Law Cheat Sheet

There are two instances where unconscionability comes into question by reference to cases bought forward under statute. The first being that under section 20 and the next being under section 21 both from the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). To understand these sections, both equity and the scope of unconscionability need to be examined.

Throughout history, there's been many different types of laws that people of the era have abided by. Although, this essay will be focusing on three specific law codes that all vary significantly but still manage to have apparent similarities despite the time differences. These three primary law codes are The Code of Hammurabi, The Torah, and the Twelve Tables. Each of these were created at different times in history, in different cultures and locations across the globe. The Code of Hammurabi was written as far back as 1754 BC in ancient Mesopotamia, while The Twelve Tables was the creation of Rome at about 400 BC, and The Torah doesn’t even have an extremely solid date of its creation but is believed to have been completed around the 1300s after being given to Moses by God.

Negligent misstatement is breach of duty of care between the professionals and their clients. It relates to a representation of fact which carelessly made and relied by another party which cause them in disadvantageous circumstance. The duty of care is a common law arrangement where the client expects a professional level which held by those in the profession. Negligent misstatement made by a professional is possible to cause economic loss to his/her clients. This is provided however that a special relationship or a sufficient proximity exists between the parties (“Negligent Misstatement – Law”, n.d.).

LaMance, K. (2011, November 8). Revoking contracts: mutual mistake lawyers. Legal Match. Retrieved from http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/revoking-contracts-mutual-mistake.html

The law allows individuals or companies the use of trade secrets if they have been

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

            A misrepresentation is a statement made that is not unified with the truth. There are two categories that misrepresentation can fall under: either innocent or fraudulent. When a misrepresentation is innocent it was made not intentionally to deceive the other party. A fraudulent misrepresentation is made with the intent to deceive with knowledge that it is false. Tommy wants to pursue legal action against Royal 16 Theater on the basis that they conducted fraudulent misrepresentation.

Mental Illness - The prisoner’s moral culpability for his offending is reduced by reason of his mental illness and the objective

1) Situation: Ray is buying a book. Salesgirl : Ray, this is Frank. Frank, this is Ray.

In this essay, the focus is on whether it is morally objectionable for a person to recover damages from another’s breach of contract that results in a better financial position than they would have been if the breach had not occurred. This is because in deciding whether to preserve the principle in Clark, law-makers would place high regard on the analysis of Clark’s normative outcome. The following points are the key arguments against awarding a sum to a higher pecuniary advantage??? Such as Clark, which can be subsequently rebutted in this analysis with “normative” research.

R(On the application of the Crown Prosecution Service) v Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2002] EWCA Civ 1661; [2003] Q.B 1222

Prisoner #48551-083 is a 69-year-old white male named Robert Philip Hanssen. The former FBI-counterintelligence-agent-turned-Soviet-spy is serving life in prison without the possibility of parole at the Administrative Maximum facility in Florence, Colorado, where he is kept in solitary confinement. The United States government originally accused Hanssen of trading more than 6,000 pages of confidential information to the KGB in exchange for cash and diamonds and of blowing the covers of double-agents that the FBI had recruited from the Soviets (Willing & Watson). At the time of Hanssen’s arrest, then-FBI Director Louis J. Freeh said that the charges exemplify “the most serious violations of law – and threat to national security” (“Espionage case”, 2001). This opinion should make us question why, when traitors and spies should be executed in accordance to the United States Code of Law, we as a country are so lenient in our punishments of convicted spies such as Hanssen. Is it because we believe that we cannot decide if someone lives or dies? Are we afraid to acknowledge that the information fed to enemy governments could possibly mean the end of the United States as we know it? Or even the end of our own lives? How many people should be allowed to betray our country until we stop this issue before it is continually perpetuated? Although critics believe that the death penalty should be abolished, I use a combination of retributivist and deterrence arguments to argue that

The impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration.

Cases under unilateral mistake can be divided into three categories: Firstly mistaken identity, secondly mistake as to the terms of a contract and thirdly mistake as to the nature of a document signed. The main focus in this discussion is mistaken identity, where one party is mistaken as to the identity of another. Mistaken identity may happen in two different

Misrepresentation – false or untrue statement by one party which is believed on by the other party when they enter a contract. However, if one party did not rely on the statement and attempts to seek the true of the false statement it is not considered misrepresentation. If misrepresentation occurs damages can be recovered depending on the type of misrepresentation.