A defendant must be represented; however, they do not have the right to choose which counsel they will receive. The attorney must be knowledgeable and competent, but there cannot be any preferential treatment of one lawyer over another based on reputation or perceived abilities of counsel. As long as the attorney has proven to be effective in representing the case, the defendant must be represented by them. Defendants may be able to show just cause about preferring to self-represent, but again, they must show a clear understanding in making the decision to refuse counsel for their case (Tomkovicz, 2002). There are many other limitations of right to counsel, they include the period that is referred to as “noncritical stages”.
Informal 1. Although informal adjudication is not as elaborate as the formal method, the hearings are still subject to a predetermined set of rules, to which parties must adhere. 2. Laws may implement a specific “time frame” (DeLeo, 2008, pg.4), in which concerned parties will be allowed to submit their case. If too much time elapses between an event and an action the case may be set aside.
Additional requirement for admissibility of multiple hearsay A hearsay statement is not admissible to prove the fact that an earlier hearsay statement was made unless: either of the statements is admissible or all the parties to the proceedings agree; or the court is satisfied that the value of the evidence in question, taking into account how reliable the statements appear to be, is so high that the interests of justice require the later statement to be admissible for that purpose. ‘Hearsay statement’ means a statement, not made in oral evidence, that is relied on as evidence of a matter stated in it. Memory refreshing A witness giving oral evidence in court may use a document to refresh his or her memory, provided that the document was made (or verified) by him at an earlier time, and provided: he states that the document records his recollections of the matter at that earlier time and his recollection of the matter is likely to have been significantly better at the time the document was made, than at the time of his oral evidence. Running head: UNIT 5 ASSIGNMENT 10
Policy is an important consideration for the courts to decide the duty owed by defendants. Lord Bridge suggested that it should be fair, just and reasonable when imposing duty on defendant. It is thought that the imposition of a duty solely base on foreseeability of damage is not desirable. As Winfield and Jolowicz suggests that “the court must decide not simply whether there is or is not a duty, but whether there should or should not be one.” For the purpose of this essay, I will discuss how policy can influence the imposition of duty. The most important policy concern has always been the “floodgates argument”.
Persuasive precedent is a decision of a lower court which may influence the higher court, where the legal facts are similar or slightly different. It may also be made by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, another jurisdiction or things said obiter. The Supreme Court binds all lower courts and generally binds itself due to London Tramways Co v London County Council 1898. The Practice Statement 1966 says that following precedent is a good thing as it enables us to know exactly what the law is and we can behave accordingly. Despite this, it is stated that following precedent too rigidly may cause an injustice.
If a situation should occur then the company could be covered by t the Conflict of laws which has three branches , Jurisdiction whether the forum court has the power to resolve the dispute at hand, Choice of law the law which is being applied to resolve the dispute, and Foreign judgments the ability to recognize and enforce a judgment from an external forum within the jurisdiction of the adjudicating forum. When a company enters into a contract with another company overseas the contract should be clear of which area their conflicts will be solved. Most often it is more cost effective to leave these conflicts to arbitration, more so if the company is not a part of any international trade groups. Foreign judgments can also be a great tool if they are on a neutral ground. Either foreign judgments or arbitration must have a binding clause in the contract to
Every company involved must do its part of resolving any legal disputes, such as drafting a choice-of-law clause. Drafting this clause is a good beginning because it helps both parties protect and define specific laws. If a legal dispute does arise both parties may want to consider other options before taking any legal actions, options like; the original contract, the partnership, relations and investments with the country in which the company is located, and government laws where business is transacted. A factor that may not have a favorable outcome
22) In a longer, more complex discussion, include here a short statement of your position on the question or issue explored in a given IRAC (or CRRACC) unit -- yourconclusion for that unit. 23) The overall conclusion contains a summary of the main points of your analysis. In your application section you may have struggled with areas of uncertainty in the legal doctrine and/or competing policy rationales. You may have also grappled with a seemingly contradictory assortment of facts: some seem to fit into the requirements of the rule; others suggest that the rule is not satisfied. You may have weighed arguments against counterarguments.
Other source of America law is administrative law it consist of rules, regulations, orders and decisions of administrative agency or governmental organization. This law performs a specific functions and rules issued by administrative agencies, since they make their own regulations it is not usually found in the statutes, with stringent procedures individuals must follow to obtain assistance from the agency and this is how administrative law is impacted. In addition, the sources that amount to mandatory authority is primary sources it refers to cases, statutes, or regulations that the court must follow because it is binding on the court. Even though, lower courts are required to follow decisions from higher courts in the same jurisdiction. Example: You are in Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Will it make a difference if courts begin to analyze a particular legal problem under the rubric of one doctrine rather than another? In theory, new doctrinal lenses should bring different features of the problem into focus, and this should in turn lead judges to form different impressions of how the problem ought to be resolved. The Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Birch v. Union of Taxation Employees, Local 70030 casts doubt on this hypothesis.1 The majority’s decision in the case suggests that changing the doctrine used to analyze the enforceability of stipulated remedies will not necessarily affect the outcomes of future cases. Changing outcomes may require a more fundamental shift in judges’ understandings of stipulated remedies and their role in contractual relationships. Birch was preceded by a path-breaking line of cases in which Canadian appellate courts signalled their willingness to depart from the strict common law rule against enforcing a stipulated remedy that amounts to a penalty rather than a genuine pre-estimate of damages.2 Those cases marked a positive development in Canadian contract law, as adherence to the traditional rule against penalty clauses is difficult to justify.