Case Analysis : ' The Gift Deed Signed By Nadu Is Valid Or Not?

The proprietary right is protected by overriding interest under Section 70(1)(f) of Land Registration Act 1925 (LRA1925). Limitation Act 1980 stated requirement towards the squatter where he is in factual possession to the land for a period of 12 years continuously and is not objected by the land owner, he will obtain a title towards the land. However, Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002) brings changes towards this proprietary right where it provides a new set of rules which

Duress is a principle recognized in most areas of law (including criminal law); Black’s Law Dictionary defines it as “threat of harm made to compel a person to do something against his or her will or judgment” . But with regard to contract it describes a situation whereby a party is induced by threats to enter into agreement with another. In Seear v Cohen a father signed promissory notes after being informed that proceedings will be brought against his son for allegedly misappropriating finds. It was held that such threats amounted to duress, and as such the father had the option to rescind the contract. As a general principle, duress can be a ground for which a party rescinds or sets aside a contract and claim damages. As such, it grants the reliant party to render the contract voidable .

(1) Whether a plaintiff must plead and prove willful and wanton conduct in order to

Unreasonable searches are to be prohibited in middle schools. Since the reasons for Redding being search was at the request of the principal. Wilson, he was the main person discussed. The nurse and secretary were acting as agents for Wilson in order to perform the search that he was unable to do because he was male. The school’s rules for the suspicions of illicit drugs were modified to adjust to how it should be handled by school officials. The reasonable standard of suspicion and probable cause has an implicit bearing on the reliable knowledge of what is known and discovered. The rules of the school do strictly prohibited the use of nonmedical use, possession, or sale of any drug on the school grounds. The majority feels that the manner in which she was searched was unjust and that it should have been more proof before they proceeded to perform a strip search of the student. The search of the backpack and outer clothes could be expected because of reasonable suspicion of concealing drugs, but the strip search was unnecessary because her clothes did not have pockets and they did not have the right or enough proof to proceed with the strip search in the manner that they did. The Court has adopted a different standard for searches involving an intrusion into the human

A court awards a judgment to Loan Collection Agency, who is the creditor, against Margret, who is the debtor. After the judgment, the creditor requests a court order to seize Margret’s property to ensure that the judgment will be collectible. This is

(1) Whether a plaintiff must plead and prove willful and wanton conduct in order to

Proprietary estoppel, on the other hand, is a “legal bar preventing a (first) party from denying another (second) party's right in first party's property where the second party has incurred costs in that property to its detriment”. Proprietary estoppel, like other types of estoppel, is not a remedy in itself but a tool to raise “estoppel equity”, on the basis of which the court is able to decide on the type of remedy that this equity will satisfy. Similarly to the need for the element of common intention for the purpose of establishing a constructive trust, there is a need for the establishment of an active or passive assurance on the part of the defendant that leads to some form of consequential detriment on the part of the claimant when acting in reliance on that assurance. Thus, there must be a causal connection between the actions undertaken by the claimant and the initial assurance on the part of the defendant. The extent and the nature of the detriment suffered by the claimant, however, appears to be substantially more flexible than that necessary to find the existence of a constructive trust. For example, in Inwards v Baker [1965], such detriment amounted to the improvement of the defendant’s land, while in Gillett v Holt [2001] it was manifested in both financial and personal detriment. Yet unlike in most cases involving common intention constructive trusts, in neither of

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

The main legal issue to examine regarding this case deals with encroachment, which is simply defined as: A possessory right to the property of another that may be acquired by the passage of time. Crockett has well documented existence of the woodlot property dating back over 20 years and was not met with objection on the part of the Smith, who is the true owner. Due to the fact that the plantiff left the defendant undisturbed for over 20 years, he lost his right to dispute to object the encroachment. Smith would have had to make his objections known regarding Crockett’s occupancy in the log cabin, constructed on his wood lot, many years earlier if he wanted to maintain his right to object.

The plaintiff’s argument to why the third condition did not meet stated that on previous occasions Foster High School charged the public to hold events on the property. Therefore, the plaintiff states that because the school district has charged the public before to use the recreational space that it is not immune from the liability on the injury on the property.

People v. DiStefano is most important to our case, because it outlines the burden of proof. According to the case,

An individual was accused of rape in North Carolina, which is an offence that is punishable by death unless the jury suggests they want to give him life imprisonment. The defendant lived with his grandmother. Four officers appeared at his grandmother’s home to search the house; the officers lied about having a search warrant, but the grandmother took the officers word and believed him about the warrant, so she gave the officers consent to search the home.

A. The Plaintiff must prove unreasonable force was used to make a prima facie showing of battery.

The court reasoned that this testimony was crucial to the accused’ defense in that it “caused the appellant to engage in illegal conduct by methods of persuasion.” Ortiz at

The respondent argues that the release he signed should be set aside as unconscionable because he was under duress. The repellants argue that