Explain what is meant by balancing conflicting interests. Discuss the extent to which English law balances conflicting interests and briefly consider whether it is important to do so. Many argue that the law should act as a natural arbiter against the competing interests of those who seek to use the law and demand justice. Ultimately differing legal actors will have differing and competing interests. This is an age old legal dilemma and is what is effectively meant by ‘balancing conflicting interests.’ In the nineteenth century, von Jhering recognised law as a means of ordering society in a situation where there were many competing interests, not all being economic; as he believed utilitarianism views he was concerned with social aims and results over individuals.
But these are limited in use to certain circumstances. The binding part of the judgement is called the ratio decidendi and later courts are bound to follow legal principles on which the decision was based if their case contains similar facts, as for example, in Donoghue V Stevenson (1932) a precedent was set that a customer could sue a manufacturer in negligence. Obita Dicta (other things said not directly related to the decision or dissenting judgements), are persuasive rather than binding precendents, as seen
Most innovators are looked at to also be entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs are defined as people who initiate and organize a venture in order to take advantage of an opportunity that is within their grasp (entrepreneur). Some inventors want to go the extra mile with their inventions, they want to market and control the invention, and be paid handsomely for their efforts. A lot of these innovators have a personality that they are seeking challenges which stand for the opportunity for their greatness (USAID, 2013). In this Case Study I would like to examine the creativity and motives of one of the most successful entrepreneurs along with innovators in today’s world.
Although it is true that being first to market with an innovative design can build market share and grow profit margins, however, it is always important to remember that this competitive edge can erode quickly as followers recognize a business opportunity and enter the market, therefore, Herman Miller will need to align its long-time held values along with innovation and advanced technology in order to successfully craft its “true north” strategy. In the next article, I will identify the issues that are currently facing the company`s future, and will provide few recommendations on how to address each of these issues in order to restore sales, and profitability.. I will also present some new
Roscoe Pound said that interests are both individual and social and that conflicts are only resolved through considering them on the same level. Individual against individual and society against society and therefore failure to do this is bias towards society. He also believed in consensus view of society believing that interests should be balanced in line with society’s values. There are many theories to whether conflicting interests are balanced but we must look at parliament to see what they do to tackle this problem. Parliament does manage to balance conflicting interests in the process of making an act.
In this paper I will analytically examine Thrasymachus’ stance and use critical thought to support his valid claims while rejecting those which lack validity within Thrasymachus’ own definition of justice. Thrasymachus opens with the fairly pessimistic claim that justice or “what is right” is the advantage of the stronger. (Plato, 18) Governments use their power solely to enact laws that benefit themselves and those whom are under their direct influence – a tyrannical government puts into place authoritarian and brutal laws, a democratic government abides by libertarian and just laws, and et cetera. Failing to follow these rules laid out by the domineering government will label you as a wrongdoer and traitor to the state. This is because the ruling class only want to benefit their own selfish causes.
Thus, as this happens, it would be right for punishment as this is believed to wrong. In the United State’s Court Systems, the conventional method is for jurors as “evaluator of fact” and judges as the interpreter of the law and the instructor of the jury with regards to the application of the law. In an instance wherein the jury replaces its personal interpretation of the law and ignores the law fully to come up with a verdict, this results to jury nullification. In the courts, the commonly established perception of jury nullification is when a juror acknowledges power but has no right to nullify the law. Jury nullification is frequently practiced, but rarely occurs, in criminal trials and theoretically applicable to civil trials too – where it is focus to civil procedural solutions.
The experience is different for each and every person depending on his or her own diligence and work ethic. A great question that comes to mind regarding law school and the commitment that it requires that can be debated would be: Is law school meant to dehumanize the students in order to divide the weak from the resilient or is it simply a heroic journey of determination and overcoming obstacles? Having watched only the first scene in Kingsfield’s contract law class one would jump to conclusion that dehumanization and humiliation are qualities quite prevalent. Kingsfield chose Hart to recite the material facts of the Hawkins Vs. McGee case, which Hart did not know was a required read for the first class. Kingsfield recites the facts for him but then picks Hart to determine the damages appropriate for the doctor’s actions.
Court History and Purpose CJA/224 Court History and Purpose According to Siegel, Schmalleger, and Worrall the definition for a court and its purpose is challenging. Court is explained as appointed or elected officers and selected individuals from within the society who decide disputes between private citizens, businesses, or governmental divisions. The main purpose within the many facets of the judicial court is to serve justice for individuals as well as society. Thus, ensuring fair and neutral decisions will be the outcome of disputes and punishment for crimes, which have been obviously unacceptable by the collective conscience of society (Siegal, Schmalleger, & & Worrall, 2011). Judicially a court is a part or a unit of specific branches within the government who have one or more officers which are authorized or founded by statue, laws, and constitutions to have the authority to make decisions regarding controversies or disputes, which are brought before it.
Judicial Activism is a concept where judges should interpret laws loosely, using their power to promote their preferred social and political goals. This includes the willingness or tendency to overturn existing precedent, inject one’s views into decisions, issue broad rulings with wide implications, and strike down laws created by elected legislatures. The Supreme Court is considered very strong in the notion of Judicial Activism, and essentially sets precedents for future cases. Judicial restraint, on the other hand, is where legislators, not judges, make laws. Judges base their judicial decisions on the concept of stare decisis, which deals with the court’s obligation to honor previous judiciary decisions.