A = Analysis The Court held that: A. The certain deposition testimony of the agreement did not prove that the provision was intended as a penalty. B. There is no substantial evidence that Weber suffered any actual damages. C. The liquidated damage was valid by Cal.
The deal states that until it was on paper, there would be no distribution agreement. The email that was sent was never an official agreement because both partied did not physically sign the agreement, which means that it was not legally binding. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? There are several facts that weigh in favor of Chou in terms of the parties objective intent to contract.
Furthermore he is completely illogical. An omnipotent and omniscient God is an unlikelihood. He is either unable to create an impossible task for himself or is unable to perform it once created, because it's impossible! If God knows the past, present and future, these states are known quantities and God is unable to change them, and is therefore not omnipotent. If they are subject to change, then God cannot know them with certainty, and is not omniscient.
A business competition tort states it is a tortious interference with an existing contractual relationship. They also had specific knowledge of the contract and actively interfered with the contract. Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. (Steve and Walter) Discuss any liability BUGusa, Inc., may have for Walter's actions. BUGusa, Inc. can be liable for Walters's actions because Walter held Steve in a sound proof room. This can be considered false imprisonment, also negligence.
Subsequent authors applied Locke's natural right to property not only to physical products of labor but also to intellectual products as well. Citing Locke's arguments for a right of property, Blackstone directly argued for the natural right of an author to prevent unauthorized copies of his work: "When a man by the exertion of his rational powers has produced an original work, he has clearly a right to dispose of that identical work as he pleases, and any attempt to take it from him, [...] is an invasion of his right of
An option to file a cross-complaint against the plaintiff is presented at this point if the defendant thinks it is necessary to seek damages they may incur because of the plaintiffs suite. The plaintiff has to file a reply to the defendant’s cross-complaint if the defendant takes such
12. Recklessly – disregard of the consequences of their actions. 13. Automatism – a defense of lack of voluntarily, culpability, or excuse. The defendant was not aware of their action (McNaughton Rule).
Agreements That Lack Consideration A. PREEXISTING DUTY Under most circumstances, a promise to do what one already has a legal duty to do is not legally suffi¬cient consideration. There are exceptions— A promise to perform an existing obligation is not consideration because it is neither a legal detriment or a legal benefit 1. Unforeseen
Court concluded that GA SC’s constitutional construction of the AC was unconstitutional b/c there was no principled way to distinguish this case from cases in which DP wasn’t imposed ii. Court overruled GA’s application of its own
The holding judges make no valid connection between wait times and two tiered systems, nor do they make a valid argument that two-tiered systems are a practical solution to the issue at hand. Simply put, the evidence the holding judges rely on to remedy the appellants’ problem is not compelling. It appears that the solution was based solely on what appellants were seeking an order