Bowers v. Hardwick United States Supreme Court Opinion This case‚ Bowers v. Hardwick‚ originated when Michael Hardwick was targeted by a policer officer for harassment in Georgia. A houseguest of Hardwick’s let the officer into his home‚ where Hardwick was found engaging in oral sex with his partner‚ who was another male. Michael Hardwick was arrested and charged of sodomy. After charges were later dropped‚ Hardwick brought his case to the Supreme Court to have the sodomy law declared unconstitutional
Free Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Law
contract. An offer may be made to an individual‚ group‚ or even to the world at large as seen in the case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893]. However‚ offer is distinguished from an invitation to treat which is not an offer but an offer to consider offers. Acceptance of an invitation to treat does not lead to a contract and therefore in Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953]‚ the defendant had made an invitation to treat by having his goods display
Premium Contract Contract law
Subject Business Law Subject Number BBC131 Trainer Mr Tony Antoniou Due Date 7th Oct 2012 Chapter 1 LEGAL FOUNDATIONS Tutorial Questions 1 Why did common law become so rigid and flexible? The social behaviour of surroundings where society
Free Common law Law
Felthouse v Bindley From Wikipedia‚ the free encyclopedia Felthouse v Bindley Court Court of Common Pleas Citation(s) (1862) 11 Cb (NS) 869; [1862] EWHC CP J35; 142 ER 1037 Transcript(s) Full text of judgment Judge(s) sitting Willes J‚ Byles J and Keating J Felthouse v Bindley (1862) EWHC CP J 35‚ is the leading English contract law case on the rule that one cannot impose an obligation on another to reject one ’s offer. This is sometimes misleadingly expressed as a rule that "silence cannot
Premium Contract Plaintiff Defendant
Business Law “The doctrine laid down in Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 has to be watched very carefully. It has often been supposed to cast a veil on the personality of a limited company through which the courts cannot see. But that is not true. The courts can‚ and often do‚ draw aside the veil. They can‚ and often do‚ pull off the mark. They look to see what really lies behind” - Lord Denning in Littlewoods Mail Order Stores v Inland revenue Commissioners [1969] 3 All ER 422.
Premium Corporation Law
-Bona Fide Occupational Requirement: is a genuine requirement for a job‚ such as‚ for example‚ the need to wear a hard hat when working on a construction site. Bona fide occupational requirement is a defence that excuses discrimination o a prohibited ground when it is done for a legitimate business reason. Bona Fide occupational requirement can be rejected if a male does not have the care‚ attractiveness and delegacy a women would have. Physical capabilities have also been rejected example a women
Premium Contract Tort
Law Assignment In this essay I shall discuss the case of the Silverline Construction Ltd (SCL) v Emma. Which is an event‚ which took place on the school premises. The event happened ‘shortly after completion when several roof tile fell and smashed on the ground in front of the victim. This resulted in injuring her face and affected her confidence. The question‚ which is being asked is whether ’Emma have a cause of action in negligence against SCL’. Using common law‚ the claimant is owed duty
Premium Tort Law Tort law
exchange of promises between two or more parties to do or refrain from doing an act which is enforceable in a court of law. www.wikipedi.org A contract is a binding agreement between two or more people stating to do something or refrain from doing something. Not all agreements are classified as contracts. A contract is known as an acceptance or offer enforced by law between two or more people. When creating a contract all people or parties involved must intend to create a legal relations
Premium Contract
Sport and the Law Nathan Bracken vs Cricket Australia Case This case study will outline and discuss the lawsuit by Australian test cricketer Nathan Bracken against Cricket Australia for negligence which he believed ended his cricketing career prematurely. The following article is from the Australian newspaper on February 9‚ 2012. Nathan Bracken sues Cricket Australia for $1 million over knee injury. Former Australian Test seamer Nathan Bracken is suing Cricket Australia‚ alleging
Premium Law Common law Human rights
......................................... 45 Discussion ................................................................................... 45 Applicable Rules .................................................................... 45 Florida Case Law
Premium Judgment Appeal Civil procedure