There is a strong case for both sides of this argument, but I believe that the power level given to judges is the right amount in relation to how important a role they play in supporting British society to work to its full potential through their requirement of upholding the law. Although, there is a strong argument to claim that despite this, they may not be the right people for the role as their independence and neutrality can be questioned, with a view that their power should potentially be limited. One of the strongest arguments, which can be used to defend the power given to the judiciary, is that despite what many believe, they can not over rule government, and government can in fact overrule the judiciary through their sovereignty, and this was backed by Lord Neuberger, head of the Supreme Court who claimed that the thought of parliament not being sovereign is ‘quite simply wrong’, highlighting the fact that the power is ultimately not with the judiciary. The judges do not have the power to repeal any laws despite their opinions on them; their job states that it is obligatory for them to enforce the law despite their personal opinions. However they do have the ability to make suggestions to possibly amend the law through highlighting flaws.
Does Ken’s employment contract fall within the Statute of Frauds? Why or why not? No, Ken’s employment contract does not fall within the Statute of Frauds, because the contract was not in writing. The Statute of Frauds objective is to avert the likelihood of a nonexistent agreement between two parties ("The Free Dictionary By Farlex", 2014). The Statute of Frauds is also designed to confirm that, for specific types of contracts, there is dependable evidence of the contract and its terms (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 209).
Based on the agreement Boyd is entitled to 50% of the profits 1 (b) At the time Raylan and Boyd are winding down the business, Sassy Sauces demands payment for the BBQ sauce. If Justified BBQ refuses to pay, who can Sassy Sauces sue? Who is liable for paying for the BBQ sauce? (300 words or fewer) According to Bagley & Savage (2010), in general partnerships all partners have some control over business decisions and can speak on behalf of the partnership unless it is clearly expressed that they do not have the authority. Without such expressly written agreement to the contrary; “any partner has the authority to bind the partnership with respect to third parties” (Bagley & Savage 2010).
You decide week 6 The stock should not be purchase by Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones acquiring the assets, liabilities and also would inherit the contractual obligations of the selling corporation, would, be the results of the purchase. In lay terms, he has bought the existing Smithon Corporation and he is responsible of ensuring daily operations run efficiently but the tax aspect of acquisition he is responsible for existing and any future tax liabilities that the selling corporation had. It would be my advice for Mr. Jones to not buy the stock because of the liability of current and future tax obligations which Mr. Jones would incur from the purchase of the stock. Since the tax identity of Smithon corporation would have not ceased, it is not
Moore would say we can see these self evident truths when, in an argument, we are reduced to “it’s just wrong,” they require no further explanation, proof or justification. This seems a fairly logical conclusion, in order to justify what we do we look at it in basic terms, but such a process could not take place indefinitely without coming to a base truth which could not be broken down further. It’s the classic “it just is” situation in an argument, where the statement cannot be further simplified nor justified. The problem however is agreeing on what these basic moral truths are. Moore and WD Ross a fellow intuitionist agreed that pleasure, knowledge and virtue are all intrinsically good, and pain, ignorance and vice are intrinsically bad.
The unconscionability doctrine as applied in Jones v. Star Credit Corp. is moreover based on an equitable standard, whereas, as illustrated by the Virginia cases, the unconscionability doctrine in the Virginia Courts system is viewed more narrowly and based on more of a legal standard absent duress, fraud and coercion. ANALYSIS 1. Jones v. Star Credit Corp. Standard of Unconsionability The price term of an agreement is implied in the
The economic considerations were substantial because not only would the decision raise the overall cost of the recapitalization, it would establish two undesirable precedents. The assets of Kohler Foundation, the charitable division of the corporation, were comprised entirely of Kohler Co. stock. If the price were to change, all short and long term projections for the foundation would need to been altered. Likewise, Kohler’s brother had recently passed away and the new value set by the court would, more than likely, affect the value of the deceased’s estate, which Kohler would then have to account for. The Kohler Company, as a manufacturer of plumbing fixtures, began when Kohler’s ancestor had decided to alter farm equipment and sell it as a bathtub.
The court said the Second Amendment protects your right, but this regulation doesn’t violate your right. So I don’t think it makes a big difference. And conversely, to say it’s not an individual right doesn’t mean that gun owners are without all rights, and the ACLU has often collaborated with gun owners rights organizations to defend their rights to privacy, to defend their rights to due process; in other words, they don’t forfeit all of their Constitutional rights just because they are gun owners, even if the Second Amendment doesn’t protect. So I think it’s more a philosophical debate than it has any practical
The legal issues in this case are whether the letter stating the variation applied to the original contract could still be held to be a binding contract. Another issue is whether there is a consideration on both parties to enable Boots to invoke the buy back clause and whether there was benefit to both parties to constitute a good consideration between them. This leads to whether Amdahl is liable for a breach of contract for his unwillingness to invoke the buy back clause in the contract. Judge Waller LJ took the formalist approach for this case by deciding the case based on the law itself without taking into account whether it was fair or not. There was procedural fairness in his judgment as he quoted from Chitty on Contracts 28th edition paragraph 3–074, which proved to be the ratio decidendi in the case, if not very persuasive obiter dicta.
The protective principle: 4. Disciplinary Principle: - Evidence law is principally about the search for the truth but sometimes needs to be changed to protect people and to look at the purpose of the people. - In relation to this particular act – the government have said that the main objectives of this act are to set in place rules that allow any information that is reliable/likely to lead to the right outcome and relevant (so we don’t let in anything) unless the information will unfairly prejudice a person involved in the court proceeding → seems to embody most objectives except the disciplinary principle. - NB: when unclear about the way evidence law ought to apply in particular scenario, refer to the 3 objectives to determine what outcome would advance the goals in this scenario. Longman warnings: Source: http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/28.%20Other%20Trial%20Processes/longman-warning 8.36 In Longman,[54] a complaint was made more than 20 years after the alleged offence.