reasonably to enhance the contractual objectiveness of a case. Judges use the grounds of how a ‘reasonable’ observer would interpret the facts to determine whether the elements of a contract are evident within an agreement to then make it legally binding‚ and whether the contractual performance of the parties was acted in good faith. This in effect allows for more procedural fairness‚ taking into account all matters within judicial review. Within this case‚ Robb J reasons that there is a legally binding contract
Premium
R. Civ. P. 9(b). The particularity requirement is met by pleading facts about the “times dates‚ places or other details of the alleged fraudulent involvement of the actors‚” which gives rise to a strong inference of fraudulent intent. In re GlenFed Inc. Sec. Litig.‚ 11 F.3d 843‚ 847-48 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Time Warner‚ 9 F.3d at 263 (requiring the identity
Premium Pleading Plaintiff Complaint
The legal issue in this problem is whether the acceptance of the offer by Shum is made before communication of the revocation by Tam. A statement of sales offering to a specific person by one body is considered as an offer. In this case‚ Tam has sent a letter to Shum offering to sell him a quantity of household goods for HK$10‚000. Therefore‚ an offer by Tam has been made on 15th January. (the date that Shum receives Tam’s letter). According to The General Rule‚ an acceptance must be communicated
Premium Contract Offer and acceptance
Case Brief 1. CASE: Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. Inc. 556 U.S. 868 (2009) 2. FACTS: A West Virginia jury issued a verdict against respondents (“Massey”) in the amount of $50 million. After the verdict‚ knowing that the West Virginia’s Supreme Court of Appeals would consider the appeal‚ Blankenship‚ the chairman‚ CEO and president of Massey contributed $3 million to help Benjamin run for office in that court in West Virginia’s 2004 judicial election. Benjamin won the election in a close
Premium Jury United States Supreme Court of the United States
Assignment I- Case Brief: McCarty v. Pheasant Run ‚ Inc. Prof Lindsey Appiah Tort Law October 28‚ 2012 Summary of Case Mrs. Dula McCarty brought suit against Pheasant Run Inc. for negligence. In 1981‚ Mrs. McCarty was attacked by a man in her hotel room‚ beaten and threatened of rape. Mrs. McCarty ultimately fought off her attacker and he fled. The attacker was never identified nor brought to justice. Although Mrs. McCarty did not sustain serious physical injuries‚ she claimed the incident
Premium Tort Law Tort law
Patrick Haines JLC 101 Prof. Edelson 9/11/14 Hawkins v McGee case brief Case Name: Hawkins v. McGee‚ 84 N.H. 114‚ 146 A. 641.(1929) Facts: Mr. Hawkins‚ the Plaintiff had undergone reconstructive surgery by Dr. McGee‚the defendant‚ in order to remove scar tissue on his hand that had resulted from an electrical wire accident nine years prior to the transaction. The procedure called for the removal of the scar tissue from his palm and the grafting of skin from his chest in its place. When asked about
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Jury
Hugh M. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company‚ Inc. 556 U.S.868 U.S. Supreme Court June 8‚ 2009 Facts: Hugh Caperton‚ C.E.O. of Harman mining (here on labeled as Caperton)‚ filed a lawsuit against A.T. Massey Coal Company (here on labeled as Massey) alleging that Massey fraudulently canceled a coal supply contract with Harman Mining‚ resulting in its going out of business. In August 2002‚ a Boone County‚West Virginia jury found in favor of Caperton and awarded $50 million in damages. Massey
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
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
MEMORANDUM OF LAW To: Kimberly D. Beard‚ Esq. From: Laura Gardner Re: Brandon Berry‚ State of Georgia v. Berry Date: February 27‚ 2013 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Can the Defendant be Charged With Cruelty to Children When the Child Was Not in the Defendant’s Care? II. Can the Defendant be Charged With Cruelty to Children When the Elements Have Not Been Met? STATEMENT OF FACTS On June 16‚ 1998 Jamie June (Jamie) completed a detox program for alcohol abuse and she then started Alcoholics
Premium Jury Law Court
Brief of McCart v H&R Block‚ Inc. Case Name‚ Citation‚ and Court Robert McCart and June McCart‚ v. H &R Block. Inc. 470 N.E.2d 756; 1984 Ind. App. LEXIS 3039 Court of Appeals of Indiana‚ Third District Key Facts Mr. McCart opened a tax preparation business and executed a contract with Block to be a district manager‚ which precluded him from operating a tax business in the same city. McCart then issued the city franchise to his wife. Years later‚ the wife signed a new franchise agreement
Premium Income tax in the United States Contract Taxation in the United States