Case Analysis: Baker v Osborne Development Corporation Amelia Smith LS311-06 Business Law Kaplan University February 14, 2012 The new homeowners would be able to sue the homebuilder, Osborne Development Corporation. The California Court of Appeals found that the trial court’s decision was correct and that the arbitration agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable thus making the arbitration agreement unenforceable. The reason that the trial courts found the arbitration agreement was procedurally substantively unconscionable was the fact that the agreement was not present in the terms of any of the contracts between the buyer and the builder. The homebuyers were not given the application of warranty by HBW until about a day or so before the scheduled close of escrow and the terms of the arbitration agreement were not present within the application. NCR Corporation v Korala Associates was a case that was concerning the unauthorized copying of computer software by KAL.
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
And they chose not to tell anyone of Matthew's whereabouts. Every punch, every kick, every action was the result of some decision. And even if every decision was made “in the moment” it still does not relieve the killers of their moral and legal culpability. Their sentencing was well deserved, and will probably never be freemen again. "The Laramie Project" tells the story in a journalistic manner, since it is assembled from real interviews and court testimonies.
The first supporting arguments would be that President Bush never presented evidence of Saddam Hussein having any interactions with terrorism. Say he might have done so where Is the evidence to prove the case, the only way people will believe such thing is when they are looking at the evidence. He might have been stockpiling biological any other weapons of mass destruction, but he never had any interactions with terrorism. The next supporting argument is, the United Nations neglected to the invasion of Iraq. The principal itself that the United Nation, the one and only organization that protects human rights and stands against threats to rights of all people, refused the invasion of Iraq should give enough reasons to not support the placement of war.
If the teleological argument is correct in saying that God created humans like a machine, then you would expect humans to be perfect creations, but we are not. Humans are flawed in many ways including the fact that we have extra organs, and that our skeletons are not created properly for the way we walk. Humans are not machines in any way, and the fact that we are not perfect machines is explained by the theory of evolution. Therefore the theory of evolution is proof against the teleological argument and that God is the creator of the human race and the earth. I feel that this argument fails to prove the existence of God.
‘Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for this existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind’ Richard Dawkins supports Darwinian evolution and rejects God. Dawkins rejects any design in the world, and argues that the variations in the world were caused by random mistakes in the DNA molecules of any
Such researches were never published. Under any conception of legal necessity, the defense cannot succeed when the legislature itself has made a determination of values. Here, the act reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits of an exception. This conclusion is supported by the structure of the Act, which classifies marijuana as a schedule 1 substance – a drug that has no currently accepted medical
The holding judges make no valid connection between wait times and two tiered systems, nor do they make a valid argument that two-tiered systems are a practical solution to the issue at hand. Simply put, the evidence the holding judges rely on to remedy the appellants’ problem is not compelling. It appears that the solution was based solely on what appellants were seeking an order
Nor does he appear to have used the sun as his light source, which means that his ―conclusion‖ is based upon a flawed methodology. Since digital photography did not exist in 1963, it is also relatively effortless to state—with a high degree of confidence—that no digital tampering of the original photos took place. 33 So at the highest level of Farid‘s study, Fetzer justifiably calls Farid to task for having ―violated a basic canon of scientific research, which is that all the available evidence that makes a difference to a conclusion must be taken into account. It is impossible to demonstrate that a photo is not fake by selecting one issue, excluding consideration of the rest of the evidence, and showing that it would have been possible under special conditions.‖34 Simply put, Farid‘s distortion of data is the limitation of his digital reconstruction to just ―the head and neck, [and] not a full figure corresponding to the image,‖ along with his failure ―to have used the sun as his light source.‖35 And the illogic that is coupled with Farid‘s distortion of data? Farid has, as they say, ―stacked the deck.‖36 Now that we have covered the first three elements in our deconstruction, i.e., source, object, and (il)logical means, there remains just one for our consideration, intentionality.
Meanwhile, McCloskey believes that the only conclusion we can reach is that something caused the universe to exist. From reading his article, I feel that he does not formulate a valid argument as to how the power exists or how it created the universe. He goes onto to describe any creator that could exist is either a powerful being or a muddler and is not a god, but an evil spirit or a being that had very disastrous consequences due to their limitations ( McCloskey, pg.64). McCloskey closes his argument of the cosmological argument by stating that belief in either is not a source of strength or security ( McCloskey,