Illustration of this can be seen in National Anti-Vivisection society v IRC , here a trust for suppression of vivisection failed to be charitable because the House of lords held that complete suppression of vivisection was not beneficial for the public, as vivisection was important for medical science and research. Similarly, In Coats v Gilmour, Lord Greene MR stated “ the contrary of public benefit to the public, is not ‘ detrimental to the public', but ‘non-beneficial to the public'. Secondly, “the benefit must be available to the public at large”. Thus, purpose which is regarded as beneficial must not be confined to small section of the public. “It is not material that the congregations might be small or that the public at large might not want to attend or become members as long as the opportunity is available to them to do so should they so wish”.
This paper will discuss whether or not that money is considered to be gross income to Kim. My personal understanding of section 109 of the Internal Revenue code is that this would not be considered as income as it was in lieu of the restoration that the lessee should have completed upon termination of the lease. However, after reading the cases of Boston Fish Market Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and Sirbo Holdings, Inc., my interpretation has changed. In the case of Boston Fish Market Corporation v. CIR of 1972, the courts’ interpretation of section 109 determined that the amount received by lessor is not considered to be gross income. In this particular case, the lessee paid the lessor $47,500 to restore property to original configuration upon termination of the lease instead of actually restoring the property.
The appellate court reversed the trail court’s ruling that Winkle was entitled to the profit – sharing bonus. The court held the opinion that since Winkle has not been paid his salary and bonus, therefore the contract had not been executed. “Section 1698 of the Civil Code provides: A contract in writing may be altered by a contract in writing or by an executed oral agreement, and not otherwise.’… “Section 1698 has a dual operation. On the one hand it invalidates oral contracts of modification that are unexecuted, and on the other hand it validates executed agreements that might otherwise fail for lack of consideration...”(668 P 2d
According to the first element of gifts, a present intention to give the gift must be made, and it was not. Abel did not anticipate on giving the painting to the Salvation Army; thus, it does not constitute as a gift. The second area of common law in which this case influenced was the law of conversion. “Conversion occurs when any person treats another’s property as their own, denying the owner possession and rights of ownership.” (Barnes, 621). The Salvation Army exercised dominion over the painting which denied Abel any rights to
I view overcoming estrangement as a path towards conformity because overcoming estrangement requires abolishing our freedom and liberty, our free will. Tinder states we can perhaps hope to achieve harmony and understanding, if human beings are not estranged in essence. He also believes that it would not make sense to say that some people are estranged in essence and others are not. The great historical thinker Thomas Hobbes has argued that human beings are estranged in essence. This question presses on us from different sides and has been the reasoning for philosophical thinkers such as, Thomas Hobbes to shed light on this question, throughout this time; this is not only a question it is an issue in our world today as much as years ago.
4. To cancel a contract on the basis of a mistake, the mistake must be about a material fact. 5. If a price quotation contains a mistake in the adding of a number of figures, the contract may not be enforceable. 6.
If Nolan was acting as a military assistant to a more senior officer, he wouldn’t be critical of its commanders as suggested in Source 3, because it would be in his role to follow orders. Source 1 also disagrees that Nolan was to blame for the disaster of the Charge of the Light Brigade because it says that the Light Brigade opposed his theories on tactics so he could never have suggested it. This shows that it would have been almost impossible for Nolan to make the decision as others were against his ideas. However, Source 3 disagrees as it says that Nolan wasn’t to blame because it says, ill-suited to deliver Raglan’s order for the charge, suggesting that it was not in Nolan’s characteristics to follow orders from anyone else. This means that even if it was his responsibility to deliver the order he would not have done so because, as it also states in Source 3, he is headstrong so he is self-willed, portraying that Nolan is to blame for the disaster of the Charge of the Light Brigade by refusing to follow orders.
It can be implied from this that Wolsey had the ability to obtain Henry’s annulment, but failed due to his lack of effort and his half-hearted approach. Furthermore, source 1 supports this view, first implying once again that Wolsey had good contacts and that he had the ability to influence them, “Stafileo has changed his opinion”. However, a lack of effort can still be seen here as he only instructed Stafileo of the facts. It is likely that source 2 is more reliable than source 1 as it was a letter written by the Duke of Suffolk who was not directly involved in the ‘Great Matter’. As the source is also from a letter, it is unlikely the Duke of Suffolk would not have feared angering Wolsey as otherwise the letter would have been private.
General is not the holder in due course because they did not acquire the note in good faith. To become a holder in due course, the owner must be in effect a bonafide purchaser and in this case the observance if reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing. The more a holder knows about the underlying transaction, and particularly the more he controls or participates or becomes involved in it, the less he fits the role of a good faith purchaser for value. In this case General had knowledge that Lustro was nearly insolvent at the time of the assignment and that Lustro
The issue to be dealt with in this problem is misrepresentation. It is therefore necessary to advise SkyReach Ltd. on the possible courses of action regarding misrepresentation. First, the ability of SkyReach Ltd. to rescind the contract on the grounds of ‘ innocent misrepresentation,’ based on the fact that Holgers statement regarding planning permission, was not a factual statement but a statement of opinion made prior to the contract. Also the possibility of a claim for damages based on the fact that Holger’s statement was non fraudulent. Each claim will be examined separately.