Argumentative Essay: The Law Of Mistakes

The core of business activity is to gain profit. As these profits are earned form ordinary business activities, the profits are categorised as ordinary income for the business. However, there are some cases and scenarios where the business activity may include courses of actions that are not usual for the business nature. Here, we tried to find the consistency of ordinary income and the proceeds from these unusual business decisions.

In the ¨Cost Of Survival”, the author proposes that adventures that who willingly put themselves in danger should be responsible for the pay for the fees of the SAR. The Search and Rescue team,

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.

Is it true that if you do something outside your free will, you should be held responsible? To clarify, doing something outside your free will means doing something you could not have done otherwise. To answer the question, I believe that yes, you should be held responsible. Ted Sider claims that you should not be held responsible, and uses the following example to support his claim: Suppose that you are kidnapped and then forced to commit a series of murders by the hand of the kidnapper. Sider’s example clearly shows that you should not be responsible for actions committed that you could not of otherwise, but I can provide an example where you can.

BOQ then agreed to lend Success money to pay out its existing facilities secured by mortgages over properties, and the plaintiffs signed a deed of consent where the parties agreed that the guarantees originally provided to Statewest operated in respect of the BOQ loan. Success defaulted on the BOQ loan. The mortgage property was sold, with a shortfall of over $2,000,000. The plaintiffs commenced proceedings, and (among other things) sought a declaration that the defendant was not entitled to payment under guarantees.

The R v Bentham case , which presented the question of imitation firearms, and whether part of your body is covered in the legislation adopted the literal approach and as this directive was employed judges declared the word ‘possession’ did not include someone’s fingers. If words of the act are evident, they should be adhered to, even if they provoke a distinctive absurdity. The legislation specified that imitation firearms could be “anything which has the appearance of a firearm whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or missile”. It was held by Lord Bingham that Parliament obviously meant to legislate about imitation firearms and not to develop an offence of dishonesty, claiming to possess a firearm. Accordingly, possession of something needs to be independent from the body and the defendant was found not guilty.

Sexual thoughts pop in and out of most people’s mind, but especially teenagers, and there’s nothing they can do about it. It is normal for teenage boys and girls to experience this, more than ever when they are hitting puberty. The hormones in the body begin to act up and teenagers want to experience other things on their own. Males begin to grow pubic and facial hairs, and their voice starts to deepen, while girls’ breasts begin to develop and their body begins to take shape. After hitting puberty, teenagers are now at the point where they want to experience things. ‚Don’t go out there and get pregnant‛ a mother

The homeowners would assert that the improper endorsements of their notes from bank to bank as a result of robo-signing violated their PSA that was executed when their loans were first securitized. The homeowners then followed up claiming that their promissory notes were unenforceable. The courts have generally found that the homeowners lacked standing to bring such claims. A significant case was Rajamin v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. There, the Second Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals held that a homeowner lacked standing to sue for violations of the PSA because the violations never resulted in any injury to the homeowner. The violations of the PSA never resulted in the borrower having to pay higher mortgage payments or fees than before. Therefore, the plaintiff could not meet the fundamental case or controversy

The current Victorian laws on the implication of the duty of good faith in commercial contracts run in parallel with Commonwealth laws in this area. In both jurisdictions the law in respect to both the scope and nature of the duty of good faith is relatively unsettled. Judicial and jurisdictional discrepancies surrounding rulings on the duty of good faith is evident. This is the case even though the High Court of Australia has acknowledged the existence and potential scope of the duty of good faith as important issues It is yet to expressly consider the matter in detail . As such, “debate in various Australian authorities concerning the existence and content of the implied…duty of good faith and fair dealing” is commonplace. Each state’s courts have delivered varying judgments on the scope, interpretation and application of the implied duty of good faith in a commercial context. Victoria has diverged most notably from the NSW interpretation whereby Victoria generally implies the duty of good faith in fact rather than in law . Currently, there is much debate over what constitutes ‘good faith’. However, both jurisdictions have tended to agree on the conflated nature of the concepts of the implied terms of good faith and reasonableness and the obligation requiring parties to not act capriciously . The courts also tend to share a reluctance to conclude that commercial contracts are of the class which requires the universal implication of the duty of good faith . However,

An accord is reached when both parties to a contract agree to accept performance that is different from the original agreement after a breach of contract has occurred. Elements of a successful accord include the following:

Rule based accounting standards are difference from principle based standards in that rule based standards are just that – rules. For instance, the Internal Revenue code is rule based. There are things you can do and things you can’t. When rules are broken,

In Cundy , the contract was held void for mistake through the correspondences that the claimant clearly intended to deal with someone other than the fraudster. Surprisingly, this decision was followed in Ingram though the mode of dealing was inter praesentes. The Court of Appeal distinguished Ingram from Philips v Brooks Ltd and held that there was no consensus ad

It has been said that if a party makes a mistake as to the identity of the person he is contracting with then there is no contract, or if there is a contract then it is void such that no property can transfer under it. The legal principle prior to Phillips v Brooks is that depending on the facts, if the court’s decision is that the contract is void for mistake then the mistaken party still has the right to the title of the goods as it was seen in Cundy v Lindsay, or the mistaken party will have no legal obligation to pay for the goods as it was seen in Boulton v Jones. However, if the contract is just voidable then the good title goes to

Mr Lay is a separate legal entity under s.16 (2) Companies Act 2006. This is similar to the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd (1897) where Mr Salomon was held to be a separate legal identity from the company. However, according to company law there are exceptions in which the court is willing to lift the corporate veil. The court will lift the corporate veil where certain circumstances occur such as fraud, improper or wrongful acts.

The issue is whether Mr Kenneth Lay is liable to contribute to the company’s debts or not.