Appearance vs. reality explores how the more persistent illusion will triumph over what the individual want to be true. While reality is persistent‚ appearance it is less convincing as it based upon the fragile network of an individual’s values‚ expectation and deepest desires. Pleasantville (1998) directed by Gary Ross examines this idea through the protagonist who escapes his troubles and unforgiving reality to Pleasantville; a fake world that reflects his utopic vision and 1950’s American society
Premium American Dream Reality
West Indian Reports/Volume 19 /R v Worrell - (1972) 19 WIR 180 (1972) 19 WIR 180 R v Worrell COURT OF APPEAL OF BARBADOS DOUGLAS CJ‚ WARD AND WILLIAMS JJ 29 MARCH 1972 Criminal Law - Standard of proof - Directions to jury - Jury told that before there can be a verdict of guilty‚ the prosecution must make the jury feel sure that the verdict is the right one - Imprecise. Criminal Law - Defence of automatism - Unsworn statement of accused - No foundation for defence. The
Premium Jury Law Appeal
Ermina Dedic Legal Brief 1 Name of Case: Dow Chemical Co. v United States. Court: U.S. Supreme Court Citation: 476 U.S. 227 (1986) Parties and their roles: Dow Chemical (Plaintiffs/Petitioner) and United States (Defendants/ Respondents) Facts: Dow Chemical operates a two-thousand-acre chemical plant at Midland‚ Michigan. The facility‚ with numerous buildings‚ conduits‚ and pipes‚ are visible from the air. Dow has maintained ground security at the
Premium United States Law Appeal
decide? This case is based upon Mr. Stanbury‚ who worked as a project manager for Signal Construction from 1984 to 1985‚ and was fired allegedly because he was "not doing his job properly‚" according to Signal’s personnel manager. But nevertheless‚ the termination reason that Signal informed Mr. Stanbury was due to "lack or reduction in work". Mr. Stanbury took legal action against Signal Construction for defamation. This is because he claims that a manager of Signal Construction (who had never
Premium Ethics Law Contract 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
R v David Harris ADVICE TO A CLIENT This advice is directed to my client‚ Mr David Harris‚ on account of two criminal charges put against him. The first charge is for assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s. 47 of the Offence Against the Person Act 1861 The second charge constitutes of wounding or causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent‚ contrary to s. 18 of the OAPA 1861. The initial part of this advice relates to Mr David ’s first charge; of assault against
Premium Law Tort Jury
R v Keegstra 3S.CRD.697 (1990) Issue James Keegstra was a high school teacher at Alberta for 12 years. While teaching‚ he informed the students that the Jews had various evil qualities. Keegstra told the students that the Jews “created the Holocaust to gain sympathy”. Keegstra also claimed‚ that Jewish people wanted to destroy Christianity and that the Jews goal was to create war and revolution. As a result of this propaganda act Keegstra was dismissed. However‚ Keegstra brought his case to the
Premium
R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 is a case most law students could tell you the facts of even years after graduating‚ so remarkable are they. The House of Lords‚ by a 3–2 majority‚ decided that the consensual infliction of harm on another person for sexual gratification was not an act the law should permit. The judgment has received criticism in some academic circles because‚ it is thought‚ if the facts had been different and involved heterosexual sadomasochistic activity it would have been found lawful
Premium Law Sexual intercourse Common law
In a case Wagenheim v. Alexander Grant & Co the court ruled that Alexander Grant improperly divulged confidential information about their client‚ Consolidata Data Services‚ to other clients. Consolidata Data Services‚ an audit client of Alexander Grant performed payroll services
Premium Finance Accountant Management
Hildreth v. Tidewater Equipment Co. Summary John Hildreth was the sole shareholder‚ director‚ and officer HCE‚ Inc‚ a corporation in New Jersey. HCE-NJ began to do business in Maryland in early 1997. According to the Maryland code‚ it is required for foreign corporations to register with the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation before doing intrastate business in Maryland‚ and it is required to have a resident agent in Maryland. In February 1998‚ HCE-NJ rented equipment from Tidewater
Premium Corporation United States Virginia