Which party has the burden of proof in the case? Which level of proof will be used? The party seeking damages (plaintiff), in this case Mr. James Mitchell and the union, has the burden of proof. This case would be considered a civil matter and would be guided by the principles and procedures commonly found in settling civil lawsuits and in regulatory agency cases. This includes presenting “clear and convincing evidence” as the level of proof that must be offered in order for the plaintiff to win the case (Clear and Convincing Evidence Law & Legal Definition, n.d.).
These two resolutions support Hayne’s argument. 3. What two provisions of the Constitution did Webster refer to as “the keystone of the arch”? Webster refers to the supremacy clause (article 6) and article 3 section 2 of the Constitution as the keystone of the arch. These two provisions state that the law of the United States is the supreme law of the land, basically meaning that the federal government has last say.
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”.
Her consistency is really outstanding. No matter what it may be, she finishes everything she starts. Things that she wants done will always be completed even if she has to do it herself. If she believes in something, it is hard for anyone to discourage her away from it. Everyone sees where her heart lies, which is being a faithful and trustworthy friend to everyone.
The case analysis needs to be clear, crisp, and concise. Facts from the case are stated only to make a point, not to retell the story. Do not rehash the minutia, or details, in the case. The case analysis needs to be organized; spelling, grammar, and word usage must be correct. 2.
One, promises may act as consideration for some other but there are limitations, in that the value needs to be defined explicitly. Two, past consideration; if something happened in the past that did not establish some quasi-contract is cannot be currently exchanged for a promise. Consideration requires a current exchange. Third, some courts hold that relief from some moral obligation by the promisor is sufficient consideration and currently being exchanged. Fourth, the preexisting duty rule exerts that an action sufficient for reward will be not enforced if the action is already the duty of person performing the
If determinism is true, then we don’t have free will. Discuss. It can be argued that if determinism is true, then we do not have free will. However, this argument really depends on which stream of determinism is being referred to. The argument that supports this idea the most is the fatalism argument - the idea that everything is predetermined before we are born and our actions do not affect this.
“Compare and Contrast intuitionism and Emotivism” Both Intuitionism and Emotivism are meta-ethical concepts to explain the terms “good” and “bad” without being caught in the naturalistic fallacy described by GE Moore. Moore’s theory states that good cannot be categorised in any physical manner as theories – but instead “good” can not be defined in terms of anything but itself, and following this through to a moral theory we can conclude “that neither science nor religion can establish the basic principles of morality.” Intuitionism holds that there are objective moral truths, but rather than reasoning or deducing these truths, they are self evident to the “mature” mind. Moore contends that just as we know there is a world out there, we know objective moral truths – they are just common sense or intuition. These truths are universal and beyond human experience and reasoning, and from them we gain our sense of what is “good” and what is “bad”. Moore would say we can see these self evident truths when, in an argument, we are reduced to “it’s just wrong,” they require no further explanation, proof or justification.
The means justify virtuous ends. JAMES MADISON: The last thing this new country needs is another Shays’s rebellion. We needed to vaguely define this broad power to prevent anarchy, and a repeat of the Articles of Confederation. Thomas wishes to literally read the clause, but it should not be read that way. The clause reflects compromise over an ideological question of sovereignty.
In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion. (Pereboom, 2009:324). Another argument against hard determinism would be if it were true we could not be accounted for when it comes to our actions, therefore we could do a morally wrong act and if it was determined then we would could not to blame, we did not have the free will to do that act it was determined to be done anyway. Also if we do a morally good act should we be praised for this? Hard determinists would say that it was not our free will that chose us to do this good act we were determined to do it anyway.