The Case Of Ashbury Railway Carriage And Iron Company Ltd V.

According to the book assigned to this finance course, the average customer can expect to pay 1%-2% points above prime. Paying the prime rate is only given to the banks most creditworthy customers. Right now the Harrods are paying the average rate for the average

The appellant company (Youyang) was trustee of a discretionary trust formed in 1974 for the Hayward family. Minter Ellison Morris Fletcher’s (Minters) had been acting for EC Consolidated Capital Limited (ECCCL) since July 1991, all work in connection with the drafting of the documents relating to the subscription for preference shares in ECCCL was dealt with by Minters. As part of the subscription agreement Youyang deposited $500,000 in Minters trust account. Minters was entitled to release a section of the fund from the trust account to ECCCL for the purchase of a bearer deposit certificate to be issued by Dresdner International Financial Markets (Australia) Ltd (DAL), which could then be traded on the money market. When the certificate was obtained Minters then had the right to release the remainder of the funds to ECCCL based on the subscription agreement.

By decision making by representatives of the people, rather than direct decision making by the people themselves. These elite representatives would be expected to use their prudence and wisdom to make decisions based on what was in the best interests of the masses. (pg. 7)

That ensures that the decisions being made by all and any levels of government are made with the people’s best interest in mind.

(England) was that the power of the legislature "... is limited to the public good of the

Nevertheless, some critics argue that the judidicary, some critics argue that the judiciary are the final arbiters of what is meant by the principle of separation of powers, which therefore provides the judiciary with subordinate levels of power. Moreover Chief Justice Hughes concluding that the ‘Constitution is what the judges say it is’ due to ability to interpret the constitution. In America, although Congress may new laws affecting courts, ultimately judges decide.

The conclusion reached in this article is that too much power is given to the

These are organisations or individuals with strong views that may influence the decisions of businesses and the government.

xiii) Influence of EU ensures that altering UK constitution is hard – cannot be incompatible

There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Barnes did understand the label to constitute a representation in the form suggested. It was found that Glendale was negligent and in all circumstances, it was considered there was a duty on Glendale to include in the packaging a warning as to the consequences of using corrosive product with hot water in a confined space such as a drain. There was no specific defect with the caustic soda but the issue is whether it was defective within the meaning of Section 75AC. It was found by the court the label to be defective within the meaning of section 75AC.

Tort Law: A right of a private citizen to take legal action against an entity or human if harm has been caused. The issue within the legal action does not have to be against the law. The primary goal of tort law is to require financial compensation to the individuals that have been harmed and deter future similar actions to happen.

The Classification between an independent contractor and employee has raised a number of issues throughout the past 50 years. Failing to create an effective formality to be applied by the courts to any particular case, it has lead to commercial uncertainty through Australia. This essay will analysis Stevens V Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16 decision regarding the high court process in distinguishing between whether there was an relationship between the employer of employer/employee or employer/independent contractor.

The power to strike down Acts of Parliament is defined as the power to declare legislation invalid because it is unconstitutional. This paper will critically assess sections 3 and 4 of the HRA 1998 by defining them, reviewing case law surrounding their use, and by evaluating the powers that they give to the judiciary. By doing so, it will demonstrate that section 3 gives judges powers that are not significantly different from the power to strike down Acts of Parliament, whereas section 4 does not.

‘It is well-known that the Separation of Powers doctrine is sine qua non for maintaining the rule of law however, an absolute separation of power does not exist in the Australian legal system.’

“Rule of Law”, said Dicey in 1885, means “the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power and excludes the existence of arbitrariness, of prerogative ,or even wide discretionary authority on the part of government.” (THE LAW OF CONSTITUTION 198 (8th ed.)