After which, Boehm initiated criminal bastardy proceedings to enforce the outstanding child support payments. ISSUES: Was the plaintiff’s promise of forbearance from filing of bastardy proceedings against defendant sufficient consideration to uphold the contract? HOLDING: Yes. Forbearance from asserting a good faith legal claim can be valid consideration. Forbearance from asserting a legal claim known to be invalid is not valuable consideration.
The law assumes that a seller gives certain warranties concerning goods that are sold and that he or she must stand behind these assertions. A warranty is less important than a condition and does not impact on the main purpose of the contract. A breach of a warranty entitles the injured party to claim for damages only. They may not repudiate the contract. A breach of condition is a major term that goes to the root of the contract.
→Court said examiner does not act as counsel, but as fact-finder. →Court says P has due process rights; didn’t USE subpoena power to cross examine witness. **Lesson is due process is really only about opportunity to participate. →Differed from Wong case because it was NOT an adversarial proceeding; fact finding body not dealing with adversarial claims, so examiner roles were not in conflict. →**take home: If you want to make a due process claim, need to make the argument that it is an adversarial proceeding wherein prosecutorial and judicial roles are being conflated.
History [pic][pic] Richard Sears Richard Warren Sears was a railroad station agent in North Redwood, Minnesota when he received an impressive shipment of watches from a Chicago jeweler which were unwanted by a local cube jeweler. Sears purchased them, then sold the watches for a considerable profit to other station agents, then ordered more for resale. Soon he started a business selling watches through mail order catalogs. The next year, he moved to Chicago, Illinois where he met Alvah C. Roebuck, who joined him in the business. In 1893, the corporate name became Sears, Roebuck and Co.
Weinrib reasons that giving any weight to the defendant's burden in determining his liability would impinge on the correlativity requirement, since it would allow the needs of one party (the defendant) to unilaterally demarcate the respective normative positions of both parties. Weinrib argues that considerations that are not equally relevant to both parties should not be taken into account in determining tort liability. Did the judge make a right decision by using Weinrib as an inspiration to conclude on a case in which the defendants have breached their duty and the plaintiff has suffered? Sympathy for respondent does not relieve us of the responsibility of following the law so it would be correct to say that the judge has lived up to her reputation. The ruling is comparable to a decision by the court in 2011, in Pliva v. Mensing, where it was ascertained that generic drug makers could not be held liable for failing to warn about a drug’s dangers because they must use the same safety label as the brand-name
For a conscientious observer, this double standard should seriously cause him to question the ability of a consequentialist perspective to prescribe satisfactory moral understanding and guidance. By accommodating an agent’s moral feelings only when they are in accord with utility is indicative of a deeper failure to recognize that such feelings are often expressions of the agent’s own projects and commitments. Thus, to achieve an objective standard of right action, utilitarianism ultimately sacrifices the agent’s integrity by making right action irrelevant to those projects and commitments. The first part of my exposition focuses on what Williams sees as the reason for the popularity of consequentialist ethical theories, which is rooted in an illicit jump from thinking about moral kinds of actions to thinking about moral degrees of outcomes. The rest of my exposition explains how this jump directly leads to the
2. Examples: a) ”the notion of duty” A good will is a will that is for duty and what you do is only moral if it is done for duty. Doing something with duty being your only reason to act is morally right, and it does not have to be enjoyable only morally right. b) ”I would express thus, Duty is the necessity of acting from respect for the law. I may have an inclination for an object as the effect of my proposed action, but I cannot have respect for it, just for this reason, that it is an effect and not an energy of will.
On the one hand, one’s prima facie obligation to obey the law remains intact where its injustice is relatively minor and it would be unfair to others if one disregarded the law. On the other hand, a gravely unjust law may provide one with an overriding all-things-considered reason to disobey the law. The [maxim ‘an unjust law is not a law’], then, does not deny the significance of the law’s positivity. Rather, it expresses the conditional nature of the complex relations that hold between moral obligations and the positive law.’ (Ibid. )” (Anon 2011) ------------------------------------------------- Briefly trace the development of natural law theories from their origins in Greek and Roman thought to the birth of Modernity, and in particular the distinction (if any) drawn by theorists between moral validity and systemic validity, and then discuss whether George’s defense of this maxim meets the positivist critique both theoretically and practically.
"27 Accordingly, "Independent auditors should not only be independent in fact; they should avoid situations that may lead outsiders to doubt their independence. "28 The 1979 Report of the Public Oversight Board ("POB") echoes the point, noting that the appearance of independence is itself "a key ingredient to the value of the audit function, since users of audit reports must be able to rely on the independent auditor. If they perceive that there is a lack of independence, whether or not such a deficiency exists, much of that value is lost. "29 The Supreme Court made the same point in the Arthur
This is known as the principle of stare decisis, which is translated as ‘let the decision stand’. When a court makes a decision in a case, then any courts which are of equal or lower status to that court must follow the previous decision if the case before it is similar to that earlier case. Not all details from preceding cases would be binding, only the ratio decidendi is binding. Ratio decidendi is the principle of law on which the decision is based. On the other hand, obiter dictum is not binding, which is thing said “by the way” and is not strictly necessary for the