Briefly outline your casting decisions for Nora and Christine and then explain how you would direct your actors in the re-union section on Act 1 in order to reveal the differences between the two characters. When directing Act 1 to reveal Nora and Christine’s differences in the re-union scene‚ I would focus on the ideas of their physical appearance and the way they are dressed‚ Mrs Linde has independence and Nora is very dependent‚ Nora’s lack of concern for money and Mrs Linde’s thrift and finally
Premium Human physical appearance Difference Physical attractiveness
Section B Case study 1 The study case states that Anthony and his wife were estranged‚ but Anthony wanted his wife can return home. Therefore‚ Anthony promised to transfer the matrimonial home into her name. They had saw a lawyer‚ and prepared and signed a formal agreement. However‚ after returning home more than one year ago‚ Anthony refused to keep his promise‚ so his wife wants to get advice to get the house. Therefore‚ relating to the above scenario is the case of “letter of comfort”.
Premium Marriage Case study Consideration
Introduction With a specific end goal to break down this case‚ it would be a smart thought to begin by defining the term law and contract law. A law can be stated as “ A rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state‚ commanding what is right‚ and prohibiting what is wrong” (blackstone). Contract law can be defined as the written agreement which binds two people with certain rules and regulations as decided by both the parties and mentioned in the contract. The facts of the case
Premium Contract Contract
1a) 1b) Sedentary: < 45 ml/kg/min McArdle‚ W.D.‚ Katch‚ F. I.‚ & Katch‚ V. L. (2006) Untrained: 45 to 50 ml/kg/min McArdle‚ W.D.‚ Katch‚ F. I.‚ & Katch‚ V. L. (2006) Well-Trained: 50 to 60 ml/kg/min McArdle‚ W.D.‚ Katch‚ F. I.‚ & Katch‚ V. L. (2006) Highly Trained: 60-70 ml/kg/min McArdle‚ W.D.‚ Katch‚ F. I.‚ & Katch‚ V. L. (2006) Elite: > 70 ml/kg/min Lucia‚ A.‚ Hoyos‚ J.‚ Pérez‚M.
Premium Exercise physiology Muscle Heart
References: Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153; (1875-76) LR 1 App Cas 554:Definition of consideration Garret v. Taylor‚ 79 Eng. Rep. 485 (K.B. 1620): Tortious interference Hutton v Warren (1836) 1 M&W 460:Implied terms Re McArdle(1951‚CA ):Past consideration being unacceptable Sale of Goods Act 1979‚ ss 12-15 : Statutory implied terms Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3 B & S 826; 122 ER 309; [1863] EWHC QB J1: impossibility of performance of contract Wilson v. Love (1896) : Liquidated
Premium Contract
Task 4 Scenario 1 Mr Madison‚ council tenant he applied to purchase his own council house from the tenant and he also had a letter from the Edinburgh city council saying that they might be prepared to sell the house for 2180.00. Mr Madison said that the path to the house was in a bad state and questioned the price they had stated. Mr. Madison then learned from the council that the price cannot be changed as it has been fixed according to the condition of the property. Mr Madison wrote in to the
Premium Contract Contract law Breach of contract
consideration. 5. An existing contractual duty will not amount to valid consideration. 6. Part payment of a debt is not valid consideration for a promise to forego the balance. 1. Consideration must not be past: Re McArdle (1951) Ch 669 Case summary Past consideration may be valid where it was proceeded by a request: Lampleigh v Braithwaite [1615] EWHC KB J17
Premium Consideration Contract Common law
Business and Law Coursework Assignment With regard to the case‚ there are two legal issues needed to be handled. First‚ it is needed to determine whether 1) Tommy can sue Ada for not reducing the height of fence which is eracted along the side of Ada’s garden 2) Mickey can sue Ada for not fulfilling her promise to pay $1000 for Mickey’s help. To determine the two legal issues‚ we need to consider if any contractual relationship was formed between them. To begin with‚ a contract is a legally
Premium Contract
Rules of consideration 1. The consideration must not be past. Re McArdle (1951) Ch 669 Majorie McArdle carried out certain improvements and repairs on a bungalow. The bungalow formed part of the estate of her husband’s father who had died living the property to his wife for life and then on trust for Majorie’s husband and his four siblings. After the work had been carried out the brothers and sisters signed a document stating in consideration of you carrying out the repairs we agree that the executors
Premium Contract
Part A The main issues are whether or not the court would consider that the restrictive covenant in issue is void for contrary to public policy. The relevant legal principles are: A covenant must be no wider than is necessary to protect the legitimate interest of the employer. Attempting to stifle competition is impermissible and it is irrelevant that the employer taught the ex-employee everything he knows. The court area particular to prevent contracts‚ which seek to prevent an employee
Premium Contract Contract law