It must be established whether the claim was false, fictitious or fraudulent. 3. The government also needs to prove that the false, fictitious or fraudulent claim was material (Salcido, 2009). 4. Another element that must be established beyond a reasonable doubt so as to secure a conviction is that When the US government provides any section of money or property that is essential or demanded, or the state decides to return a contractor, grantee or recipient the requested or demanded money, false claim documents do not need to be submitted directly to the government as the provision virtually covers everything that is of value.
In one decision, the Court held that regulations that deprive a person of all ability to develop or utilize his or her property for any economic purposes goes too far and requires just compensation. Another line of Supreme Court cases establishes that if the government effects a permanent physical invasion of the person's property, for example by requiring the owner to allow public access to the property, this constitutes a taking. Absent one of these two circumstances, however, the Court has said that the question whether a regulation goes too far is a contextual, ad hoc determination that involves the weighing of a number of factors. Foremost among these factors is the magnitude of the regulation's economic impact and the degree to which it interferes with legitimate property interests. A particularly important issue that has been raised is whether a person who acquires property after the institution of the regulatory regime should have any claim whatsoever.
Memorandum To: Audit Engagement Team Manager From: Zach Halstead, Junior Auditor Subject: Due Diligence on SolvGen Inc. Date: October 4, 2011 After reviewing both the research and development (R&D) agreement and the license and distribution agreement between SolvGen Inc. and Careway Pharma Inc., I have come to the following conclusions: Deliverables Discussion * In accordance with codification 605-25-25, a deliverable must have objective value on a stand-alone basis. * The deliverable in this agreement is the selling of exclusive instrument systems which fall under the license and distribution agreement. * The R&D agreement does not constitute a deliverable since Careway is barred to any of the findings of SolvGen’s R&D department, even in the event of a SolvGen bankruptcy. * Without such access to R&D research, the agreement essentially has no value to Careway on a stand-alone basis.
Where the title to the land in question is not registered, an application may be made for adverse possession where: the squatter has factual possession of the land; the squatter has the necessary intention to possess the land; the squatter's possession is without the owner's consent; and all of the above have been true of the squatter and any predecessors through whom the squatter claims for at least 12 years prior to the date of the application Factual Possession: In Powell v McFarlane (1979) 38 P & CR 452, Slade J said: "Factual possession signifies an appropriate degree of physical control. It must be a single and [exclusive] possession, though there can be a single possession exercised on behalf of several persons jointly. Thus an owner of land and a person intruding on that land without his consent cannot both be in possession of the land at the same time. The question what acts constitute a sufficient degree of exclusive physical control must depend on the circumstances, in particular the nature of the land and the manner in which land of that nature is commonly used or enjoyed. …Everything must depend on the particular circumstances, but broadly, I think what must be shown as constituting factual possession is that the alleged possessor has been dealing with the land in question as an occupying owner might have been expected to deal with it and that no one else has done so".
Unlike under unjust enrichment, however, a plaintiff can recover under quantum meruit even if he confers no benefit on the defendant. See, e.g., Barnes v. Lozoff, 20 Wis.2d 644, 123 N.W.2d 543 (Wis.1963) (allowing recovery for architect who created blueprints that were valueless to the defendant because defendant did not own some of the land at issue in the blueprints). Under quantum meruit, damages are “measured by the reasonable value of the plaintiff's services,” and calculated at “the customary rate of pay for such work in the community at the time the work was performed.” To take advantage of the more liberal recovery rule of quantum meruit, a plaintiff must prove two elements, both relating to the parties' course of conduct. As explained by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, to recover under quantum meruit, the plaintiff must prove that “the defendant requested the [plaintiff's] services” and “the plaintiff expected reasonable compensation” for the
Real Property Assignment 1 By Rachel Myers Alan, who lives in Boring, Oregon, found a lost object that belongs to Bart, who also lives in Boring, Oregon. After Alan found the object, Bart offered a reward for the return of said object. The issues is whether or not Alan can hold Bart’s property until Bart agrees to pay the reward that he originally offered, or can Bart retract his offer? The rules that apply here are based on case law, or common law. The issues here are very similar to those in MacFarlane v. Bloch, in which M.M.
This will be done in accordance with legislative requirements in each state. All Incident and Hazard forms must be submitted to the Managers and Return to Work Coordinator and a copy retained for employee’s records. An aggravation, exacerbation or re-occurrence of an existing injury or illness is to be recorded on the Hazard and Incident Report Form where there is a specific incident. b) How would you ensure that your team is aware of these procedures? - Through induction for new staff.
The Pennsylvania Act 13th is legislation that was passed by Pennsylvania legislation to provide “pro-business, clean-energy bill creating jobs, revenue and improving environmental laws surrounding drilling.” ("Fracking Democracy: Why Pennsylvania's Act 13 May Be the Nation's Worst Corporate Giveaway | AlterNet", 2012). When in turn this may not be the case at all once you ready the full legislative act. It has allowed them (companies of fracking) the basic rights to drill within 300 yards of any protect land for an example, wetlands and populated areas. It also helps over turn zoning laws that have been in place to help protect these people from the chemicals and air pollution that would be a result in closer proximity to their homes and community. This is also one of the first bills that has helped close a loop hole that discloses what is being used in the water while fracking.
“The oil and gas provision gives the state the power to "regulate the development, production and utilization of natural resources of oil and gas. " The town proclaims that it was not trying to regulate fracking but just trying to protect its citizens and property. The town is following provisions that address groundwater contamination such as the Safe Drinking Water Act, Resource Conservation Act, and the Superfund Act. The government introduced legislation to both houses of the 11th United States Congress in 2009 called the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act. It aims to define fracking as a federally regulated activity under the SDWA.
Justus Co., Inc. 1. What did the seller here limit itself to do in case of defects? What was the limitation of remedy? Justus Homes contends the District Court erred in failing to instruct the jury on a limitation-of-remedies clause contained in its contract with the plaintiff. The defendants rely on Clause 10c of the contract, which says Justus will repair or replace defective materials, and Clause 10d, which states that this limited repair or replacement clause is the exclusive remedy available against Justus [emphasis added].