Law Case on King Magnum and Bank

Bickham v. Washington Bank & Trust Company is a case that involves a formal bilateral contract that was entered into by businessman Bruce Bickham and G. S. Adams, Jr., Vice President of the Washington Bank & Trust Company in 1976 (Cheeseman, 2013). According to Cheeseman (2013), the facts of the case indicate that Bickham would conduct his personal and corporate banking with Washington Bank & Trust and the bank would provide loans to Bickham at 7.5 percent interest rate with 10 years to repay the loans. The language of this bilateral contract translates to what is referred to as a “promise for a promise” whereby no act of performance is necessary to form this kind of contract… and it is an enforceable contract (Cheeseman, 2013). The findings of

On June 7, 2016, officer T.Cramblett #1191 was working cruiser 9182D, Zone 1 DMW, wearing the uniform of the day. Around 11:38 A.M radio aired that a robbery had just occurred at 1910 S. Hulmac Ct. Apt D, and that the suspect was a male black wearing a black shirt, jeans and having a goatee. The victim stated that the male had fled westbound from her apartment towards the 3C market located on Tamarack Blvd. The victim also stated the male was accompanied by a white female. Officer Cramblett was on Tamarack Blvd. when the information was aired and started to circulate the area. Officer Cramblett pulled out of the 3C market and turned northbound onto Tamarck Blvd. where he observed Mr. Warner Cutler and a female white walking southbound

I, Deputy Daniel Pruitt spoke to a Steve Craine who stated on 06/06/2017 he saw a small silver SUV on his property. Steve stated the SUV was pulling a red 1970's model truck bed as a trailer. Steve stated he saw a white male drving and a female passenger. Steve stated the subjects were loading items from his property. Steve stated the subjects dropped all the items. Steve stated the subjects went to his neiybors Craig Chaffin's house at 25004 West 49th Street. Craig stated a female named Emma Hogen and a white male named Jerry came to his shop. Craig stated Emma and Jerry were trying to sell items out of a red truck bed. Craig stated Emma and Jerry wanted $300.00 dollars for the whole trailer full of property. Craig stated he paid Emma and Jerry $200.00 dollars and $100.00 was a check he wrote to Emma. Craig stated Emma and Craig left in a silve Geo Tracker SUV. I

On 02/27/2017, I, Dillon Dickerson, badge #155, was working as a Patrol Officer for the Wichita State University Police Department (WSU PD), in Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. At approximately 2300 hours during our shift briefing second shift advised we may have to do some follow up to a case they had earlier in the shift. Officer Ben Gabel #152 was the one who took the case. Officer Gabel advised there was a Battery case which happened earlier in the day. This case involved two students. Officer Gabel said there may be a male student by the name of Mekeal Simmons making contact with WSU PD. Officer Gable stated the female half of the Battery (Jessica Johnson) would be leaving campus around 0130 hours to return to Texas. Officer Gabel advised he told the female half to call WSU PD and we would come out there to make sure she was safe while she packed up her items. Officer Gable also said he was in contact with Chief Sara Morris #113 and she was aware of the case. Officer Gable said if we do have contact with the male to get a statement from him and to contact the Captains or Chief.

On June 26, 2015, Mr. Steve Gerecke, an Albuquerque, New Mexico resident, confronted six youths allegedly attempting to burglarize his home after gaining access through the garage with a remote control removed from his wife’s car. The group of youth appeared to have been the same roving mob reported earlier to the police. Witnesses and police reports complained of burglarized homes and cars with the removal credit cards, cellphone, keys, and other valuables. In addition to the burglaries, the group allegedly committed grand the auto. Upon the confrontation of Mr. Gerecke and the youth, an escalation of bravado ensued. At this time, one of the youth armed with pistol, shot Mr. Gerecke multiple times killing him in the driveway of his home. Well

SUMMARY OF FACTS: Two armed men rob a bank in Alhambra, CA. One of defendant steals money, holds a women teller hostage and shoots at a police officer severely wounding him. The second defendant is offered money by one of the robbers to steal a white automobile as the “getaway car” for the robbery. The police takes the defendants into custody. One of the defendant’s statement was used as evidence.

Officers were requested to assist West Mahanoy Twp with locating a female who is believed to be at Granny's. The female, Heather HECKMAN, is wanted by Pottsville after stealing a 40 caliber pistol from Louis TASSONE. Officers were informed the female pointed the pistol at someone shortly after stealing the pistol. TASSONE told Pottsville police that HECKMAN called him in a panic looking for a ride. I believe Pottsville PD said HECKMAN told TASSONE something about someone pulling a gun on her. TASSONE said he went in to the grocery store to buy things for HECKMAN and when he returned she and his pistol were gone. TASSONE said the pistol was in or next to the center console of his vehicle. HECKMAN was reported to have left the area in a silver

While at the Boyer 's getting fuel, two juvenile females came to me to report a suspicious male. The females identified themselves as Patricia Moncrief and Hayley Stachowski. The juvenile females stated there is a male that had been parked outside the Domino 's for a while stalking a female worker. The juvenile females stated the worker was told to call the police but she did not. The females stated a male Domino 's worker came outside to confront the male and the male moved his vehicle to the Boyer 's side parking lot and remained there. The juvenile females pointed the vehicle out to me, which I observed and the male sitting inside the vehicle, I identified that male as Pena Jose. Pena started his vehicle and drove away. The

On May 15, 2015 , when he was returning home with his friends , somebody reported police that he and his friends robbed him. So police came to arrest him and his friend for their crime. Police searched them but found nothing , meanwhile victim replied police that they robbed him a week before. And they were taken to police custody where they had their finger printed. Earlier on he was accused of taking delivery van and crashing a parked car but he said it was done by his friends.

To explain the crime, the criminal involved in the crime tricked the woman into getting in her car by impersonating a parking attendant. He stole the woman’s purse and car keys and drove off with the woman’s vehicle. During the carjacking, the man tried to attack the woman with a screwdriver which resulted in the criminal being stabbed. (“Antonio Beaver”). The victim gave a very vague description of the criminal, mentioning that he was african american, was wearing a baseball cap, was 5’10, had crooked teeth, and had facial hair.

In the case of the three murdered eight-year olds, West Memphis police department’s investigative work led to a numbered list of suspects. Some of the suspects were quickly ruled out while others took a little more investigative work. In the end, the list of suspects was shortened until all who remained were Christopher Morgan, Mr. Bojangles, John Mark Byers, Terry Hobbs, and the

[I]n 2001, three young men robbed a McDonald’s restaurant in Milwaukee. 14-year-old Jerrell C.J. was arrested in connection with the offense, taken to the police station, booked, and placed in an interrogation room. In the room, Jerrell was handcuffed to a wall and left alone for approximately two hours. At 9 a.m., Police Detectives Ralph Spano and Kurt Sutter entered the interrogation room. The detectives introduced themselves, removed Jerrell’s handcuffs, and asked him some background questions. Jerrell stated that he was 14 years old and in the eighth grade. He also provided the names, addresses, and phone numbers of his parents and siblings. Jerrell was advised of his Miranda rights, and the detectives then began to question Jerrell about the armed robbery. Jerrell denied any involvement. The detectives challenged this denial and encouraged Jerrell to be "truthful and honest" and "start standing up for what he did." Jerrell again denied his involvement. The detectives again challenged his denial.

Defendant MOS Horne and Jarvis were seated in a parked car and observed Ramarley Graham and 2 unapprehended males (non-parties). MOS Horne stated that he observed Ramarley Graham holding his waistband area and Ramarley Graham and the 2 males entered a bodega and looked around and quickly exited it. MOS Horne and Jarvis followed them in their car and put their description over the radio and stated one possibly armed. MOS Horne observed them attempting to gain entry to into various buildings. The 2 males were able to gain entrance into 728 East 229th Street, and waved to Ramarley Graham over. Then, 2 uniformed officers passed the location. Ramarley Graham exited the building and passed by MOS car when MOS Jarvis observed the butt of a gun in Ramarley Grahams’s waistband area. MOS Horne radio over

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

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.