Aslan V. Murphy (No.1) [1990] 1 Wlr 766 and Aslan V. Murphy (No.1) [1990] 1 Wlr 766 Case Study

Baugh, the higher courts decided not to accept the common law verdict and to actually overturn its ruling, replacing it with a new and updated holding. The key reasons for that decision were that this particular doctrine had not been reviewed in that court in over 40 years, making the information very outdated in the modern times. This was especially important because the assumptions included in this ruling were about building practices no longer applicable in modern construction. One point made was that modern contractors place most of their work out of sight where it cannot be examined by land owners. In addition to that, majority of today’s landowners do not have the knowledge to inspect work and note mediocre results. The changes to the Doctrine of Completion and Acceptance will affect liability by now placing an increased responsibility on the contractor for safe and complete work. Now, moving forward, the contractor is liable for any injury resulting from defective work (Meiners, 2012, pp.

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

Legal citation of the case: Regina v Bilal Skaf; Regina v Mohammed Skaf [2006] NSWSC 394, 28 July 2006 AND amendment to this decision with the appeal: R v Skaf & Skaf [2008] NSWCCA 303, 17 December 2008

Analyze Luxford & Anor v Sidhu & 3 others [2007] NSWSC 1356 (3 December 2007) as follows:

Your managing partner has handed you the Supreme Court of Queenslands’ decision in The Public Trustee of Queensland and Anor v Meyer and Ors [2010] QSC 291 and asked you to answer the following questions. You should assume you are answering questions for someone who has not read the case, so be sure to provide sufficient detail in your answers. You do not need to provide reference details for Part A of the assignment.

This review will address several issues associated with the legal, business, and ethics related to the case. First, it will address the legality of the case by reviewing the definition and analysis of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), Article 2. Next, this review will analyze the business effects of the case as they relate to the monetary bottom line and Stylarama’s attempt to protect his profits. Finally, it will highlight

Plaintiff – “The plaintiff is defending a nineteen-year-old Latino male who was admitted to UMCP in the fall of 1989. As an applicant to UMCP, claimant had an accomplished scholastic record: his Scholastic Aptitude Test score was 1340, out of a possible 1600; his grade point average as calculated by his high school was over 4.0 (as calculated by UMCP, his grade point average was 3.56); and he actively participated in several extracurricular activities.” (Podberesky v. Kirwan, 956F. 2d-52- court of Appeals, 4th Circuit 1992, 1992) Because of his academic pedigree, the Hispanic male wants to be considered for admittance as well as university scholarships. The scholarship that he would like to be considered for is for African American students until it was revised to include minority students.

While the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench and the Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the case because they found there was not a contractual relationship between Winnipeg Condominium and Bird Construction and because there was no evidence of damage to property or person, the dismissals were overturned at the Supreme Court level. The Supreme Court ruling written by Justice

This case is about property lease which took place between two parties named Jacek Gnych, Anor (Appellants) and The Polish Club Limited (Respondent).The Respondent holds a club liquor licence under the Liquor Act 2007 (NSW). However,In 2012, the respondent leased part of its licensed premises to the appellants for the running of a restaurant which breached Section 92(1) (d) of the Liquor Act. The appellants started their business on March 2012 after renovating the existing facilities. Later on respondent negotiated with the Appellants about proposed lease and licence but documents that had been drafted were never finalised and signed. As the relationship between parties deteriorated

What did the appellate court rule? Did it agree with the trial court (affirm) or disagree (reverse)?

Although Mr. Carr’s property does meet the criteria of Section 546 (0.1) in the Act of his property being “detrimental to the surrounding area” and causing decline in local property value and showing serious signs of disregard for maintenance and upkeep (Municipal Government Act Section 546, Pg. 289), the towns action were not lawful. Notification

THE COURT SHOULD AFFIRM THE LOWER COURTS DECISION BECAUSE THE POLICE OFFICERS WERE GIVEN CONSENT BY A CO-TENANT WHO HELD COMMON AUTHORITY OVER THE APARTEMENT.

Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 All ER 127 (UK Court of Appeal), Reg Glass Pty Ltd v Rivers Locking Systems Pty Ltd (1968) 120 CLR 516 (High Court)

A lease involves a grant of the right of exclusive possession for a certain period of time as per Radaich v Smith where it was held that whether the transaction creates a lease or licence depends on the intention of the parties regarding what relationship the lessee shall have to the land. It does not matter whether the terms ‘licensee’ or ‘tenant’ are used, as it is a matter of substance rather than form. In the present case, there is an agreement that states the duration of the tenancy as being one year and the rent as $1000 per month. Thus certainty of duration is clearly stated. It is therefore a matter of whether the right of exclusive possession has been granted. Here the tenant is entitled to uninterrupted possession for the full

Before unilateral contracts come into place, contract law is about a promise for a promise. Cases such as Carlill v Carbonic Smoke Ball Co. have shown how the contract law has adapted to accommodate this form of contract. Judges seek to identify consideration and acceptance in unilateral contracts whilst managing to achieve a balance between protecting reasonable expectation of an honest man and retaining respect for the sanctity of contract.