Exclusion clauses are fairly common within many contracts as every party that enters negotiations would be more inclined to accept such contracts should there be clauses imposed to completely avoid, or at the very least, limit liability in regards to certain breaches or negligence occurring. In order for the Spinning Farm’s exemption clause to be considered valid, there will be the presumption that it has been incorporated into a contract by signature at the time of generating the contract regardless of whether it has been read. This only is applicable should there be no misrepresentation as to the nature of the document and as for the communication between the Farm and Maz’s Supermarket, there is no evidence of misrepresentation present. Alternatively, the contract may be incorporated without a signature by the notion that the party has reasonable notice of the terms such as in the principle case of Parker v South Eastern Railway. The notice was clearly given before or at the time of the contracting therefore the principle in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking can be relied upon also. Another way of incorporation is if the two said parties have experienced a previous course of dealings to which the exemption clauses can apply to subsequent dealings however no signs indicate nor imply that previous dealings have occurred or not. It is more likely to be through signature in regards to incorporating the exclusion clauses. As the spinning farm is intending to implement the
The struggle for equality has existed throughout history. The color of a person’s skin seems to depict everything about them. Not only was this an issue in earlier times, but the present as well. The battle to overcome inequity was made significantly more troublesome in the Plessy v. Ferguson case of 1896.
The landmark case of Plessy v. Ferguson is a Constitutional case in which it had to be decided who the constitution meant when it said "all men are created equal." This case is very important to our constitution and to the people being governed by the constitution because it brought up issues that hadn't been discussed in the U.S before. This case shows the degree of federalism and how much the government paid attention to it. The amendments in the constitution do not apply to a simple race or ethnicity. Throughout history laws have been made and destroyed at the cost of colored people, in the Plessy v. Ferguson case it is shown that due to the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments all citizens have equal protection under the law. Plessy was denied his right, as well as other colored people because they belonged to different bathrooms, they belonged to different train cars and they belonged to different water fountains at this time in history, but Plessy'
Within certain circumstances, liability is based on the accused 's action, which is also known as an act of omission or negative act. Regardless of the defendant 's motive, the failure to act supports a finding of criminal liability only when the s/he is under a binding legal duty, has the necessary knowledge to behave aptly and carrying out his or her responsibility is possible. Even so, there are instances when the issue of guilt results from a lack thereof. Each element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and decided as a matter of law by the court. With regard to any crime, all criminal elements are distinguishable and identifiable for the careful analysis of each issue. Take for example the difference between points of dispute in Proctor v. State (1918) and People v. Newton (1973) when reading Criminal Law: Cases and Methods.
Common Wealth of Pennsylvania v. Taylor Edsel is a controversial case involving arson. Taylor Edsel is being accused of intentionally setting fire to Nash Flash Electromotive due to her suspicious presence in the scene, her relation with the company, and her prominent record as an arsonist. The burning of the facility caused a commotion because the head of the company was a successful story of redemption, and a man a few steps away from revolutionizing the car industry with the Nash Flash, an electric car. Salve DeSoto is an engineer that interacted with Taylor Edsel in the workplace, thus, based on the outcomes of their interaction decided to testify against her. DeSoto is an electrical engineer who graduated from the University of Stanford
Going against the Supreme Court, which is the supreme law of the land, in the Worcester vs Georgia case demonstrates how Andrew Jackson abused his power as president. John Marshall, the chief justice at the time, ruled that the United States did not have possession or legal jurisdiction over Native American land, and no individual states had authority in Native American affairs. However, Jackson went above this, since the court did not order marshals to enforce it. In the Indian Removal packet, it was stated that in May 1830, Jackson signed the Indian removal act to exchange land with Native Americans. To do this, he coerced tribe leaders, sometimes by getting them drunk or high, into signing away their land through removal treaties. In the
In the court case Worcester v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1832 that the Cherokee Indians and Samuel Worcester created a nation holding distinct sovereign powers. This decision did not protect the Cherokees from being removed from their tribal birthplace in the Southeast.
In the late 1800s to the early 1900s segregation was one of the biggest issues in the court of law. After slavery was finally abolished African Americans were able to have more freedom, but they were still treated different than any other race. The Jim Crow laws are an example of the law that affected everyday life in the African American community in the beginning of the 1890s. This law segregated schools, parks, libraries, drinking fountains, restrooms, buses, trains, and restaurants. The struggle to achieve equality was made even more difficult by the legislation of racism in the Plessy v Ferguson case.
The power of eminent domain was originally solely exclusive to the federal government. The ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment extended this power to the states, but Supreme Court decisions in the 1870s “refused to extend the just compensation requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment,” and consequently, abuse of the power was common (Jost). Twenty eight years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the “just compensation” clause was applied to the states by Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago, in which the Bill of Rights was declared to also apply to the actions of state governments in an attempt to stop the series of uncompensated takings and other abuses. These abuses continue
The Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell in 1997 is a lawsuit in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Virginia law that offered the eugenic sterilization for individuals regarded genetically unfit. The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Virginia’s statute regarding sterilization provided the basis for enactment of similar laws across the United States and subsequent sterilization of 65,000 Americans without their approval or that of their family members. Notably, the ruling of this case was based on the concept of feeblemindedness, which is no longer applicable in medical terminology. Actually, this case primarily involved state-enforced eugenic sterilization for individuals considered feebleminded or genetically substandard in certain ways. The case provides considerable insights concerning eugenics and enforced sterilization in the United States and significant concerns on whether genetics should be used for any king of legal decision.
On January, 23 1906 a white woman named Nevada Taylor was dropped off the bus station in Chattanooga, Tennessee at 6:30 p.m. only two and half blocks from her home. Little did she know she was being followed? A man grabbed her by the neck and drug her ten feet before throwing her over a fence. She screamed and struggled as he put a leather strap around her neck and threatened to cut her throat. Taylor accounts waking up about ten minutes later in torn and dirty clothes covered in bruises. Her doctor later confirmed she had been raped. She claimed to have never of saw the face of the attacker but he had a soft voice of a black man. During this time of prejudice, segregation and hatred towards Negros was just a way of life for the
In recent years, the topic of gun control has become an increasing heated debate. Some think that the second amendment does not grant people with the right to bear certain guns. Others argue that under the second amendment, the right to bear arms involves all guns and that their right should not be infringed on by the federal government. Issues surrounding the interpretation of the Second Amendment has been involved in many Supreme Court cases throughout the years of the United States of America.
In 1892, the Plessy v. Ferguson case had emerged from a conflict from Louisiana’s Separate Car Act. The law required that railroads have “separate but equal accommodations,” prohibiting African American and White passengers from entering besides the one they were assigned to based on race. Homer Plessy, a seven-eighths White and one-eighth African American bought a rail travel ticket in Louisiana for the White car and took a seat. He was later told to move to the African American car, after refusing to move he was arrested and charged for not complying with the Separate Car Act.
Throughout history one can look through cases to find where race played a part tin the conviction and sentencing of a case. However, in the case of Georgia vs. Dixon did race play a part in convicting Dixon? Did the jury know what they were doing? Was the sentencing initial to give a harsher charge? By looking at the facts of the case, legally defining all the charges, and explain the outcome and the issues that surrounded the case one can answer the basis of these questions.
On June 7, 1892, Plessy boarded a New Orleans train and sat in the “whites only” car. Plessy then informed the conductor that he was black and the railroad officials, following through on the arrangement, arrested Plessy and charged him with violating the Separate Car Act. Tourgée’s plan was officially in motion. In the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Tourgée argued that the law requiring “separate but equal accommodations” was unconstitutional as it violated the 13th & 14th Amendments. Further, as illustrated by Plessy’s arrest, there was no way for railroad companies to enforce the law. (Had Plessy not announced himself, no one would have ever known he was black.) As Tourgée anticipated, Judge John H. Ferguson ruled
Section 12(2) of the act defines a condition as “a stipulation essential to the main purpose of the contract, the breach of which gives rise to a right to treat the contract as repudiated.” Conditions is called an ‘express condition’ when a condition is expressed clearly in writing. A condition is a stipulation essential to the main purpose of the contract. It is very vital to the