Doogiemonstor Book Review Econ 355 May 15‚ 2008 No Excuses Synopsis In the US there is an unfortunate reality that exists among low-income K-12 public schools. This national tragedy is the failure to teach children of poor families the necessary skills to make it in the real world. Samuel Casey Carter’s No Excuses‚ states that roughly 20 million lower than average income children exist in the K-12 public school system. Of this number‚ 12 million are not learning the most fundamental skills
Premium Education High school Teacher
consideration. It also examines the problems arising from the Rule in Pinnel’s Case‚ the subsequent exceptions that were developed to circumvent the rule and in detail the most important exception of them; Promissory estoppel and how it solved the problem’s arising from the Rule. The distinction between traditional estoppel and this new type of estoppel ’Promissory Estoppel’ are also examined and how Promissory estoppel has been accepted in Australia. A contract is an agreement that the law will enforce‚ a
Premium Contract Law Common law
discussion encompassed the important topic of both having a heart‚ but also being able to make hard decisions. No where has this idea been more prominent this first semester than in contracts‚ especially during the discussion of promissory and equitable estoppels. In
Premium Law Lawyer Judge
doctrine of Promissory Estoppel was establish and the derivation of modern doctrine of it is to be found in the The doctrine of Promissory Estoppel was first developed but was lost for some time until it was resurrected by Lord Denning in the leading case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd. Promissory estoppel There are three exceptions to the rule in Pinnel’s case. They are composite agreement‚ payment of debt by third party and promissory estoppel. The rule in Pinnel’s
Premium Contract Common law Law
References: http://www.viperfusion.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/commercial-law-sale-by-a-non-owner.pdf http://kenyalawresourcecenter.blogspot.com/2011/07/exceptions-to-nemo-dat.html http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/nemo-dat-quod-non-habet/ http://lawspeculator.blogspot.com/2010/03/exceptions-to-nemo-dat-quod-non-habet.html http://www.commonlii.org/my/legis/consol_act/soga19571989203/ http://www.lawnix.com/cases/carlill-carbolic-smoke-ball.html http://www.lawteacher.net
Premium Contract Contract law Invitation to treat
CONTRACT LAW – LECTURE 4 Promissory estoppel Is about the enforceability of all alteration promises (promises to pay more and promises to accept less) and by contrast estoppels does not apply to promises about the formation of initial contracts Ex. If a creditor promises to accept a smaller sum in full settlement intending the debtor to rely on that promise‚ and the debtor does rely on it‚ the debtor may have a defence of promissory estoppels when sued for the balance by the creditor. The promise
Premium Common law Contract
(although in some instances the courts seem to go to some lengths to invent consideration eg Ward v Byham‚ Williams v Roffey Bros) equity will‚ in some instances‚ uphold promises which are not supported by consideration through the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Rules of consideration There are various rules governing the law of consideration: 1. The consideration must not be past. 2. The consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate. 3. The consideration must move from the promisee. 4. An
Premium Consideration Common law Law
modern doctrine of promissory estoppel. Promissory estapol prevents a party from breaking a promise without consideration. It is defence equity‚ and could only be relied upon defensively as a shield not a sword‚ High Trees 1947. A new Australian view of promissory estoppel was developed in 1988 from the Walton’s v Maher case. The pre-existing agreement was the lease agreement and the tenant was defending the action to recover back rent. It was founded that a promissory estoppel action could also be used
Premium Contract
£8-10s-0d but paid £5-2s-2d at an earlier date at Pinnel’s request‚ claiming that his earlier payment of the lesser sum discharged him of paying the full debt. However it was held that part-payment in itself was not consideration. There are exceptions to the rule where consideration may be provided being if the being if the creditor agrees to accept earlier payment of a lesser sum‚ if the payment is made in a different form or if the payment is made in a different place. This rule in Pinnel’s
Premium Contract
CASE TOPIC AREA RESULTING LAW [CASE DETAILS] "Whitely v Chapel " "Interpretation of Statute " "literal rule - words given dict’ meaning [voted under dead person’s name. Cannot impersonate a dead person] " "Re Sigsworth " "Interpretation of Statute " golden rule - above disregarded if absurd/repugnant situation [son due to inherit from his mother after murdering her] "DPP vs Bull / Corkery v Carpenter " "Interpretation of Statute " "mischief rule - interpret for intended effect [law referrign
Premium Contract Tort Contract law