1) SCHROEDER V LUCY On what contractual grounds could he sue? Schroeder can sue on contractual grounds of unconscionable since the prenuptial agreement was acquired through misrepresentation and duress (Clarkson‚ Miller & Ross‚ 2015). Thus‚ Schroeder can sue on not given an opportunity to get his separate permissible counsel or read the agreement before signing it. Moreover‚ Schroeder can sue on no complete disclosure on Lucy’s debt or assets‚ and fraud since Lucy did not keep her promise to buy
Premium Law Contract Common law
Georgia v. Randolph is a landmark case pertaining to the search of a private resident without a search warrant where one resident gives law enforcement personnel consents to conduct a search and the other member objects. This particular case involved a married couple Scott and Janet Randolph‚ who were having marriage problems. Janet decided to leave Scott taking their son with her to Canada (Wood 2007 para 1). After being gone for a little over a month she and the child returned to the same residents
Premium Family Supreme Court of the United States Mother
violated the First Amendment. In trying to keep minors away from inappropriate material the Act reduced "the freedom of speech" by restricting what adults could send over the internet. # 2) Legal Precedent: a. Sable Communications of California v. FCC (1989) was in response to a ban on indecent and obscene interstate commercial phone messages. Sable Communications was in the dial-a-porn business. The supreme court decision was that the ban on obscene speech was valid since the constitution does
Premium United States Constitution United States Supreme Court of the United States
Brewer v Mann Queen ’s Bench Division 14 October 2010 Case Analysis Where Reported[2010] EWHC 2444 (QB); Official Transcript Case DigestSubject: Sale of goods Other related subjects: Sale of goods; Consumer law Keywords: Bailment; Breach of contract; Breach of warranty; Damages; Hire purchase; Misleading statements; Motor dealers; Trade descriptions; Warranties Summary: The claimant succeeded in her claims for breach of warranty and breach of contract in respect of the sale to her
Premium Contract Contract law
speech still protect you today? In 1988‚ the case Texas v. Johnson‚ a protester named Gregory Johnson‚ grabbed an American flag and drenched it in kerosene‚ then proceeded to light it on fire. Desecrating the flag was illegal in Texas‚ so he was convicted one year in prison for this. This made Johnson and others argue that what he did was his right‚ due to freedom of speech‚ it was a political message‚ and it was legal to burn the flag in other cities. Johnson was justified in burning the flag because
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
The landmark case that opened up the ability for business to operate across state lines was Gibbons v. Ogden. The case started in 1809‚ when the Legislature of the State of New York granted exclusive navigation privileges of all boats that moved by fire or stream in the waters within the jurisdiction of the state‚ for twenty years‚ to Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton (Livingston). They wanted a monopoly on a national network of steamboat lines‚ but were unsuccessful in their pursuit. Only
Premium United States United States Constitution Thomas Jefferson
decision in Jones v. Tsige in 2012‚ resulting in the creation of the tort of intrusion upon seclusion‚ the common law did not include torts that did not entail a personal or financial injury. It is essential the common law includes torts that do not entail actual injury to provide individuals the means of seeking remedies when they are wronged from the wrongdoer responsible for the action. Had the OCA not recognized the tort of intrusion upon seclusion in the case of Jones v. Tsige‚ Jones would
Premium Employment Ethics Law
Tennessee v Garner refers to using “all necessary means to effect the arrest” in the case of a suspect fleeing or forcibly resisting (FindLaw‚ n.d.). With this Tennessee statute‚ there are some stipulations (FindLaw‚ n.d.). There must be a belief that the suspect will act in a manner which would cause serious physical harm or death to others (FindLaw‚ n.d.). The amount of forced used must be in balance with the crime committed and how imminent harm is likely to occur (FindLaw‚ n.d.). Two police
Premium Police
You asked me to prepare an Objective Legal Analysis of how Jones v Tsige applies to the Cuthbert`s case. Specifically‚ how the Cuthbert`s use of the nanny cam may both invade and not invade their nanny’s privacy. Background Facts The present case concerns Ryan and Angela Cuthbert. Ryan is a self-employed individual who operates a plumbing company‚ while his wife‚ Angela is presently on the maternity leave‚ but is scheduled to return to her previous employment at the CFO of a Crown Corporation at
Premium Marriage Family Love
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California was a case in 1976 which the Supreme Court of California decided that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by any of their patients. Originally‚ in 1974‚ the decision was mandated warning the threatened person or persons but‚ in the year 1976 the California Supreme Court decided that it was intended for a “duty to protect” a victim. Mr. Poddar was a graduate student in the University
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Law