Two Maritime Transport Companies And The Islands Of Sardinia And Sicily

In the early post-classical period, the Mediterranean Sea trade route and the Indian Ocean trade route flourished. Although both the Mediterranean Sea trade route and the Indian Ocean Maritime trade route persisted to deliver goods to diverse ports by way of sea, such as India’s transmission of manufactured goods, such as pottery produced by Burma, to several distinct ports, the volume and whereabouts of each particular trade route and the development of people’s characteristics due to trade varied drastically. Both the post-classical Mediterranean Sea trade route and the Indian Ocean Maritime System route transported goods to various ports by way of water. In the Indian Ocean Maritime System, trade took place in three distinct

Sanctions are only appealed to in the event that there is a breach. It therefore follows that the opinion of Hart is that various form of law cannot be explained in a single expression as orders backed with threats of sanction. Thus, in contradiction with Austin’s viewpoint, Hart formulated a dual system which contains two types of rules, primary rules (duty-imposing) and secondary rules (power-conferring). Primary rules are generally duty-imposing, which embodies non-optional rules of obligation. It often concerned with standard of behavior as requirement to do or to abstain from performing an act. On the other hand, secondary rules are ancillary to primary rules the former conferring right to introduce, to vary the primary rules and to determine the mode in which their violation could be determined (judicial process). Such secondary rules are rather regulatory or facilitative than coercive in nature. In short, Austin’s catch all theory of seeing law as command back with sanction leave no room for right, privileges given to subject of Sovereignty which does not constitute non optional

One of the fundamental principles of the Criminal Law System is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty (McSherry, 2003). By enacting punitive legislation such as the examples given above, it has been said that it is removing this Common law right from the individual (Greig, 1995). It has also been said that it creates an exception to the general principle of law that no person shall be imprisoned unless a court comprised of Judge/Jury is convinced, beyond reasonable doubt that the person committed a very serious offence. Thereby effectively allowing people to be detained without the burden of proving guilt (Keon-Cohen, 1992).

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.

Corporate crime (state crimes) are invisible, they are either not persecuted or not seen as crime, this is because the state have the power to criminalize or decriminalize acts . The Hillsborough disaster is one of the most serious crimes in the UK which was not seen as a crime but rather labelled as an accidental death. This essay will present the facts and highlight the various legal issues with regards to the Hillsborough disaster that took place on 15 April 1989. It will first of all state the facts of the event, engaging the international human rights provision, domestic legislation and will further analyse the access to justice doctrine as regards to the Hillsborough case.

As a starting note, any mention of concurrent liability should be assumed to mean concurrently liability in tort and contract. Traditionally the distinction between contract and tort was that contract concerns the improvement of the claimant 's position, whereas tort is concerned with dealing with their position worsening. There has been dispute around concurrent liability and its ambiguity has led to varying decision in cases and statute making as Taylor puts it “the basis of concurrent liability uncertain”. This essay will argue Tort has and is extending itself beyond its traditional role due to judges presumption of morality leading to the unclear concurrent liability we see today. Whilst this concurrent liability shows some

This paper will cover topics such as; what a court is and what the purpose of the court is. This paper will define the dual court system. In addition this paper will describe the role that early legal codes, the common law and the precedent played in the development of courts. And lastly this paper will identify the role of the courts in the criminal justice system today.

In Giorgio Agamben's view, “The state of exception constitutes a point of imbalance between public law and political fact that is situated like civil war, insurrection and resistance in an ambiguous, uncertain, borderline fringe, at the intersection of the legal and the political.” The intersection of the legal and the political, is because the state of exception is at the same time situated outside of the law (legge) and inherent to the juridical order (diretto). Initially the state of exception is justified in the name of political uncertainty and exceptional emergency. Yet, in the name of protecting the system, exception has become a lasting paradigm for government, even in “democratic” systems. Attempts in justifying exception, generally revolve around the ideas urgency and of necessity. Essentially, the state of exception depends on a conception of necessity: “The concept of necessity is an entirely subjective one, relative to the aim that one wants to achieve” Thus, necessity is always subjective. As a result of necessities’ constant subjectivity, the state of exception appears as an “illegal” but perfectly “juridical and constitutional” measure. Therefore, nations utilize the ‘state of exception’ to justify bypassing a juridical order, which requires due process, in cases characterized by extreme necessity such as the threat of civil war, revolution, foreign invasion,

The different between aggravate damage and exemplary damage has been described in the leading case ‘NSW v Ibbett’ . It could be said that while an award of aggravated damages given by way of compensation for injury which may be intangible to the plaintiff, exemplary damage award serve a valuable purpose in restraining the misconduct which is arbitrary and outrageous of those acting under the power of the Executive Government. In other words, aggravated damages are award for misconduct that shocks the plaintiff and exemplary damages are awarded for conduct that shocks the Court. In such circumstance, where the authorities act in gross breach of discipline and commit unlawful act which is oppressive, exemplary had been awarded. The High Court

[T]ort is best understood as a law for the redress of private wrongs. Taking seriously tort's structure, vocabulary and 'grammar', leads one to grasp that the point of this body of law is to articulate duties of conduct that individuals and entities owe to one another, and to empower those injured by breaches of these duties (i.e., by wrongs) to invoke the law to go after their wrongdoers. Tort law, in other words, is best theorized as a special kind of victims' rights law. As such, it promises to deliver various goods within our liberal-constitutional system of government apart from deterrence and compensation, even though it will sometimes deliver those as well. In particular, it reinforces and refines norms of responsible conduct, helps sustain a distinctively liberal notion of civil society, assures citizens that government is committed to attend to their complaints on a more or less individualized basis, and avoids excessive reliance on top-down regulation.6

States also implemented different procedures to evaluate the compensation and blame. Where few states incorporate comparative negligence, there are few with the contributory negligence law. These different procedures give whole new perspective to the justice, where in one state the financial recovery is affected, in other the blame can be shifted totally on minor. Having different laws begets the loop holes in judiciary and provides opportunity to defend, which sometimes results as injustice.

This principle has been restricted by many exceptions: Failure leads to criminality about it, if the statute law is merely said that a success "caused" to be. But also in the field of law is not fixed common-law -crime several exceptions are discussed:

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom’s decision in Mohamud represents a subtle yet fundamental change to the area of vicarious liability. Vicarious liability derives from a combination of legal principles and judicial discretion. It is not the result of a clearly developed, logical legal principle . The moving landscape of vicarious liability, as evidenced in Mohamud, can be attributed largely to the courts desire to protect vulnerable plaintiffs. This has occurred by liberal application of existing legal principles and expansive use of judicial discretion.

The purpose of this assignment is to discuss the creation and application the case law resulting from the decision in Donoghue v Stevenson . This decision is often cited in relation to the tort of negligence and a duty of care. As such it could be misunderstood as being the preeminent case for the principles of negligence or duty of care alone. It is however the landmark precedent case for the tort of negligence outside of a contract when taking into account ‘duty of care’ and the ‘neighbour priciple’.

Perhaps the greatest insight provided by my colleague's discussion is the deconstruction of the process by which the concept of negligence did ultimately emerge as a new tort standard. Here, the discussion illustrates the challenge before a judicial body when a legal conflict appears to bring about a new and previously unforeseen point of contention. In this case, as my colleague highlights so effectively, the charge of fraud would be the only theretofore existent way of legally addressing liability for a business or organization such as the defendant in this case. The great insight provided by my colleague is in acknowledgement of the exhaustive review of existing legal documents engaged by the ruling parties and arguing parties. This process demonstrates well that even where no precedent existing for what would become the charge of negligence,