The Case Of Royal British Bank V Turquand

Bickham v. Washington Bank & Trust Company is a case that involves a formal bilateral contract that was entered into by businessman Bruce Bickham and G. S. Adams, Jr., Vice President of the Washington Bank & Trust Company in 1976 (Cheeseman, 2013). According to Cheeseman (2013), the facts of the case indicate that Bickham would conduct his personal and corporate banking with Washington Bank & Trust and the bank would provide loans to Bickham at 7.5 percent interest rate with 10 years to repay the loans. The language of this bilateral contract translates to what is referred to as a “promise for a promise” whereby no act of performance is necessary to form this kind of contract… and it is an enforceable contract (Cheeseman, 2013). The findings of

In the case of King Magnum, s/he has been accused for possession of firearm and for a robbery beyond $5,000. The Bank of Commerce had been robbed and King Magnum was accused for this robbery since his photograph had resembled the individual who came into the Bank. This crime took place in the Yourtown bank on October 1st 2002, however Magnum was arrested on October 31st after all the police officer in charge if this case, Gumshore thoroughly examined all the details.

2 This is an OPEN book examination. You can only use your prescribed text book and the Corporations Act 2001. No other materials are allowed.

R.v. Feeney (1997) is a important case for the development of a Feeney warrant, which is needed for the police to enter a dwelling house. This ensures individuals have privacy at their homes from the police making forcible entries. When a suspect gets arrested and their privacy rights are infringed. The job of the courts are then to evaluate the case, and check if the appellants rights were indeed violated, if so was it because the protection of society outweigh the individual right to privacy. First, in this paper we will discuss important section numbers relating to the Feeney case which includes section 8, 10 (b), and section 24 (b). Than we will examine the ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Feeney case and how this case has impacted police in their work and assuring individuals their right to privacy. After we will look at two other cases precedent to the Feeney case that includes R.v. Godoy (1999) and R.v. Gomboc (2010). Lastly, the personal analysis section will evaluate the decisions made from the three cases, identifying whether the judges have made the correct decisions.

In the R. v. Stinchcombe case, a lawyer was charged with breach of trust, theft and fraud. His former secretary was a Crown witness at the opening of the investigation. She provided relevant evidence towards the defence. Former to trial, she was interviewed by an RCMP officer and a tape‑recorded statement was taken. Far along during the progress of the trial, she again was interviewed by a police officer with a written statement taken. The defence counsel was notified of the occurrence but not of the statements. His request for a disclosure was declined. However, throughout the trial, the defence counsel acknowledge without a doubt that the witness would not be called by the Crown and required an order that the witness be called or that the Crown disclose the main statements to the defence. The trial continued and the accused was found guilty of breach of trust and fraud. Conditional stays were entered with respect to the theft counts. The

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).

Corporate capacity and authority were essential legal concepts which contained rules for when and how a company ought to be legally recognised as having validly acted and entered into a binding contract with third parties. Broadly speaking, the rules which applied to corporate capacity were the ultra vires doctrine and the doctrine of constructive notice. In regard to the concept of corporate authority, both the ultra vires doctrine and the doctrine of constructive notice also applied however their application was curtailed by the Turquand rule. The Turquand rule therefore only applied when the authority of directors was in question. A definitional overview of the concepts of corporate capacity and authority will be provided below, along with brief description of the doctrine of constructive notice and the Turquand rule.

I did go two different courts. Southwark Crown Court which was opened in 1983 is one of those. It contains 15 courts, making it the fourth biggest court in the nation and is outlined as a genuine extortion focus. In England and Wales the crown courts additionally go about as a court of first occasion for serious criminal offences. A case, contingent upon the seriousness can take many deferent routs through the structure of the legal framework. The severe the crime, the higher the court that the trial does settled. My court visit on eighteenth and nineteenth of December 2014 was truly fundamental, keeping in mind the end goal to accomplish a more prominent useful understanding of the different angles and structural type of legitimate framework. A percentage of the procedures that they take after are indeed regulations of Act of Parliament, the lion 's share of which are a piece of the Court Procedures Act 2004.

this case could be an tricky in the court, because in the contract they only

This paper describes the impact of the decision made in the case of Tesco Stores Ltd v Brent LBC on the law and its effects on the corporate world, and the comparison between the doctrine of vicarious liability that it outlines and the doctrine of identification that was used earlier to determine the liability of corporations in cooperate crime.

The case of Calibuso et al. v. Bank of America Corp. et al. began in 2010, when female financial analysts (FAs) filed charges in in several states and with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claiming that the Bank of America (BoA) used discriminatory pay practices against them in violation of state laws and the U.S. Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (DiMarco, 2014; Calibuso, 2012). These laws forbid inequalities in pay (Schrimsher & Fretwell, 2012) and discriminating employment practices based on gender and other protected classes (42 U.S.C.A in Webber, 2015). The case was settled in favor of the plaintiffs (DiMarco, 2014). However, legal and scholarly advice suggests that these kinds of cases can be avoided through organizational efforts in training in diversity (Bendick, Egan & Lofhjelm, 2001) and legal understanding along with professional validation of practices, and managerial accountability (Arthur & Doverspike in Malos, 2015). This writer agrees; the case of Calibuso et al. v. Bank of America Corp. et al, which involved discriminatory practices related to compensation and other employment-related acts may have been avoided by observing the advice aimed at organizational efforts in anti-discrimination in the workplace.

All companies with greater than 15 employees in the United States must adhere to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This act prohibits discrimination in employment-related matters and is administered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (Canas & Sonkak, 2014). In Calibuso et al. v. Bank of America Corp. et al. Judy Calibuso filed a complaint against Bank of America with the EEOC in January 2007.

The blood stain clothes that detective Smith detained is considered real evidence. The clothes had been worn by the accused and were covered in blood; perhaps the victim’s blood, is in connection with the investigation (Anderson, Rondinelli, Watkins, 2013, p 26). Case Saturley v. CIBC World Markets Inc., 2012 had electronic documents as proof against the accused, he was doing unauthorized trading for CIBC clients. The records that were found on the defendant’s laptop was indeed connected to the investigation as was used to convict him.

The impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration.

If parties enter into a contract that is reflective or derives from a mistake, under common law the contract may be void or voidable. The basis of this decision depends on the type of mistake. Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson presented a unilateral mistake, in which only one party is mistaken, and in this case, a mistake as to the identity. The difficulty lies when judges must decide whether a contract is void or voidable, which will only protect one of the two arguably innocent parties, the original property owner or the bona fide purchaser. However, the approaches previously taken by the Courts have led to a lack of certainty and coherence in the interests of commercial transactions, and so the Shogun case presented an opportunity for clarification. I am going to raise the argument that the law of mistake is in need of a reform, by following Lord Millett’s proposal to no longer follow the cases Cundy v Lindsay and Ingram v Little. The reasoning within this argument will establish that the cases are inconsistent, lack support for third parties and fail to establish the authority of creditworthiness over identity in commercial contracts. Alternatively, the cases Phillips v Brooks and Lewis v Averay should be used to create a clear established line of case law which can be seen as a fair and practical approach towards mistake and protecting the bona fide purchaser.