You Are The Judge #1 Case A: Elaine v. Jerry Legal Issues: The plaintiff‚ Elaine‚ has sued the defendant‚ Jerry‚ because the defendant fired her after the plaintiff was on the job for two months. The job offer letter that the defendant had sent her mentioned the great career opportunities at the company and stated that her annual salary would be $30‚000. The company is an employment-at-will employer. The plaintiff was given no reason for the termination. After the termination‚ the defendant hired
Premium Employment Termination of employment Law
‘incomplete defence’ because it does not seek to absolve the defendant of all liability. By invoking Article 2179 (NCC)‚ the defendant accepts that the proximate cause of the injury was his act‚ but he seeks to lessen hisliability by proving that the plaintiff had failed to act in such a way that would have prevented a greater injury. If so‚ there is a need to present evidence of the plaintiff’s negligence—not as proximate cause‚ but as a contributory cause. Because contributory negligence is a doctrine
Premium Law Tort Tort law
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS JUSTIN WILLIAM KING‚ ) ) Plaintiff. ) ) ) v. ) ) ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES‚ INC. ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) COMPLAINT Comes Now the plaintiff‚ Justin King‚ by and through his attorney‚ states as follows: PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1. Plaintiff‚ for all times mentioned herein‚ was and is a resident of Cook County‚ State of Illinois. 2. Defendant
Premium Illinois Jury Jurisdiction
the side of the steps was a screen separating the steps from a dining area‚ and to the other side was a low wall which separated the steps from a ramp. The plaintiff suffered an injury to her ankle as a result of tripping whilst going down the three steps and being unable to catch herself as there was no handrail in place. It was the plaintiffs claim that the restaurant owners had been negligent in not providing a handrail to the steps‚ and had they done so she would have been able to catch herself
Premium Law Negligence Tort
the plaintiff was made the “winner” of the contest. The disc jockeys made unpleasant‚ negative and defamatory comments about the plaintiff. They also invited the public to ridicule her looks as well. The disc jockeys also disclosed the plaintiff’s full name‚ place of employment and her relation to her superiors. The plaintiff claimed this incident and the actions of the disc jockeys caused her emotional distress. The defendants had filed a counterclaim. It was dismissed due to the plaintiff having
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Supreme court
a. The application of English Law in our legal system. English Law is part of Malaysian law. The definition of law in Article 160 of the Federal Constitution includes ‘the common law in so far as it is in operation in the Federation or any part thereof’. That qualification concerns the extent to which English Law is applicable in Malaysia. First‚ we will discuss on the meaning of ‘sources’. Historical sources is the factor which influenced the development of law in religious and custom. Law
Premium Law Common law Tort
additional sum - Whether promise by plaintiff to fulfil existing contractual duty good consideration - Whether defendant obtaining benefit from payment of additional sum - Whether obtaining of benefit amounting to consideration for payment of additional sum - Whether agreement to pay additional sum enforceable. The defendant building contractors entered into a contract to refurbish a block of 27 flats and sub-contracted the carpentry work in the refurbishment to the plaintiff carpenter for a price of £20
Premium Contract
be consideration. Facts: The defendant entered into a legal agreement with the plaintiffs‚ Jackson Boris and Klara Koop. The defendant made an offer to pay the plaintiffs £20‚000 and £30‚000 respectively‚ give Jackson a case of Cristal champagne‚ a bicycle and two tickets to the gala concert and the defendant accepted the offer. The consideration was the work that the plaintiffs did. The plaintiff upheld his end except for the payment of Jackson’s £20‚000 and Klara’s £30‚000. Law on
Premium Contract
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR KANSAS CITY‚ MISSOURI Justin King - Plaintiff v Anheuser Busch - Defendant * * * * * CASE NO. Answer to Complaint COMES NOW‚ Anheuser Busch‚ the Defendant‚ and hereby answers the Plaintiff’s Complaint as follows: PARTIES 1. As to paragraph 1‚ it is hereby admitted in part. Defendant resides in said county. As for the other allegations
Premium Pleading Missouri
Liebmann V. Canada (Minister of National Defense) Facts: Liebmann applied for the position of Executive Assistant to the Commanding Officer in the Persian Gulf Operation. Staff Officers recommended he be appointed and the Commanding Officer agreed. When command staff became aware that Liebmann was Jewish they decided not to select him. Liebmann challenged the decision‚ as well as CFAO 20-53 (an enactment for which the decision was based upon) under s. 15 of the Charter. Issues: 1
Premium Contract