1/23/2015 BURNETT v. WESTMINSTER BANK‚ LTD. | Islamicbanker’s Weblog Islamicbanker’s Weblog Just another WordPress.com weblog BURNETT v. WESTMINSTER BANK‚ LTD. BURNETT v. WESTMINSTER BANK‚ LTD. QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION [1966] 1 QB 742‚ [1965] 3 All ER 81‚ [1965] 3 WLR 863‚ [1965] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 218‚ 8 Legal Decisions Affecting Bankers 424 HEARING-DATES: 31 May‚ 1‚ 25 June 1965 25 June 1965 CATCHWORDS: Bank — Cheque — Condition restricting use — New cheque book on bank’s change to computer mechanisation
Premium Bank Cheque Contract
Page 1 1 of 3 DOCUMENTS M.A. MORTENSON COMPANY‚ INC.‚ Petitioner‚ v. TIMBERLINE SOFTWARE CORPORATION and SOFTWORKS DATA SYSTEMS‚ INC.‚ Respondents. No. 67796--4 SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON 140 Wn.2d 568; 998 P.2d 305; 2000 Wash. LEXIS 287; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P15‚893; 41 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 357 October 26‚ 1999‚ Oral Argument Date May 4‚ 2000‚ Filed PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Appeal from Superior Court‚ King County. 95--2--31991--2. Honorable Phillip Hubbard‚ Judge. DISPOSITION: Court
Premium United States Appeal Supreme Court of the United States
In the Greynolds v. Kurman case‚ I agree with the court’s decision. “There was sufficient evidence to support a finding of lack of informed consent” (Pozgar & Santucci‚ 2015‚ p. 339). When I read the case it seemed like the physicians did not put any effort in explaining the complete picture‚ including the Greynolds options‚ and letting them decide what they wanted. By law‚ “when there is doubt as to a patient’s capacity to consent‚ the consent of the legal guardian or next of kin should be obtained”
Premium Patient Health care Health care provider
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Court and Year Full High Court 2007 District Court of Queensland 2010 New South Wales Court of Appeal 2011 Relevant Facts Home purchased at $250000 with mortgage payment of $200000 Ms Clayton unable to keep up with payments After substantial period of default‚ banks sells sold property at auction for $150000. After deduction of sale‚ Bank seeks payment of the guarantor Ms Clayton claim guarantee not enforceable on her because of misunderstanding Ms Clayton alleges
Premium Law Real estate Jury
recognizing our government’s hypocrisy and lies; the problem is that we’re too willing to put up with it. The problem isn’t opening our eyes to the truth‚ it’s getting us to do something about it. The powerfully symbolic film V for Vendetta uses the voice of one anarchist‚ V‚ to influence thousands of people into standing together against their fascist government and fight for freedom. Although set in England‚ the film appeals to American viewers by reflecting similar policies now carried out by the
Premium V for Vendetta Totalitarianism
The case Miller v. California (1973) was determined by the Supreme Court‚ which redefined the meaning of obscenity. The word obscene is hard to define and could be seen as “You will know it when you see it.” The Miller case determined if something was obscene‚ the average person‚ applying the standards must find the entire work‚ as obscene‚ the work depicts offensive sexual conduct defined by state law‚ and that the work as a whole lacks literary‚ artistic‚ political‚ or scientific value. Marvin
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution First Amendment to the United States Constitution
The March for Life Protest In 1973‚ Jane Roe filed a court case against Henry Wade in which she accused Wade of impregnating her by sexual assault (Glazer n. pag). During the case‚ the U.S. Supreme Court first argued that the Fourteenth Amendment does not mention abortion‚ but rather it guarantees a privilege to individual freedom under due process (“Supreme Court Rules on Roe V. Wade‚ The” par. 5). The state of Texas argued that it had convincing motivations to protect the life of an unborn child
Premium Roe v. Wade Supreme Court of the United States
The film V for Vendetta directed by James McTeigue‚ is a story about shadowy freedom fighter known only as "V" who along with his companion Evey Hammond‚ completes V’s vendetta of blowing up parliament and removing the governments’ control. In the film an idea that was worth learning about was that ideas are very powerful and live beyond the death of individuals. This is shown throughout the film by the use of costume‚ dialogue and symbolism. Costume is illustrated in V for vendetta by the
Premium V for Vendetta
Loving v. Virginia Loving v. Virginia was a landmark civil rights decision of the USSC (United States Supreme Court)‚ which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage. The case was brought by Mildred Loving‚ a colored woman‚ and Richard Loving‚ a white man‚ were sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the state’s anti-miscegenation statue‚ the Racial Integrity Act of 1924‚ which prohibited marriage between people classified as “white”
Premium Marriage Miscegenation Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Right to Remain Silent Tayfun Tokac CRJ 411 Professor Wilson One of the landmark cases in our history which affected the law enforcement is Miranda v. Arizona case. This case had a significant impact on law enforcement in the United States‚ by making what became known as the Miranda rights part of routine police procedure to ensure that suspects were informed of their rights. Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape of an 18 year old girl by Phoenix Police Department. Mr. Miranda
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Police