To successfully invoke this defense, the purchaser or occupier had to establish that it had no reason to know that the property was contaminated. Since the problem with brownfields is the existence or suspicion of contamination, the defense was largely unavailable to prospective developers or tenants of brownfield sites. To eliminate this obstacle to redevelopment of brownfields, the Brownfield Amendments created the BFPP defense for landowners or tenants who knowingly acquire or lease contaminated property after January 11, 2002. Only those parties that qualify for the BFPP defense are potentially subject to the windfall lien. To qualify for the BFPP, the owner or tenant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it has satisfied the following eight conditions: • All disposal of hazardous substances occurred before the purchaser acquired the facility.
This clearly shows an effective protection of liberty by judges. Furthermore, a vital protection of liberties can be exercised via judicial review. Judicial review is a process that is conducted in the Supreme Court that hears an appeal over lawfulness of a case. It is not focused on the rights and wrongs of a case, this would be a case for appeal courts following the above methods, judicial review is simply an examination of the lawfulness of a case. For example, in the case of Home Secretary v. AP 2010 an appeal allowing the government to detain AP on a control order
The court held that in the instant case the court had either found that these conditions were met or they were undisputed. Therefore, the communication was privileged and protected from disclosure. I believe the criteria set forth in RFF Family Partnership, LP v. Burns & Levinson is a very practical and rational one. It allows the lawyer to protect and serve his fiduciary duty to his client, and at the same time if a conflict should come up, it allows the lawyer to seek advice of a lawyer without the fear intimidation by way of disclosure. Such privileged communications lead to resolutions in resolving existing conflicts, and avoiding potential conflicts.
The proposition that ‘equitable estoppel is a flexible doctrine... but it is not a joker or wild card to be used whenever the court disapproves of the conduct of a litigant who seems to have the law on his side’ was the starting point for Lord Walker’s judgment in the recent House of Lords decision Yeoman’s Row Management Limited v Cobbe [2008] UKHL 55. In the same case, Lord Scott stated that proprietary estoppel requires ‘clarity as to what it is that the object of the estoppel is to be estopped from denying, or asserting, and clarity as to the interest in the property in question that that denial, or assertion, would otherwise defeat. If these requirements are not recognised, proprietary estoppel will lose contact with its roots and risk becoming unprincipled and therefore unpredictable, if it has not already done so’. Unfortunately, in Yeoman’s Row, the Lords have done little to clarify this difficult area. While subtle and perhaps artificial distinctions have been drawn in an attempt to confine the doctrines of proprietary estoppel and constructive trust, incautious dicta have now cast doubt on some well-established principles.
* Using the Relationship Lens, the best decision tilted toward rationality (justice) by following the process established to avoid plagiarism. * Using the Reputation Lens, the best decision tilted toward
Two types of Stare Decisis have been identified: horizontal stare decisis and vertical Stare Decisis. Horizontal Stare Decisis binds the issuing court to its own prior decisions. Vertical Stare Decisis requires that courts of lower rank follow decisions of higher courts. Vertical Stare Decisis has a stronger effect, in that lower courts generally cannot overrule decisions of higher courts, whereas a court may, given adequate reasons to do so, overrule itself. DICUSSION When a
Deontologist feel that actions, rather than consequences, should take precedence when making a decision. The theory of deontology states we are morally obligated to act in accordance with a certain set of principles and rules regardless of the outcomes. Immanuel Kant accounts for two sets of moral beliefs upon which deontology is set. The two beliefs are that a person who does something because it is the morally right thing to do is especially commendable, more than a person who does something for some sort of gain and a moral person is willing to live by the same rules he or she believes all others ought to follow (Kant, I. 2008).
Essay #1: In Support of Moderate Ethical Objectivism Pojman and Fieser put forth a theory of moderate objectivism that asserts that there are objective moral truths. They claim that a moral claim is objectively true when it describes an objective moral principle. An objective moral principle is a rule, which if generally followed, would optimally perform the function of serving human needs and interests by reducing harmful social conflict and promoting beneficial social cooperation. (Luco, Week 6 Notes, p3). This essay aims to prove ethical objectivism by using the form of moderate objectivism.
Both constructive and resulting trusts differentiate themselves from express trust which arises because a right-holder has manifested an intention that a trust come into existence. In the case of constructive and resulting trusts the intentions are not expressly stated. This statement in this question is derived from Lord Browne-Wilkinson's judgement in Westdeustsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC (1996) where his view was that all resulting trusts arise because of a presumption that the transferor intended to create a trust for himself. This statement supports the argument that resulting trusts are the result of an intention not to create a trust. This thinking is also reflected in the Privy Council case of Air Jamaica v Charlton 1999, where Lord Millet said: “But [a resulting trust] arises whether or not the transferor intended to retain a beneficial interest - he almost always does not - since it responds to the absence of any intention on his part to pass a beneficial interest to the recipient.” This argument was put forward in the recent theses of Birks-Chambers that the the key to the resulting trust was not the intention to create a trust, but the intention of the donor not to benefit the recipient.
Although they endorse idea of self-determination, does not mean they entitle nations to treat people however they choose. Rights of individuals are above that of claims of national sovereignty. Liberal internationalism is characterised by the desire for nations to conform to a higher morality embodied in the doctrine of human rights. As these rights are universally applicable and lay down minimum existence for humans as well as abiding and constituting the rules of international law. This belief has led to the creation of documents such as UN Declaration, employing support from international institutions of law (International Court of