The Case Of Belize V Belize Telecom

To begin with, this essay intend to talk about some legal definitions, since what REASONABLE exactly doesn’t possess the same meaning under different circumstances. Though, not all of these definitions would be mentioned in the following content of this essay.

“The mere existence of the core elements of offer, acceptance, and consideration will not guarantee a legally enforceable contract”. Discuss.

The second argument concluded from BP Refinery Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings is that 'it is not necessary to imply a term in the form of c11(a) for reasonable or effective contract of employment in all circumstances.'

Contract law is relatively consistent regarding whether a contract was actually made and whether the parties involved can be legally held to the contract or not. This is primarily due to the fact that contract law proceeds from law handed down from centuries of civil and common law cases. Basically, two parties have to agree to the terms of the cited contract, after the offer is made and accepted (both parties have had time to review and make changes to the contract, although this process does not always occur), and they have either orally agreed or signed some form of written contract. It can be argued in a court afterword that there was not sufficient consideration or that one party coerced the other into an agreement, but these are usually handled at the signing of the contract. This process is time honored and, as said, has been in place for a long time. But, new types of contracts occur at times and they have a different sort of accounting by the courts. One of these types of contracts is that generally called prenuptial, antenuptial or premarital (Standler, 2009). This paper looks at prenuptial agreements and using the case of Simeone v. Simeone tries to determine some of the pros and cons of treating these agreements more like regular contracts.

Labelle v. Rogers Communications Inc. Deborah P. Labelle filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission on September 3, 2009 against Rogers Communications Inc. The complainant, Labelle feels that Rogers Communications Inc. the respondent, discriminated against her because she is a woman. This falls under section 3 of the CHRA which covers and protects against sex discrimination. Labelle alleges she was treated differently compared to her male counterparts and was eventually fired from her position. The complainant filed this complaint on the grounds of sex discrimination.

Conversely, other judges have found the judgement in Consul Development v DPC to be inconclusive, adopting a narrow interpretation of the judgement of Stephen J and restricting the requisite knowledge only to the first three categories of the Baden scale. This tendency toward a narrow approach increased following the decision in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan (‘Royal Brunei’) as courts attempted to reconcile the UK and Australian lines of authority. However in other cases, such as Gertsch v Atsas it was held that that the acceptance of the first four Baden categories was synonymous with accepting a standard of honesty.

The process of analysis shall move from each individual dialogue followed by commentary informed by secondary works. The Laches, the most basic of the dialogues, will precede the Meno, and finally the Protagoras until each text has been examined. The final section will include concluding arguments and affirmatively answer the question regarding virtue acquisition.

• Eveready Australia Pty Ltd v Gillette Australia Pty Ltd OR Taco Company of Aust Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd (“objective test”)

The problem that was addressed in this case is that about the injuries to Cue Co.’s plantation and the death of the manager. Cue Co.’s is a large multinational enterprise incorporated and headquartered in Country Q, Cue Co.’s own a banana plantation in Chiquitaland. The rebels that were at war with the government raid the banana plantation and destroying most of the banana and building. The manager was a citizen of Country Q. Both Chiquitaland and Country Q agree to submit the dispute to arbritation.

It was held that to establish the validity of an exclusion clause, one need to look into the matter of construction and analyze

The question argued, is about the claim that all understanding involves interpretation, and that all interpretation is inherently perspectival. Over the term we have talked and learned about different philosophers and how interpretation is viewed by them. I will talk about Nietzsche’s claim that all truths are “errors”, Gadamer’s view that all understanding involves interpretation, his notion of “effective historical consciousness” and Schott’s critical stance then finally I will add my own personal thoughts on how understanding involves interpretation.

In the present essay the problem covered will be The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, known as UCTA and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, known as UTCCR. As things stand at present, consumers are faced with two pieces of legislation in a vital area of contracts. The main areas analysed will consist of a historical background of the Act and the Regulations, a comparison between them but also the inconsistencies and overlaps which exist regarding these two layers of complex regulation. After this thorough analysis is complete a conclusion will be drawn on the bases of what was covered.

This essay will critically evaluate the statement in segments whilst explaining their available remedies, sanctions and objects within the context of contract law, tort law and criminal law. The validity of the entire statement will further be considered using the evidences established prior reaching a conclusion.

It is notable that the Law of contract adopts an objective approach when identifying if the parties can be seen to have come to an agreement. Thus an objective assessment is made of the content of their agreement, and an interpretation to be put on the language by which it was constituted.

International commercial arbitration is one of the most important legal institutions in international private law. This conclusion follows from the fact that the nature of arbitration depends largely on autonomy of the parties, who choose arbitration procedure as the procedure in which the dispute will be settled; place where the arbitration is to be held; arbitral tribunal etc. Probably the most important and considerable expression of the autonomy is the right to choose the law, which is to be applied to merits of the dispute. The chosen applicable law guarantees in large measure predictability of the outcome of the case and allows parties to control the scope of interpretation and application of the international commercial