VII of The Civil Rights act of 1964 was unconstitutional when applied to non-religious duties within a non profit business owned by a religious organization, or an organization which heavily relied on funding from a religious corporation.
In Milwaukee County Case No. 14-CF-4197 The State charged Mr. Boyd in a criminal complaint with one count of Possession with Intent to Deliver
I would not offer Landis anything. She has been warned that she was not performing her job and she has already cost the company enough by not performing her job. Nonetheless, if she threatens with a lawsuit, the options would have to be looked at again. If the lawsuit outweighs the severance package, the company would have to go to court but if it does not, one maybe able to settle. This type of decision would be made once the company looks at the attorney fees and lost time when it comes to going to court.
McOskar Enterprises, Inc. owns and manages a health and fitness center identified as “Curves for Women”. Tammey J. Anderson, the complainant, joined Curves on April 2, 2003. As part of the joining process Anderson signed a release of liability agreement. This agreement released Curves from any liabilities related to injuries that might be sustained by contributing in any activities or through the use of equipment. The agreement also stated that participants agreed to all risks of death or injury that could occur, Anderson read and signed the agreement of terms with Curves. After completing the liability agreement, Anderson began working out under the observation of a Curves’ trainer using the machines within the facility. During the workout Anderson notified the trainer that she began to feel pain in her neck, shoulder and arm, but finished her workout. She continued to feel the pain when she got home and pursued medical attention. As part of her prescribed medical treatment she was sent for a course a physical therapy. In June 2003 Anderson underwent a cervical discectomy, a procedure used to treat nerve or spinal cord compression. After her procedure Anderson sued Curves, claiming negligent acts during her workout. Anderson v. McOskar Enterprises, Inc., 712 NW 2d 796 (Minn. 2006).
In order to highlight all aspects of People v. Smith, 470 NW2d 70, Michigan Supreme Court (1991) we must first discuss the initial findings of the Michigan Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals decision was based on the precedence of two similar court cases that created discussion concerning the admission of juvenile records into adult trials. Following the Court of Appeals, the Michigan Supreme Court entered the final decision on Ricky Smith’s motion for resentencing. The Michigan Supreme Court also conducted a thorough examination of People v. Jones, People v. McFarlin, and People v. Price to determine the outcome of Smith’s motion to be resentenced.
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...