The Legal Developments Arising From The Law Of Consideration

A controversial aspect of the criminal justice system is the Crown’s use of discretion when it decides to make charge negotiations. This means that the crown offers the accused a lesser charge should they plead guilty to it. In doing so, the crown benefits from the assured conviction (maintaining peace and security by an efficient means) and the accused benefits from a lesser sentence. However by employing powers of discretion in this case and making a deal with offenders, is seems to be at the expense of victims as there if insufficient retribution. The case of Nannette May (2009) epitomises the concern of victims, as May was not given a chance to give evidence against her attacker due to his acceptance of a

This function of the law, ensuring reasonable predictability in daily life, is challenged within this case. This is shown within the case, from the perspective of being the owners of

A forum applies its own choice of law approach. So here North Montana will apply the Second Restatement of Conflicts of Laws as the state follows that approach. Under the Second Restatement, three main steps need to be considered: 1) whether the conflict is procedural or substantive, 2) whether a choice of law provision in a contract should be applied, and 3) the application of a choice of law rule. Here, it appears that the choice of law provision selecting Old York should be applied because none of the exceptions to the general rule apply.

(2) Tamanaha, Brian. 2008. “Law”, Oxford International Encyclopedia of Legal History, St. John's Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-0095. Link in Course Readings and Available online: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1082436&rec=1&srcabs=1012051

Codelfa Construction (Plaintiff) had a contract with State Rail Authority NSW (Defendant) to excavate the tunnels for the railway in New South Wales. The contract agreed to complete the work in assured dates and finish it within 130 weeks, to finish work Codelfa were suppose to work three shifts a day and 7 days a week; initially Codelfa Construction was working accordingly. The work was to dig a tunnel so offcourse it was very noisy and caused some vibrations which were annoying to the surrounding residents which led to application quite a few application of nuisance and after a while Codelfa Construction had an injunction where they were forced to reduce the work hours by two shifts a day and not working on Sundays. The problem started here as the working hours were reduced so Codelfa Constructions was not able to finish the work in the set period of time which was given according to the contract therefore Codelfa Construction’s budget did exceed than mentioned in the contract and they needed more time to finish the work.

ANNECDOTE. The majority of the High Court in Clark v Marcourt, awarded damages of approximately A$1.2 million to the appellant, as the respondent was found guilty of breaching various warranties of the deed to purchase various property from a fertility centre, putting the appellant at a significantly better financial position than she would have been in had the breach not occurred. Prima facie, Clark seems to suggest undermining the compensatory principle in contract. ## This essay will analyse the decision in Clark through the doctrinal legal research method, using “normative” research. The aim of this research method is to answer the question of “what is the law” via logical reasoning and analysis of appropriate legal rules, and whether it applies to a particular factual situation.

Clegg case is the most recent and instructive dissertation on this vexed issue. The presiding judge, Justice Hoeben, referred to the previous case of Kilpatrick. There Foster J indicated that the obligations of the Tribunal are clearly satisfied if, in approaching the question of excessiveness, it has regard to matters in paragraphs (a) and following, in

Obstructing a judge’s ability to assess the circumstances of an offence in individual cases has the potential to lead to major miscarriages of justice. This may occur in cases where the circumstances equitably demand leniency but due to their nature, legislatively fall under a disproportionate mandatory

Following Bridge’s comment that “the juridical basis of the duty to mitigate is obscure”, the first section of the essay will examine whether mitigation is best explained as an aspect of causation. It will be considered if causation explains mitigation, whether causation is the superior explanation, before discussing an alternative approach based on a reformulation of the compensatory principle. The second section of the essay will examine the true basis for the rules of remoteness in contract and tort, and will ask whether the

As William Blackstone, famous English jurist of the 18th century, said: it is "a universal maxim of the common law of England that no man is brought to jeopardy of his life or limb more than once for the same offence". The principle of double jeopardy that Blackstone refers to here has existed in the English law for over 800 years, and is based on two fundamental principles that are autrefois acquit and autrefois convict. Thus, the amendments brought by Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 are a huge innovation for the English (and Welsh) system of justice. This essay will consider the changes made to the principle of double jeopardy and question whether these new amendments have bettered our system of justice. In order to do so, it will first analyze the exact alterations that were made to the principle of double jeopardy. Then, it will examine why the Criminal Justice Act 2003 did not meet the government's objectives of "rebalancing" the criminal justice in favor of victims. Finally, we will consider how in reality, this Act did indeed improve the criminal justice system.

Horrigan, B, _Adventures in Law & Justice: exploring the big legal questions in Everyday Life_, Lawbook Company, Sydney, 2003

The judgment referred to these factors from Wyong. Balancing these factors relates to both the magnitude of and the degree of probability of the risk. In The Appellants no expert evidence was adduced concerning the cost involved in implementing an ‘effective’ system. Thus it appears that the Court went further than it should have in finding that the cost must not have been so great so as to have been a significant burden. Was it not just as open to the Court to have found that the cost would have been

Why is the speech of Viscount Sankey in Woolmington v DPP [1935] All ER1; [1935] AC 462; (1935) 25 Cr App R 72, important?" This essay will explore (Woolmington 1935) and develop an understanding as to why (Fosters Crown Law 1762), (Sankey’s golden thread speech 1935) and the exceptions played a significant importance in the case of Woolmington v DPP.

For this assignment, the statement that "The doctrine of estoppel prevents a claimant from going back on a promise and has been described as a ‘shield and not a sword'. Will be evaluated using relevant case law. First looking at the meaning of the doctrine that was developed by Lord Denning. This will then be investigated with case law which looks at the practical application and judgments found in these cases, giving clearer definition and meaning to the doctrine and look at an up to date case to see if and how the principle may have developed. In conclusion, the key points will be summarised and by the evidence provided by the documented case law, evaluate the statement to see if it is true.

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