Blocks Attorney client privilege excludes reliable evidence. Had attorney client privileges not been in place the client would never have told the outright truth to his attorney anyway because they would know that whatever they tell their lawyer could be used to incriminate them in the court of law. It is better that the defendant is allowed to communicate with his attorney in private as to be properly represented and thus make the trial just and fair. Truth seeking is vital to prevent convicting the innocent In the case where the defendant is in fact, innocent the trials in both resolutions would have the same result, and thus reach the same conclusion. The only difference is when the defendant is guilty, meaning that this point
The principle, Butler, is not liable for torts caused by the third party/independent contractor. The respondent superior does not apply to this case since Sandidge is an independent contractor. Because Butler did not have any control on how Sandidge performed their work, there is no ground for Pugh’s to sue for wrongful death. In fact, Sandidge should be held liable for not meeting safety standards since Mr. Pugh was technically employed by Sandige. “For a general contractor to be liable for its independent contractor's acts, it must have the right to control the means, methods, or details of the independent contractor's work.
Question #1 John v. Gilbert Gilbert’s argument was that lottery ticket was his and he did not mean to throw it away. While Johns argument is that when he found it that it was abandoned property which is property which the owner has voluntarily parted with and has no intention of recovering it. Once Gilbert threw the ticket out Gilbert forfeit his ownership of it. It also means that the finder i.e. John can claim title that is superior to that of any other person including the true owner i.e.
Morgan states that there is no need to disclose remote loss contingencies. If we comply with the ED that all loss contingencies should be disclosed, it’s hard for investors to distinguish material and immaterial information. 4. J.P. Morgan believes that the existing ASC 450 disclosure requirements not only provide sufficient information to investors, but also protect confidential, privileged and sensitive information of entities. Therefore, it's not necessary to issue
Bobbs-Merrill argued their ownership of the copyright gave them the exclusive right to distribute, and that meant that they could revoke Straus' right to sell the books at any time. Straus argued that they didn't buy the book from Bobbs-Merrill, they bought it from a wholesaler. Whatever deal Bobbs-Merrill might have made with the wholesaler didn't affect them because they were not in privity with any contract between Bobbs-Merrill and the wholesaler. The US Supreme Court found for Straus. The US Supreme Court basically found that copyright law gave the copyright owner the right to restrict others from making their own copies of a work.
Although someone could do this to another person’s property, we should still have faith in humanity that we only want to enjoy a free movie or song. Our appreciation for the product doesn’t lessen just because we got it for free. Preventing illegal downloading and copyright would result in no media entertainment on sites like YouTube or Pandora. These sites are allowing media to be enjoyed in a free manner; if we abolished this ability the public would be distraught. It is also a long and complicated process to take someone to court for breaking a copyright law; many cases would and have been brushed off.
United States” were juror prejudice and the honest-services statute. The first legal issue was the defendant’s claim of a fair-trial argument that it relied on the premise that the trial should have never taken place in Houston. Mr. Skilling claimed that local outrage and media coverage of him made a fair trial impossible. Further pushing the claim that even if it were possibly to obtain an impartial jury from the Houston area, a shortened “voir dire” did nothing to try and find any potential prejudice among possible jurors. Voir Dire generally “refers to the process by which prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before being chosen to sit on a
The court papers said “Plaintiffs were led to believe and had a right to believe by their agreement that Theron would not promote any jewelry or watches”. Wearing a watch of the competitor is a material breach of contract and this is called a material breach because it will enable Reimond Weil to collect damages because of the breach. Charlize Theron can claim the defense of a unilateral mistake, the defense can claim that Theron did not know that Reimond Weil were to be worn at all occasions. The defense can be weak and even if they stand, it would make the contract void between Charlize Theron and Reimond Weil and Charlize Theron would have to return the “substantial funds” that were paid out back to Reimond Weil. I would think that Reimond Weil cannot force a specific
Gun control is the issue on whether we should put more restrictions on gun laws or keep them the same. Personally, the gun laws in our state are fine and do not need to be changed. Even if we were to add more laws while it would only serve to make obtaining a gun even harder than it already is and would have no effect on illegal trade. Criminals would continue to smuggle and trade illegal guns regardless of the laws to be or already in place. Therefore putting down more laws wouldn’t make a difference as Illegal trading would continue to take place, as American citizens we have the right to bear arms according to the second amendment, any new laws would make getting a gun harder for someone who could use it as protection.
b. be rescinded because Murray had superior knowledge about the bat. c. not be rescinded because a deal is a deal. d. not be rescinded because Lew's mistake concerns the value of the bat. 27. Business Investment Company and Chic Properties, Inc., contract for the sale of a retail mall. A mutual mistake of fact will make it possible for either party to rescind the contract a. if the mistake of fact is immaterial.