Case 9. 2 : Bickham V Washington Bank & Trust Company Case

Case 3: “Henry Gifford, et al. v. United States Green Building Council (USGBC), et al., 10‐7747 (filed October 8, 2010)”.

In the case, Banks v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, the plaintiff is Braxston Lee Banks and the defendant is the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The case can be found in volume 977 of the Federal Reporter, Second Series starting on page number 1081. The court that decided the case was the Seventh Circuit, United States Court of Appeals in 1992.

Hopkins v. Price-Waterhouse is a very detailed case, that features many aspects of the patriarchy, and lingering ways of thinking about gender that are hopefully being phased out of modern society. The Supreme Court chose not to make a ruling, which was the right decision in a legal sense, though there was more proof that Hopkins was discriminated against.

In order to advise Billy in whether he is entitled to the extra $20,000 and a share in the farm, the key facts and relevant issues must be examined to determine if the elements of a legally binding contract exists. Whether there was an agreement and intention to create legal relations between the two will be used to determine whether Choy has breached a contract between the two. If a contract is found to

The case involving Birch & Davis International, Inc., and Warren M. Christopher, the United States Secretary of State was decided on September 13th, 1993. The case involved procurement procedures conducted by the Agency of International Development (Open Jurist). The issue centered on exclusion of bids made by Birch & Davis International, Inc. Birch challenged the exclusion to the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals and they decided that the actions taken by the agency were fair. The case got to the Federal level when Birch appealed the decision by the board.

Both parties must be bound.” Both parties must be required to perform under the contract, “in other words, it must be enforceable originally, or not at all.” Sayres v. Wheatland Group, L.L.C., 79 Va. Cir. 504 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2009). As stated by The Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia "if it appears that one party was never bound on its part to do the acts which form the consideration for the promise of the other, there is a lack of mutuality of obligation and the other party is not bound." Busman v. Beeren & Barry Invs., LLC, 69 Va. Cir. 375 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2005).

The appellant, Parkview Queensland Pty Ltd (“Parkview”), is a building contractor who commenced construction of a residential property development under a standard form building contract with Fortia funds Management Ltd (“Fortia”), the developer. Fortia financed the construction under a loan facility with the Bank of Western Australia Ltd (“BankWest”).

The principle of law is that for a valid contract to be formed there must be an agreement reached by both parties.

In this case, Success Assets Pty Ltd (Success) borrowed money from Statewest Credit Society Ltd (Statewest) to purchase land, and the land was mortgaged as security. The plaintiff entered into a guarantee in favour of Statewest which secured the loan and all future loans from Statewest to Success. Success used money borrowed from Home Building Society Ltd (Home) to pay the loan from Statewest. Statewest’s rights under the guarantee (which includes those relating to future loans) and Home’s rights under the were transferred to the defendant, Bank of Queensland (BOQ).

Under ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 13-3401 and 13-3405, did Jess Pepper knowingly possess marijuana for sale when officers found seventy pounds of marijuana in the lining of the back seat of her Prius?

Delivering on the bank's new competitive positioning also required changes to the intangible aspects which are not visible to customer.

The Eighth Circuit Court has raised an intriguing legal and controversial issue by ruling that the State of Arkansas could force death row prisoner, Charles Laverne Singleton, to take antiphychodic drugs to insure he was sane for execution. After research, I found that Singleton remained in the appeals process for twenty-four-and-a-half years because of the 1986, U.S. Supreme Court decision, Ford vs. Wainwright, that ruled execution of the insane is cruel and unusual punishment. The state authorities finally decided to treat the prison inmate based on the 1990, U.S. Supreme Court decision, Washington vs. Harper, that subjects prison inmates with serious mental illness to mandatory anti-psychotic drugs against his

In 1994, Christy Brzonkala, a student at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, stated that Antonio Morrison and James Crawford raped her. A year later, Brzonkala filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under Virginia Tech’s Sexual Assault Policy. After two hearings, Morrison was found guilty of sexual assault and sentenced to immediate suspension for two semesters. At some point throughout the duration of these hearings, Morrison personally admitted to having sexual contact with Brzonkala after she said “no” twice, however still affirmed that the sexual act was consensual. Crawford, however, stated that he left the room before any sexual activity commenced and was later charged with a lesser offense that was unrelated to sexual conduct. Being that both Morrison and Crawford were valued varsity members of the prestigious Virginia Tech football team and worried about the continuity of their athletic careers, they made an appeal through the university’s administrative system to reduce their suspensions. After being processed, the punishments were set aside

Deutsche Bank made its entrance into the world in 1870 and it was one of the first banks to adopt universal banking as it promoted and facilitated trade relations between Germany and other overseas markets. Deutsche Bank acquired smaller banks in Germany in order to be the most prominent bank in their home base in addition to having a global reach. Following World War I, inflation took over Germany causing many borrowers to default on their loans forcing the bank to sell most of its assets in order to stay alive (however that diminished their global presence). The bank’s involvement during World War II with the transferring of the Jewish customers holdings to the German Government led to the Allied

If parties enter into a contract that is reflective or derives from a mistake, under common law the contract may be void or voidable. The basis of this decision depends on the type of mistake. Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson presented a unilateral mistake, in which only one party is mistaken, and in this case, a mistake as to the identity. The difficulty lies when judges must decide whether a contract is void or voidable, which will only protect one of the two arguably innocent parties, the original property owner or the bona fide purchaser. However, the approaches previously taken by the Courts have led to a lack of certainty and coherence in the interests of commercial transactions, and so the Shogun case presented an opportunity for clarification. I am going to raise the argument that the law of mistake is in need of a reform, by following Lord Millett’s proposal to no longer follow the cases Cundy v Lindsay and Ingram v Little. The reasoning within this argument will establish that the cases are inconsistent, lack support for third parties and fail to establish the authority of creditworthiness over identity in commercial contracts. Alternatively, the cases Phillips v Brooks and Lewis v Averay should be used to create a clear established line of case law which can be seen as a fair and practical approach towards mistake and protecting the bona fide purchaser.