Chapter 15 1. Odessa cannot enforce this promise. There was no consideration for the promise. Consideration is promise or performance that the promisor demands as the price of the promise. Sarah does not official records and she is not bound to pay the money to Odessa.
Constitution does not give government authority to acquire land this large. Encourage by his advisors to overlook the issue, Jefferson (strict interpretation) used loose interpretation of the
In scenario 1, Tarrington’s property is unique and therefore the “legal remedy of monetary damages will not compensate the buyer adequately” (Miller & Jentz, 2010, Pg. 246). Rainer cannot get the same house and lot in a different location. There is also no evidence presented to believe that Rainer would not meet his end of the agreement. Even though Rainer has not “substantially performed his contract obligations,” I do believe that his commitment can be considered an offer “to do so” (Miller & Jentz, 2010, Pg.
The decision/holding of the government was that the Fong Yue Ting v. United States case, the government had the right to deny them citizenship because of certain reasons. First, Lee Joe did not have a witness that was not Chinese. The policy states that a witness must not be Chinese, therefore the government didn’t grant Lee Joe citizenship. 5. Legal Rational a.
does not constitute a court order sufficient to override the presumption of paternity. Likewise, we find that failure on the part of Darlene Romer to respond to a request for admission under Civil Rule 36 admitting that Richard Romer is not the biological father of R.M., does not constitute clear and convincing evidence to rebut paternity, in the opposite, the superior court finding that “the plaintiff is not the father of R.M. and owes no support” is clearly erroneous because it makes no mention of the standard of proof it used as opposed to that set out in AS 25.20.050 Legitimation by subsequent marriage, acknowledgment in writing, or
The Monroe Doctrine states that the continents of North and South America should be able to develop without interference from the Europe. It did not allow those from a European country to control/colonize any property in America. It basically said that this continents are ours to police, not for Europe to colonize or conquer. The Monroe Doctrine included Hawaii and Cuba eventually. In my opinion, the US does not follow this doctrine today.
The stockholder’s argued: (1) the plaintiff’s certificate of incorporation does not expressly authorize the contribution, and under common-law principles the company does not possess any implied or incidental power to make it, and (2) the New Jersey statutes which expressly authorize the contribution may not constitutionally be applied to the plaintiff, a corporation created long before their enactment. Issue: Does the corporation possess any implied or incidental power to make the contribution? Holding: Yes.
Here there is no supreme power to prescribe rules of action; no court with jurisdiction to decide or power to enforce its decrees. The law by which nations are to be judged, in war or in peace, are to be learned only from the public history of the nations we call civilized; and the history of the intercourse of one nation with another is so intimately connected with the internal history of each that no one can understand the former without some knowledge of the latter. Much might be said, did time permit, on the value of history in solving the ever recurring problems involving the security of life, liberty, and property. All these questions have arisen and been answered in some way by every civilized people. The communistic.
Therefore even if a fiduciary relationship would be proven the plaintiffs would have not right to ask the NSW Government to let them live on the land for an indefinite period of time. In Breen it was observed that the law has not formulated ‘any precise or comprehensive definition of the circumstances in which a person is constituted a fiduciary in his or her relations with another’[13], but this is a matter which is established on factual circumstances of each case. All the reasons displayed so far sustain that the factual circumstances do not prove such a
Supreme Court on the grounds that Dred Scott, as a slave, was not a “person” as contemplated by Sue Davies Pol 201 Dr Donald Barbee the United States Constitution and therefore did not have the right to petition the Federal Courts for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. As to Dred Scott, the extraordinary writ, the great writ as Sir William Blackstone put it, was effectively suspended. This notable case remains as one of