- The court must decide if the advertisement constituted an offer, and if the mistake is genuine and can be grounds to avoid the contract due to a unilateral mistake of fact. What is the court’s reasoning? (Might include reliance on precedent, statutory interpretation and legislative history & societal considerations) - The court first looked at whether an advertisement can be considered an offer. The court differentiates between advertisements that are in fact invitations for individuals to negotiate an offer, and advertisements that ask for a specific action without further communication and leave nothing for negotiation. The first category of advertisements is not considered offers, while the latter is not.
An example is when the Miranda Doctrine is not observed upon arresting, the right of self-incrimination may be invoked so as for the evidences against the defense be inadmissible. In order for the Miranda Doctrine to be validly executed, such must be stated in the presence of the counsel for the defense. Such doctrine may be waived, but must be made with utmost knowledge of its consequences (Israel et al, 1993). Although both Fifth and Sixth Amendments embody significant rights for the citizens, it still has differences, one of which is that pertaining to the inquiries pertaining to the case is not allowed in the Fifth Amendment. The Sixth amendment protects the accused upon the case against him.
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”.
Some primary authority is only persuasive. The proper characterization of a primary authority as mandatory or persuasive is crucial to any proceeding; it can make the difference between success and failure for a client's cause. This is true of all primary authority, but this column will address case authority only. The following is a brief explanation of when the decisions of a particular court should be characterized as mandatory or persuasive. It deals only with the decision of the majority of the court; no matter how appealing in content, dicta, concurrences, and dissents will always remain persuasive.
It started when the nurse Paris Stated “this is an attack on the court!” and right away answering back at Paris with a loud and angry tone stating “Is every defense an attack on the court!” Reverend Hale stood up for the first time for one of the accused. He not only stood up for the nurse, but he stood up for her in front of all the supposedly proclaimed “SAVED ONES”. He showed sympathy and actually doubted for the first time if all these acquisitions against these people were true. At this point in the play, Hale is starting to doubt the court. He has not yet lost all hope in the court, but has altered his mind on the subject differently.
The way to point out the difference between the two is through the conclusions. In a deductive argument the conclusion is already implied within the premises, and in an inductive argument the conclusion is not implied within the premises. Deductive arguments are judged on whether or not they are valid, meaning if the premises are considered true and the conclusion cannot be false, it is valid. If there is a possibility that the conclusion may be false but the premises still are true, then it is invalid. When a deductive argument is invalid, it is automatically considered unsound.
It is presented in the form of a petition. At least one statement of fact must exist for the claim to be valid. The statement of fact must be supported by a statement of relevance. The statement of fact is the claim that the plaintiff makes against the defendant based on something that happened between the two parties in a certain time and place. The statement of fact must be supported by a statement of relevance.
Hence when the purpose is not met then there is definitely a need for corrective measures. And this cannot be met if laws were meant to be rigid or fixed. The basic ultimatum of a law is to ensure that under all circumstances it serves its basic purpose. when a law does not seek to know the circumstance or the situation under which it has been over ruled, it cannot determine if a certain case has been found guilty. The reason being human activities are very much dependant on what he or she was subjected to at that instance.
These theories are motivated by diverse concerns and proposed accounts so different from each other that one wonder if they seek to explain the same phenomenon. Coherence theory The coherence theory of truth states that a statement is considered true if it is logically consistent with other beliefs. This is basically saying that a belief is false if it contradicts other beliefs that are held to be true. The coherence theories in general, states that truth requires a proper fit of elements within a whole system. Very often, though, coherence is taken to imply something more than simple logical consistency; often there is a demand that the propositions in a coherent system lend mutual inferential support to each other.
Therefore some cases, often those of importance but little media interest, can go unreported. In deciding whether they have to follow a previous decision, the judges must first decide whether the material facts of the cases are sufficiently similar. If the facts are materially different, the court may distinguish the case from the earlier case and so apply a different rule. To decide what the material facts are, the court must look for the general principle which the earlier judges used. This combination of the rule of law and the material facts is known as the ratio decidendi.