Minor’s Contract? a Critical Analysis of the Indian Contract Act, 1872

This case was decided by the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit in San Francisco in favor of union fees on the basis of the case

What is the defining line between greed and financial necessity? How many people need to die for us to be financially satisfied? During 1813, thousands of natives trudged across rough terrain traveling West to their new home. Thousands of natives die along the way due to America’s greed. At the beginning of the 1830’s, nearly 125,000 Native Americans lived on millions of acres of the land their ancestors had occupied and cultivated for generations. However, at the end of the 1800’s there were relatively few natives left. Although our nation would not be the same as it is today, the Indian Removal Act was not a step in the right direction for Early America. It was morally incorrect because first, we promised that if we moved them, we would protect them, second, the act of not following through with protections went against what our nation stood for, and third, the Act caused one of our first financial profits to be linked with a terrible act of greed.

be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

Parties to the Case, Facts of the Case, and Business Reasons for the Dispute (30 points)

David A. Goldmeier and Terry C. Goldmeier v. Allstate Insurance Company 337 F.3d 629 (6th Cir 2003) case supports our

2) What is the Intercourse Act and how does the Americans treat the Indian peoples?

Throughout history European people have been conquering territories that were already inhabited. Canada was one of them and the people that were already living there are known as The First Nations Peoples. They are the peoples who used to be called Indians. They are divided into more than 600 diverse bands. All these tribes have different history, culture, and traditional cuisine. Something they share in common is that they were forced to assimilate to European Culture by the Indian Act. According to the website Indigenous Foundations the Indian Act was composed of two previous acts, which were the Gradual Civilization Act of 1857 and the Gradual Enfranchisement Act of 1869. The Indian Act was established in 1876. The website Indigenous Foundations explains the Indian Act and the following quote explains part of the Indian Act, "This authority has ranged from overarching political control, such as imposing governing structures on Aboriginal communities in the form of band councils, to control over the rights of Indians to practice their culture and traditions. The Indian Act has also enabled the government to determine the land base of these groups in the form of reserves, and even to define who qualifies as Indian in the form of Indian status". In other words the Indian Act was created so that Natives would lose their cultures and so that the government decided their lives for them. At the same time the Act protected them from tax exemptions in the reserves. The

The Indian Act was first proposed in 1876. The Indian Act was mainly used as a way for the federal government to control aspects of Native American lives. During the 1880’s the federal government told Indian families that if they wanted their children to have an education, it was to be done under them. These institutions would be known as Residential Schools. Residential Schools were not good for the Native Americans due to the education being taught was there to “take away” the Indian within the children, in other words, to make them act like they are not Indian.

This case is between the (plaintiff) Mrs. White and the (defendants) Patrick Gibbs and Stand Alone Properties, L.L.C. as O’Malley’s Tavern. A Motion of Summary Judgment on behalf of O’Malley’s Tavern in the US District Court of Northern District of Indiana. Is being argued/presented.

Often times to obtain or defend freedom we must make sacrifices. The Indian Reorganization Act (also known as the Wheeler-Howard Act) was passed on June 18, 1934. Its purpose was to reverse assimilation of the Natives and instead help restore and protect status, land, and culture of Native American people. The act gave the government the power to buy land and give it back to the native people, helped the people in many different ways, and had a lasting legacy.

Case Analysis: Blanchard Importing and Distributing Co. Inc. (HBS Case 9 - 673 - 033)

(b) R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd (No.1) [1990] AC 85 and (No.2) [1991] 1 AC 603

Case Analysis: Blanchard Importing and Distributing Co. Inc. (HBS Case 9 - 673 - 033)

Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather PLC, 2 WLR 53 (House of Lords 1994).