Majority judgement of McHugh, Gummow, Hayne and Haydon JJ said that if words used in a statute have

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).

Manifesto sees the decision of the supreme court as “clear abuse of judicial power” (1).

As part of their journalism class students produced a newspaper with a collection of student-written articles about teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce on kids. As a result, the principal made the decision to delete the two articles from that edition of the school’s newspaper. Consequently, three students sued the school district alleging violation of their First Amendment rights.

“This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme

With self-governing and the principles of democracy comes the flexibility of interpretation. In a society where the people are essentially supposed to be in charge, interpretation should be, and is, required by those in power. But with a Charter so entrenched in a Constitution, the issue of the dead hand of the past arises. Society should not have to worry about the past influencing current decisions due to the abstract standard, which allows adaption to changing circumstances and

In this paper, I intend to analyze and argue, that we as humans have the right to not only own, but buy, sell, and trade privately owned property. I will also state why I believe that the United States Government should not be an active player in property rights, but an outside regulating source, not interfering or intervening. And I will also go on to say that The United States Government should just protect the people and the people’s property.

The Constitution of the United States’ protection of properties can be attributed to its reactionary nature: rebellion against the monarchical tenets and the taxation attacks of British government. With Adams’ and Madison’s efforts and models, the Executive Branches were formed; a checks and balances system of members elected of the people, by the people, and for the people. With the fathers’ agenda set on preventing revolution as formulated in Adams’ observation of monarchical or oligarchical governments, and the desire to own freely without governmental meddling or intervention, any accusation of the primacy of the elite as the basis of the Constitution is fouled. A person is as much a despot for being financially affluent as a poor person must be for not being so. Absolutes do not exist.

As a result of the foregoing, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between plaintiffs and defendants DPR concerning their respective rights and duties. Plaintiffs contend that their security interests in the collateral described in the security agreements continued notwithstanding the sale or disposition to defendants DPR of the collateral, and continue to this day or, alternatively, defendants DPR should be estopped from asserting any right, title, or interest in the collateral senior or adverse to the security interests of plaintiffs in that recognition of any priority interest by defendants DPR would sanction fraud and promote injustice because recognition would effectively render plaintiffs’ security interest illusory, thus allowing

The Statute of Frauds acts as a sort of life insurance for permanent or relatively long term agreements. The portion of the Statute examined herein deals solely with “transfers of real property other than a lease of less than one year’s duration” and the argument is made that the Statute should be extended to include leases less than one year’s duration despite the additional required time, effort and cost. Issues of trespassing, neglect, adverse possession and disputed arguments of sale are identified and the effects of the notions are analyzed though the lens of the Statute’s expectations and requirements for viability. The effects of this specific portion of the Statute of Frauds will be examined in regards

One of the tenets of law has always been the ideal that Parliament is wholly sovereign, being the conclusive controlling factor on which the United Kingdom constitution is based. Yet not all ideals are taken and translated into reality. The statement from Lord Hope in R (Jackson) v AG challenges the sovereignty of Parliament, by demonstrating that there may be limits to Parliamentary sovereignty of which can be seen through the proceedings of the R (Jackson) v AG case, Thoburn v Sunderland City Council, and HS2. Whilst conclusively determining that the rule of law is the ultimate controlling fact on which the United Kingdom’s constitution is based. Although counter-arguments can be taken from this statement and the appropriate cases, of which

Most likely not. The reasoning underlying the court’s choice in the case was, in part, that “the State’s prohibition of the labels does not materially advance its asserted pursuits in insulating youth from vulgarity and is not narrowly tailored to the pastime regarding children.”The court’s reasoning was supported in part through the truth that kids cannot purchase beer. If the label advertised toys, however, the court’s reasoning would possibly have been different.

In Lewisham Borough Council v Roberts[10], a case concerning delegation of power of requisition, Lord Denning affirmed that the Council ”cannot grant a lease or create any legal interest in the land…because it has itself no estate in the land out of which to carve any interest.” More recently, Neuberger J. in Re Friends Provident Life Office[11] reassured “a lease involves not only a contract, but also an estate in land”[12]. Therefore, the traditional concepts are long-standing principle and the possibility of leases existing merely in contractual nature and granting “tenant” merely contractual rights are denied by courts.

When individuals think of London pawnbrokers, they always thought brokers are backstreet shops owners full of old televisions and hi-fi equipment. On the other hand, modern pawnbrokers are ready to escape the image and reinvent pawnbroker as a modern alternative to traditional loans.

Lord Diplock once observed that Britain has become a ‘property owning, particularly a real mortgage to a building society owning, democracy’. A mortgage in relation to Lindley MR in Santley v Wilde , “is a transaction under which land or chattels are given as security for the payment of a debt or the discharge of some other obligations”. Lord Justice Munby stated that it means a charge on property to secure the repayment by a debtor to his creditor of monies lent. It is also a loan for a property that ought to be paid inside of a predefined timeframe i.e., it involves a transfer of a legal interest for the borrowers land (mortgagor) to the lender (mortgagee) with the procurement that the lenders interest terminates then loan and interest are reimbursed. The mortgage transaction was described by Maitland as “one long suppressio veri and suggestion falsi”.

Niall Ferguson clearly illustrates several economic principles and findings that are also illustrated in our Macroeconomics class. These concepts are seen in Episodes 5 and 6 of The Ascent of Money of money series. “Safe as Houses” and “A Financial History of The World” are both episodes that Ferguson uses to emphasize concepts that are also seen in our Macroeconomics. Some of the concepts that are seen in these episodes are property ownership and the finances that come with the ownership of property. Because of these two episodes it is easy for me to understand these concepts.