National Steel, Inc., and Overland Transport Company enter into a contract. Superior Oil Corporation, which will indirectly benefit from the deal, is prevented from having rights under the contract by the principle of…
case brief---Gregory, a comedy writer, entered into a contract with Wessel, a comedian. The contract provided that Gregory would provide Wessel with a 15 minute monologue for his upcoming appearance on the comedy hour and Wessel will pay $250 to Gregory. All performers could make $500 per appearance on the comedy hour. and when Wessel was scheduled to aper on the comedy hour, Gregory informed him that he was unable to provide the monologue, because last time Wessel was asked to make special guest appearances at three local comedy clubs performance during the comedy hour. and Wessel bought lawsuit to Gregory for beach of contract and request damages of $1250.…
[ 29 ]. Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead (1909) 8 CLR 330.…
• LG Thorne & Co Pty Ltd v Thomas Borthwick & Sons (Australasia) Ltd (p220)…
Under the assumption that Edwina has paid for the property the House of Lords ruled on a similar case of Sharp v Thomson saying that “a person who has made delivery of a conveyance and accepted…
D owed an unsecured debt to C. C asked for some security, and D promised to provide some goods but never produced them. When C tried to enforce the agreement for the security, D argued that C had not provided any consideration.…
Welfare began as a federally funded program in the 1930s during the Great Depression for mainly the elderly and disabled, but also the unemployed. Many Americans complained of abuse of the welfare program, claiming the citizens with assistance "were not applying for jobs, having more children just to get more aid, and staying unmarried so as to qualify for greater benefits," ("Welfare Information"). President Bill Clinton passed a reform law in 1996 that turned the welfare system power from the federal government to state governments and required the able-bodied to work or prepare for work. This law essentially…
As societies jails become increasingly over populated there seems to be a new question as to why people recommit crime and how to influence the desistance process. For those in the Criminal Justice fields theories on why individuals commit crimes are abundant. Society, biology, genes, and upbringing are all fair game in assessing the why a person commits crimes. Although understanding the etiological reasoning for crime is important, it has now become increasingly important to understand the importance of desistance and curbing criminal behavior. There are several links that have been associated as positive correlation with deterring further crime. These include marriage, family and employment. It is easy to give a broad reason to why these factors have such a positive influence on crime, but even more important is the understanding policy implications that research into this topic will create. This paper will begin by examining existing research on the topic of employment and desistance. A survey of local employers will be conducted on employers in the Du Page, IL area to identify hiring processes of convicted criminals. Lastly if employment is the key to curbing criminal activity why are we turning away droves of quality employees?…
Research the Internet for Indiana's unemployment rate and your city unemployment rate. Compare the two. Is your city higher or lower than the state unemployment rate? By how much? What discrepancies between ethnic groups are there with regard to unemployment, if any?…
Fry v Lane involved plaintiffs who were ignorant and living in poverty. They sold their property to the D at 440 pounds who then subsequently resold at 3000 pounds. The court held that the contract could be rescinded because of unconscionability because 3 conditions had been satisfied. The P were poor and ignorant, the deal was at a gross undervalue, and the vendor has no independent legal advice. It was held that once these 3 conditions were satisfied, the burden shifted onto the D to prove that the deal was fair, just and reasonable. As the D could not show that, the contract was rescinded.…
* Though the previous maxim indicates equity’s willingness to intervene where the common law will not, it should not be thought that equity will automatically intervene whenever a certain situation arises. In general, one can say that wherever certain facts are found and a common law right or interest has been established, common law remedies will be available whether that produces a fair result or not. By contrast, equitable remedies are discretionary and the court will not grant them if it feels that the plaintiff is unworthy, notwithstanding that prima facie he has established and equitable right or interest. The maxim that he who seeks equity must do equity together with the next maxims, concerning delay, are aspects…
Before we can delve into the question of the Contract Right of Third Parties Act 1999 we must first discuss the ideology of Privity in contract law. This is something that has been prevalent for many years and is a highly controversial doctrine. In this essay I shall discuss the changes bought forward by the Act, define the doctrine and delve into the extent of the success of the Act taking into consideration it 's many various criticisms.…
Actually when the flow emerges from the throat area of venturi to enter into the diverging section, their is a negative pressure gradient i.e, in layman terms fluid is trying to flow from low pressure region to high pressure region according to Bernoulli equation. In this adverse pressure gradient, there is boundary layer separation, in simple terms, the fluid leaves the surface of the wall. Due to this there can be energy loss or the fluid can't recover the pressure fully leading to head loss. So if divergent section is long that means more gradual diverging section, due to which the adverse pressure gradient is less so less chance of boundary separation and hence less loss. Also large diverging section will ensure proper development of flow, i.e. fluid sticking to the wall back after separation.…
Privity is where someone not a party to a contract can be liable under neither it nor benefit from it. There has to be a promise from the party also some consideration. It is stated in the book 19th Century according to Richards that privity’s modern authority has been through the case of Dunlop v Lambert. In Dunlop v Selfridge[1] where there was a contract between Dunlop to the wholesaler and then to Selfridge, Dunlop stated not to sell tyres below the list price and the wholesaler created the second contract that if tyres were sold under the list price then it would be seen as a breach and there would be a fine of £5 for each tyre.[2] So this contract involved a third party which is the wholesaler in between. It was held in this case by Lord Haldane “in the law of England certain principles are fundamental. One is that only a person who is part to a contract can sue on it… a second principle is that if a person with whom a contract not under seal has been made is able to enforce it consideration must have been given by him…”[3] So this shows that it was for Dunlop to agree on this charge of £5 per tyre as they are under the seal of the contract. By using the rule stated from Dunlop v Lambert it states that the main contract holder in this case is Dunlop has less control that he would have if he had gone direct to the retailer to sell the product. So it seems there would have been more control if there were only two parties involved. Also under the rule Selfridge cannot get compensation if he suffers no loss. This rule has made it easier in Privity as it gives a remedy when parties had thought there was a breach and would cause damage to a identifiable third party and has there is no other remedy.[4] This allows the law on three party contracts being clear and consistent. In the case of Darlington Borough Council v Wilshire…
For example, in the case of Margaret v. Muigai Management Co.; the case examines the duty a landlord owed to her tenant Miss Margaret but on failure of him to provide the conditions as agreed which in this case was to provide the tenants with security, the plaintiff Miss Wills signed for breach of contract. Miss Margaret was sexually assaulted in front of their premise, Ridgeways apartments which was owned by the defendant Nyati oxford and was subsequently being managed by Muigai Managing Company. In similar cases there had been earlier reports that the residence was not safe and so many people had lost their properties to thieves.…