NOTES OF CASES THECASEOF THE SLIPPERY EQUITY IN Re Vandervell’s Trusts (No. 2)‚’ Lord Denning M.R. said: “ (‘ Hard cases make bad law ’) is a maxim which is quite misleading. It should be deleted from our vocabulary. It comes to this: ‘Unjust decisions make good law’: whereas they do nothing of the kind. Every unjust decision is a reproach to the law or to the judge who administers it.”a Now that it has been decided that there is to be no appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal‚ it is worth
Premium Law Common law Criminal law
1. The decision in Williams v Roffey moved away from the actual technicalities of finding traditional consideration‚ to actually looking at the factual benefit which a promisor may gain. In this sense it was stated that the duty to perform an existing contract could be good consideration so long as some kind of benefit went to the promisor‚ whereas previous to this performance of an existing contract was in fact no consideration‚ (as stated in Stilk v Myrick). This decision developed the doctrine
Premium Money Contract Plaintiff
Case Briefing 18 United States v. One hundred sixty-five thousand five hundred eighty dollars ($165‚580) in U.S. currency I. Statement of the facts During the deep winter in Maine‚ the St. John River‚ which forms the border with Canada‚ freezes over as it flows through the town of Van Buren. This river is transformed into a pathway‚ suitable for travel by foot or by snowmobile; to avoid U.S. Customs‚ this river becomes an opportunity for illegal entry into the United States. Typically‚ smuggling
Premium Illegal drug trade
Houser Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Throughout history there have been many cases about racism and segregation. Although different laws and rights have been established this seems to be a reoccurring event. The constitution promotes equality‚ but not everyone seems to agree that all people should be given the same rights. Even in areas such as education there have been differences in the education blacks receive from those that whites receive at their schools. Cases such as Brown V. Board of
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Brown v. Board of Education Thurgood Marshall
Compare and Contrast Essay Comparing 1984 with V for Vendetta Both 1984 by George Orwell and V for Vendetta directed by James McTeigue depict dystopian totalitarian societies. Both protagonists in V for Vendetta and 1984 wish to overturn their current government. V’s aggressive acts against his government are successful in crippling the government as opposed to Winton’s passive aggressive attitude which leads to his failure. The substantial difference in each protagonists’ aggression and
Premium Nineteen Eighty-Four Totalitarianism V for Vendetta
about duty of care of social hosts involving parties where guests bring and consume their own alcoholic beverages follows under the synonym of common law: general rule. In the case of Child V. Desormeaux‚ it was proven by the courts that the social hosts did not own a duty of care to the people injured by the defendant’s actions. “I conclude that as a general rule‚ a social host does not owe a duty of care to a person injured by a guest who has consumed alcohol and that the courts below correctly
Premium Law Tort Duty of care
In Rochefoucauld v Boustead (1897)‚ Lindley LJ said ‘that the Statute of Frauds does not prevent the proof of a fraud; and that it is a fraud on the part of the person to whom the land is conveyed as a trustee‚ and who knows it was so conveyed‚ to deny the trust and claim the land himself’. Section 53(1)(b) of the Law of Property Act 1925 provides that ‘a declaration of trust respecting any land or any interest therein must be manifested and proved by some writing signed by some person who is
Premium Trust law
U On May 15‚ 2000‚ the United States Supreme Court held that a portion of the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power. The holding of this case and the unconstitutionality eventually resulted in the “freedom” of Antonio J. Morrison‚ who evaded charges under the act that would provide a victim‚ Christy Brzonkala‚ of gender-motivated violence a cause of action against the perpetrator for the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages. This
Premium United States Congress Commerce Clause Supreme Court of the United States
The case of Miranda v. Arizona dealt with the question‚ “Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?” This case started in 1963‚ when Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix‚ Arizona for robbing $8 from a bank worker‚ and was charged with armed robbery. He already had a record for armed robbery‚ and a juvenile record including attempted rape‚ assault‚ and burglary
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Case Brief Miranda v. Arizona Citation: 384 U.S. 436‚ 10 Ohio Misc. 9‚ 86 S. Ct. 1602‚ 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966) Brief Fact Summary: Self-incriminating evidence was provided by the defendants while interrogated by police without prior notification of the Fifth Amendment Rights of the United States Constitution. Synopsis of Rule of Law: Authorities of the Government must notify suspects of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights prior to an interrogation following an arrest. Facts: The Supreme
Premium Miranda v. Arizona United States Constitution Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution