Assignment 4
A
Bonzi found a necklace while staying at a hotel that is owned by Alpha Corp, and the question, “to whom does the necklace belong?” is asked. First of all, the type of property involved, from a legal perspective is personal property, and more specifically, tangible personal property because the necklace is a physical object that can be moved and touched. In determining who the necklace belongs to, the legal decision that needs to be made in relation to Bonzi is: who has legal ownership of the necklace?
There is a legal rule that applies to people like Bonzi who find property. To start, it is important to note that personal property rights can be transferred by the intentions of one or more people meaning that it is possible
…show more content…
A determination needs to be made if MC Electric is required to pay GB the 50% commission on the deal. When determining whether or not the contract is binding, the area of law involved would be contract law.
There are two rules/principles of law that apply to agents like Dortmund and his actions. The first legal principle has to do with whether or not Dortmund had the actual authority to make a deal with GB. Actual authority is the authority that is specifically set out in an agency contract where the principle authorizes an agent to act on its behalf. Additionally, actual authority may also be granted less formally through an oral delegation of authority by a principle. Dortmund could only have actual authority if his contract gave him the authority to make a deal like that with GB. The second legal principal that should be considered is whether or not Dortmund had apparent authority. Apparent authority exists when the principal creates the impression that the agent is authorized to act on the principal 's behalf. A principle can give apparent authority through conversation, but also through official job titles and positions (if they give the reasonable impression that an agent has the authority). Sometimes both apparent and actual authority can exist, but often only one
Does the introduction of a system of registration of title remove the need for the law to recognise possessory or equitable interests in land? Why? Why not?
It is often conceptualized that property is the rights of 'ownership'. In common law property is divided into real property, which is the interests in land and improvements there, and personal property, which are interests in anything other than real property. Personal property is divided into tangible property (such as a bike, car and clothse), and intangible property (such as bonds and stocks), which also includes intellectual property (copyrights, trademarks etc). The modern property rights conceive of possession and ownership as belonging to legal individuals, even if the individual is not a real person. Hence, governments, corporations and other collective forms of ownership are shown in terms of individual ownership.
Similar to the case of Fox v. Mountain West Electric, 512 P. 3d 848 (2002), even though there was a contract, there were also a few more pro-contract adjustments that were made on implied terms. The court sides with the defendant at first while the appellate court overruled it. There was an implied contract that are manifested by our conduct of regular supply and payment. If for any reason, the court sides with defendant, there is always the appellate court for further
and Mme. Loisel cooperate to find what seems to be an exact replica of the lost necklace, which they must purchase and return to Mme. Forestier. Mathilde attempts to find a replacement for the necklace to prevent Mme. Forestier from realizing the original had been lost. The couple travelled “from one jeweler to another hunting for a similar necklace” (175). They went together to look for the necklace, which proves that they are exerting mutual effort. M. Loisel uses all means necessary to pay for the necklace. He “made ruinous deals” (187) and “risked his signature” (188) in order to pay for the expensive diamond necklace. Though Mme. Loisel lost the necklace, her husband uses his savings and takes out loans to help her pay for the replacement. The couple acquires the necklace and must return it to Mme. Forestier. M. Loisel brings the necklace home, and “Mme. Loisel took the necklace back” (199) to the owner. The couple collaborates to get the necklace into the hands of its owner. Mathilde and M. Loisel work together to replace Mme. Forestier’s necklace, and she is none the
In Nils Christie’s “Conflicts as Property”, Christie develops an argument in which depicts the concept of perceiving conflict as property and the measure that it impacts individuals and the legal system. This summary will further examine and comply with Christie’s perception, that conflict can be seen as property. In order to examine the argument and perspective of the author, understanding his implementation is of great importance. The ways in which professionals in the area of law can be perceived as “professional thieves”, and the example of laws pertaining to domestic violence, will be further discussed to validate the key concept of conflict as property. In summary; Christie believes that conflict is adverse to growth of the society
One day, a rich man turned to Jesus and asked him about how to inherit an eternal life. Even though he had already followed the particular commandments such as not murdering, stealing, lying and honoring your parents, he still could not keep the law perfectly. Because Jesus asked him to give all his fortune to the poor but he would not like to. Jesus told disciples that it would be easier for the camel to go through the eye of a needle than the wealthy to enter the Kingdom of God. (Mark 10:17-10:25)
A determination needs to be made if MC Electric is required to pay GB the 50% commission on the deal. When determining whether or not the contract is binding, the area of law involved would be contract law.
section 1-304, which states, “[e]very contract or duty within the [U.C.C.] imposes an obligation of good faith [and fair dealing] in its performance and enforcement” (U.C.C. § 1-304, 2012). The legal ramifications of a breach in good faith and fair dealing practices was exemplified in the Sons of Thunder, Inc. v. Borden, Inc. case of 1997. The defendant (Borden Inc.) breached its implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by curtailing its contract with the plaintiff. Based on these actions, the jury awarded the plaintiff compensatory damages of $412,000, which the plaintiff would have received if the contract had been fulfilled (Sons of Thunder, Inc. v. Borden, Inc., 1997). Subject to this case’s precedent, the breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing within my contract would also constitute a remedy of compensatory damages from the defendant. Although the defendant may claim his son was not an authorized agent of the company during the contract’s signing; the doctrine of estoppel legally destroys the validity of this claim. The doctrine of estoppel within the Restatement (third) of Agency (2006) in §2.05 states, “A person who has not made a manifestation that an actor has authority as an agent and who is not otherwise liable as a party to a transaction purportedly done by the actor on that person 's account is subject to liability to a third party who justifiably is induced to make a detrimental change in position because the transaction is believed to be on the person 's account, if the person intentionally or carelessly caused such belief” (Restatement (third) of Agency, 2006, §2.05). According to section 2.05, the doctrine of estoppel stands as a reasonable defense for the contract’s validity because the carelessness of the defendant’s son led me to believe he was an authorized agent of
Barney, a recently retired Deputy Sheriff in North Carolina, is plagued by a week of disastrous discoveries, in some ways likened to the tribulations of Job as recorded in the Biblical account. Not only is Barney’s ‘prime real estate in the North Carolina mountains’ being claimed by a former co-worker citing adverse possession rights, but he discovers that his beach-front home is being claimed by the city under eminent domain to make room for a Nickelodeon Family Resort. Furthermore, Barney’s truck is stolen by a former employee of a fine dining restaurant posing as a valet, only to be discovered at a classic car show a few weeks later. The current owner of the vehicle refuses to return it to Barney until he is reimbursed $5,600, the value of a car he traded to obtain the truck. As Barney’s attorney, and longtime friend, I have the responsibility of advising Barney of his legal position and subsequent rights, while also offering personal support as a Christian friend.
Through statistics, the price of all property is set from a fair market value in which auctions control sixty five percent of today's prices on all property. So why not get the most out of personal property by selling it at the auction? An individual has to read the contract that the auction house writes because it could read that they might not get paid until the last item of their personal property gets sold. Some auctioneers are known for keeping back one of two items from an individuals personal property back until they have their next sale.
...y within the United States and personal property used predominantly outside the United States are not property of a like kind.
In the seventeenth-century, England was recovering from the "Glorious Revolution" and political thought centered on the issues of nature and the limits of government. Two great political thinkers, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes took a scientific approach to analyze government and focused on the state of nature and natural rights of individuals. Locke was particularly interested in property and governments role in the protection of property. He believed that God gave the world to men to use common, but also gave them reason to make the best use of it (Locke 17). According to Locke, the best use of the land and resources involved gaining property, using the word in a narrow sense. He also used the term 'property' in a broad sense, which he defined as people's "lives, liberties, and estates" (75). A French thinker in the eighteenth-century, Jean-Jacques Rousseau basically agreed with Locke on the definition of property in a narrow sense, but took an opposing view to Locke's regarding the effects property had on society. Rousseau was a Romanticist and believed that property was the first aspect of injustice. The opposing views of Locke and Rousseau are obvious in their respective works, Second Treatise of Government and Discourse of the Origin of Inequality.
In “Whose Culture Is It, Anyway? ”, Kwame Anthony Appiah begins by pointing out that some of the museums of the world, particularly in the West, have large collections of artefacts and objects which were robbed from developing and poor countries. He then raises a question: who owns these cultural patrimony and properties? Our first answer may be that since they make up the cultural heritage of a people, they belong to the people and culture from whom they were taken. Appiah has doubt about this and argues that if some cultural artefacts are potentially valuable to all human beings, they should belong to all of humanity. He thinks that when they make contribution to world culture, they should be protected by being made available to those who would benefit from experiencing them and put into trusteeship of humanity.
it must be said, look at all of these questions in the light of what