This could possible arise from the contract that was signed by Wayne’s son. However, there are several reasons why this action may not be found in favor of Marshall. The first argument that Wayne would have in regards to this contract; would be the capacity to bind Wayne under this contract. There is no mention that the son is acting as an agent of the company and therefore would not be authorized to sign a contract for the company. In Gebhard v. Garnier (1876) it was found that a court cannot bind a person to a contract, if that contract was signed by a person with no authority to do so.
It is not a case of (sometimes criticised, sometimes admired) dynamic interpretation since the judgment did not even attempt to reason out the fine distinctions and nuances concerning “fair dealing”, “fair use” and “enumerated exceptions”. The judgment, in fact, went beyond the realms of extant jurisprudential understanding without even discussing them especially when precedents are binding in a common law jurisdiction like India. Of course, the judiciary in India is free to take an altogether different path in jurisprudence and interpretation. But it should be mandatorily based on reason. Reason pervades the Indian polity, thanks to Constitutionalism and Rule of Law.
New York had enacted a statute, in effect during the relevant time period, which prohibited the distribution of contraceptives to anyone under the age of 16 and banned the advertising and display of contraceptives. PPA argued that the New York statute was unconstitutional as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy. Decision of the Court The Court held that the decision whether to beget or to bear a child is at the very heart of constitutionally protected choices. The fact that the constitutionally protected right of privacy extends to an individual’s liberty to make choices regarding contraceptives, however, did not in the Court’s view automatically invalidate every state regulation of contraceptives. The Court, in this case, ruled that the prohibition of distribution of contraceptives to persons under the age of 16 did not serve any compelling state interest and, therefore, ruled that the statute was unconstitutional.
However, the state statute is contrary to the federal law. The state law is * Valid. * Invalid as preempted by the Necessary and Proper Clause. * Invalid as violating the dormant Commerce Clause. * Invalid as preempted by the federal law under the Supremacy Clause.
• Was there discussion on justification of a contract? • Was there an agreement on the details of the relationship that contained sufficient certainty on the establishment of a contract? Result: • The claim made by the plaintiff had failed since the judges decided that the parties did not appear to have any legal relations intended. • Appeal by the plaintiff was not allowed but a cross-appeal was. Reasons: • Precedent from the case Combe v Combe  2 KB 215 shows that a promissory estoppel cannot create a cause of action.
However it does not extend to autrefois acquit, and so if a person is ‘acquitted’ of a crime can be retried. The protection against autrefois acquit is a statutory right in our country and not a fundamental right. As per Indian Constitutions Article 20 “Protection in respect of conviction for offences” in the Constitution of India 1949 says, 1. No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of the law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence 2. No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once 3.
Only the Constitution could, and the document said nothing about the Supreme Court having the power to issue such an order. Thus, the Supreme Court could not force Jefferson and Madison to appoint Marbury, because it did not have the power to do so. In later court
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.
Imagine how absurd a “sticks and stones” control law would have sounded to them. The simple fact that a gun can possibly be used for something other than defense does not warrant banning them. There is also the logical and historically proven fact that prohibition simply does not