HEARSAY/Non-Hearsay Hearsay – Supra Will Frank Torino’s testimony regarding Nordstrom’s regional manager’s phone call to him (Frank), be admitted as hearsay? If it is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Here, Frank is testifying as an agent of Novelty, that Nordstrom’s called Frank to indicate that Novelty breached their vendor agreement. The NonHearsay would be under “Verbal Acts” since the truth of that matter is not at issue. Verbal acts - verbal acts not offered for their truth.
The difference between Lack of consideration and failure of consideration is failure of consideration means there was a contract that failed for some reason. Lack of consideration there was not a contract to begin with. Rule The Court of Appeals, Orme, J., held that agreement was not enforceable contract. It was making a promise for past services for being nice. One cannot make a contract for past services.
DECISION: Affirmed in favor of appellee (Durham). Refund of purchase price affirmed. DISCUSSION: Appellants claim that there was evidence that they held good title or at leas voidable title and therefore had the right to sell. Court finds it unequivocal that a person who has goods of another cannot pass title whether such other knew or did not know that goods were stolen. It is undisputed that the automobile is stolen and title is void.
Susie’s mother is a breast cancer survivor. The Speeker family believes that marijuana should be legalized for compassionate use. Susie held a sign at the fair that stated “Be compassionate, legalize marijuana for medical purposes.” Susie was photographed carrying the sign. The picture of Susie, with the sign, was published in the school paper. She was suspended from school for ten days.
One needs to consider whether the sinking of the ship was an isolated event that was easily corrected, or whether it was a serious flaw that would require costly repairs. What needs to be answered regarding the flaw is whether the vendor, Captain Jack Sparrow, should have been aware of such a flaw; that is, was the flaw as a result of a patent or latent defect. If such defect was latent, was it known to the vendor. At common law, Davey Jones should also consider the principles of product liability, a branch of negligence law, arguing that Captain Jack Sparrow Inc. sold him a defective product that was not fit for its intended and known purpose. Davey Jones could also argue misrepresentation—he was induced to enter into the contract based on representations made about the quality of the ship.
The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA), requires district courts to order restitution in cases of mail fraud, among other federal crimes. The statute makes restitution available to victims of fraud to the extent that those victims would have been entitled to recover in a civil suit against the criminal. Based on the established statutes, Circuit Judge, Wood, found no reason to overturn the original district court’s ruling and affirmed the
Current California Tort Law Dubbed by Prosser the "little brother of conversion," the tort of trespass to chattels allows recovery for interferences with possession of personal property "not sufficiently important to be classed as conversion, and so to compel the defendant to pay the full value of the thing with which he has interfered." (Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed.1984) § 14, pp. 85-86.) Though not amounting to conversion, the defendant's interference must, to be actionable, have caused some injury to the chattel or to the plaintiff's rights in it. Under California law, trespass to chattels "lies where an intentional interference with the possession of personal property has proximately caused injury."
During that time I do believe that the Supreme Court’s opinion in overturning the lower court’s decision was appropriate. 4. SEC and Department of Justice should have tried Andersen as a firm and also should have targeted specific individuals engaged in unlawful acts. 5. While Andersen’s conviction was overturned, I don’t believe that employees of Andersen acted in an ethical manner for in the prosecution’s case top partners in the Andersen Chicago office had permitted Enron to use aggressive accounting practices that were questionable given the nature of Enron’s business.
Chapter 2 2-15: B. A is part of role of internal auditor because they can assist external auditors with annual financial statement audit. C& D also belong to internal auditors because they are often involved in assurance and consulting engagements for their entity. However, B cannot belongs to the role of internal auditors because it does not relate to the investors and creditors. , 2-16: A.
Held: 1. The Petition Clause does not provide absolute immunity to defendants charged with expressing libelous and damaging falsehoods in petitions to Government officials. Although the value in the right of petition as an important aspect of self-government is beyond question, it does not follow that the Framers of the First Amendment believed that the Petition Clause provided absolute immunity from damages for libel. In 1845 this Court, after reviewing the common law, held in White v. Nicholls, 3 How. 266, that a petition to a Government official was actionable if prompted by "express malice," which was defined as "falsehood and the absence of probable cause," and nothing has been presented to suggest that that holding should be altered.