Lucy v. Zehmer Case Brief Facts: Lucy made an offer to Zehmer one night while at his restaurant to purchase Zehmer’s farm for $50‚000. Zehmer and Lucy both signed an agreement that promised Zehmer would sell the farm to Lucy. Zehmer claimed later that the agreement to sell the farm was made when they were both drinking at Zehmer’s restaurant and that he only meant the acceptance as a joke. Zehmer didn’t believe that Lucy’s offer was genuine since they were both drinking and went along with
Premium Contract Supreme Court of the United States Appeal
INDIAN CONTRACT ACT 1. S. 124 - Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar v Moreshwar Madan Mantri (Indemnity) (Plaintiff‚ at the request of the defendant‚ executed two mortgages in favour of Mohandas. Defendant wrote a letter promising to indemnify the plaintiff against any suits by the mortgagee‚ along with executing a third mortgage in place of the previous two. Plaintiff prays that the defendant obtains a release of liability from Mohandas; Issues: 1) Can the indemnified ask for performance of the contract
Premium Contract Legal terms Contractual term
The case of Fare v. Michael concentrates on what the Miranda case law did for an adults 5th Amendment rights‚ but now deals with a juvenile and an added element (Elrod & Ryder‚ 2014). The defendant in this case was 16 years old and had been charged with murder (Elrod & Ryder‚ 2014). The juvenile defendant did not ask for an attorney‚ but did ask for his probation officer as he was currently on probation (Elrod & Ryder‚ 2014). The police denied his request to have his probation officer contacted
Premium Law Miranda v. Arizona United States Constitution
INTRODUCTION TO LAW & CRIMINAL LAW - EXAMPLE OF THEFT CASE STUDY John & Andrew stay in students accommodation together. While shopping at Tesco store John took few sun glasses from the display shelf & places them into Andrew’s pocket. Later John saw a Puma shirt priced at 50$ & swapped the price tag with another shirt marked 30$ & paid the lower price. At the exit point Mark the shop detective blocked Andrew & perform a body search. As a result
Premium Theft Criminal law
Arizona v. Rodney Joseph Gant 1. Heading a. Arizona v. R. Joseph Gant‚ Supreme Court of the United States‚ 2009 (April 21‚ 2009) 2. Statement of Facts a. Tucson‚ Arizona police officers acted on an anonymous tip that the residence at 2524 N. Walnut Ave was being used to sell drugs. The door was answered by Rodney Gant‚ who after a records check‚ revealed that Gant’s driver’s license had been suspended and there was an outstanding warrant out for his arrest for driving with a suspended license
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
I have gone through all the assigned cases and I must admit it constituted one of the most challenging I have read thus far. Most of the legal jargons are notoriously difficult to comprehend. However‚ I braved the terms and what not coupled with patience and I did find a tiny light at the end of the tunnel. Among the three cases‚ I find King v. Burwell case interesting‚ in a sense‚ for the reason that the arguments raised in the case were about the subsidies for The Patient Protection and Affordable
Premium Health care Medicine Health economics
of title by registration rather than registration by title (Breskvar v Wall (1971) 126 CLR 376. * Indefeasibility- The registered proprietor holds the title free of all unregistered interests. S42 Real Property Act 1900 (NSW). * Registration of a void instrument confers immediate indefeasibility in the absence of fraud (Frazer v Walker [1967]] 1 AC 569. * Sir Garfield Barwick sitting on the Privy Council in Frazer v Walker described it as: “a convenient description of the immunity from
Premium Property Law Copyright
Hawkins v Clayton [1988] HCA 15; (1988) 164 CLR 539 (8 April 1988) High Court of Australia Case Title: HAWKINS v. CLAYTON [1988] HCA 15; (1988) 164 CLR 539 F.C. 88/012 Medium Neutral Citation: [1988] HCA 15 Hearing Date(s): 1987‚ May 13 1988‚ April 8 Decision Date: 20 June 2011 Jurisdiction: High Court of Australia Before: C.J Mason J. Wilson J. Brennan J. Deane J. Gaudron Catchwords: Negligence - Duty of care - Solicitor - Will held by solicitor
Premium Tort Supreme Court of the United States Law
Title and Citation Mark Koding v. Public Prosecutor [1982] 2 MLJ 120 Facts On 11 October 1978‚ the Accused‚ Mark Koding‚ a lawyer and member of the Dewan Rakyat made a speech in Parliament which was thought to be seditious. He was subsequently charged with committing an offence under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act. Issues 1. Whether‚ as a Member of Parliament (MP)‚ the Accused’s right of free speech in Parliament‚ given by sections 3 and 8 of the Houses of Parliament (Privileges and Powers)
Premium United States Constitution First Amendment to the United States Constitution Constitution
Personal Property Case Study The case study “Parking Lot’s Liability” is an actual court case‚ Allright‚ Inc. v. Strauder. Plaintiff brought suit alleging that as a result of defendant’s negligence‚ his automobile was stolen from a parking lot operated by defendant. Signs were located throughout the parking lot which stated that the lot closed at 6 o’clock p.m. and that anyone returning after that time could pick up their keys at another parking lot operated by the defendant at a another
Premium Law Legal terms Tort