Defamation Feldman (2002): two major rationales to justify freedom of expression * Mill’s instrumental value of freedom of expression on rule-utilitarian analysis: it is best not to censor (unless harmful) anything for risk of censoring truths. * Democratic rationale suggests freedom of expression allows crucial political discourse‚ but this is less convincing in a representative system where expression is only heard at elections Lord Nicholls in Reynolds v Times Newspapers (2001) –
Premium Tort
attaining the majority or knowledge of admission to the benefits of partnership firm. When the minor fails to give such notice within a period of six months‚ automatically he becomes a partner at the end of six months. The minors are having some liabilities after becoming a partner on attaining majority and he becomes personally liable for all the acts of the firm done since the date of his admission. Moreover‚ he can impliedly ratify the acts of the firm done during his minority. When it comes to
Premium Joint and several liability Acts of the Apostles Partnership
There is no statutory definition of Intention and there is also no agreement in English Law as to the meaning of Intention. Its meaning is to be found in judicial decisions. Unfortunately there has been lack of consistency in the approach of the courts to the issue. The concept of intention and recklessness are distinct with one another. The definition of intention should not overlap with the definition of recklessness. It is generally accepted that it is central and core meaning of intention is
Premium Appeal Law
This is a case about promises and accountability. It is not about opening the flood gates of liability for any social host who dares to have a party. The issue at hand is whether liability arises from two entirely separate sources of duty with the same set of facts. It can. Those who make promises should be held to account from those promises‚ whether or not someone had a beer to drink. Section 2.03(c) does not preclude Ms. Fleshman’s claim for negligent undertaking because section 2.03(3) applies
Premium Law Complaint Affirmative action
employer can be held liable for the torts of his/her employees. And after that I will focus on some of the reasons why one person is held liable in certain situations for the torts committed by another person. And then I will finally finish the essay with a conclusion at the end. Vicarious liability is where one person is held liable for the torts of another‚ even though that person did not commit the act itself. For an employer to be held liable for the tort of her/his employees‚ three conditions
Premium Employment Tort law Strict liability
Limited Liability Corporation and Partnership Paper FIN/419 Limited Liability Corporation and Partnership Paper A basic idea starts every business. When starting a business‚ a decision has to be made as to what form of business entity needs to be established. Protection and capitalization of the business must also be established‚ with the most basic question being what type of entity should be used when moving forward with the business. There are many different factors that have to be
Premium
NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES HOLDOUTS IN SOVEREIGN DEBT RESTRUCTURING: A THEORY OF NEGOTIATION IN A WEAK CONTRACTUAL ENVIRONMENT Rohan Pitchford Mark L. J. Wright Working Paper 16632 http://www.nber.org/papers/w16632 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge‚ MA 02138 December 2010 While all errors are our own‚ we thank Rui Esteves‚ Daniel Klerman‚ Lee Ohanian‚ Christoph Trebesch‚ the editor‚ three anonymous referees‚ and numerous seminar participants for comments
Premium Debt Game theory Bankruptcy
3.2.2 Threaten airports and governance’s liability Under radical uncertainty making airports’ governance fully responsible for potential damages seems difficult. In fact‚ their liability depends heavily of how the local and national authorities considered (or consider) the rise of seas associated to climate change. This last one depends on the convergence or the divergence of scientists’ views about a given event (here the strength and the range of the rise of the seas). Case 1: Convergent views
Premium Global warming Climate change Greenhouse gas
Law coursework on the English Legal System and Corporate Criminal Liability. Question 1 a) The sources of the English legal system are: • Case law is judge made law. • Acts of Parliament creates a new law or changes an existing law. It is the most important source of law. Acts of Parliament are made by the Parliament‚ which consists of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. • Statutory Interpretation is the process by which judges interpret and apply acts of parliament. In order to
Free Common law Law Case law
|24‚25‚26‚27 | |Remittance |28‚29‚30 | |Liabilities of IFIC Bank Ltd. |30‚31‚32‚33‚ | |Assets of IFIC Bank LTd.
Premium Bank Interest Debt