Case Of Collier V P & MJ Wright

The appellants complain that the tax court fail to apply debt-equity principles. The secondary inquiry cannot be reached unless the first question concerning whether an economic

breach of express and implied contracts based on the theory of promoter liability. The courts

Promisee must incur a detriment or confer a benefit on the promisor (Currie v Misa).

The Supreme Court does a great deal for our nation today. Everyday they work on ongoing cases, making some very difficult decisions. One of these cases is the case of Timothy Carpenter, who believes it was unconstitutional when the FBI searched his cell phone records without a warrant.

In the case of the State of North Carolina v. Lester Gerard Packingham, the question of whether a state can restrict sex offender’s from being on social media sites without restricting their constitutional rights is played out. Lester Packingham is a registered sex offender who was caught having a Facebook website profile even though it is against North Carolina state law. This paper will explore the constitutionality of N.C. Gen Stat. § 14–202.5 (2011) and will analyze the legal opinions of this case from both the Court of Appeals of North Carolina and Supreme Court of North Carolina and make an educated decision on whether the Supreme Court of North Carolina’s decision should be upheld or reversed.

As per the Dictionary alter ego is “a corporation, organization or other entity set up to provide a legal shield for the person actually controlling the operation”. However, the definition of the “alter ego theory of liability”, per the Jones v. Lowry case is that the court can pierce the corporate veil and “hold one or more individual shareholders liable for bad acts”. Corporations, partnerships and limited liabilities businesses is primarily set-up to protect individuals from having their personal finances and income affected by the decision of other owners’ business decisions. In addition, it provides a separation or cushion for the stockholders.

FACTS: In June 1966 a jury found defendant Stillman E. Wilbur, Jr., guilty of murder.

We discussed the recent mob uprising and the state of unrest in the community. It was the judgment of all present that the life of the defendant, even if the wrong man, could not be saved; that an appeal would so inflame the public that the jail would be attacked and perhaps other prisoners executed by violence. In the opinion of all of us a case was presented where the defendant, now that he had been convicted by a jury, must die by the judgment of the law, or else, if his case were appealed, he would die by the act of the uprising of the people (Pfeifer, “United”).

Hedley Byrne & Co LTD v Heller and Partners LTD [1963] 2 All ER 5

A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Before going any further one should briefly understand the doctrine of Consideration. Despite the vast amount of content written, the doctrine of consideration is still to this day unclear due to the inconsistency of the courts and its application of necessary rules. Consideration refers to that which the law deems as valuable in that the promisor receives from the promise that which was promised. In other words, it is the exchange of something of value between the parties in a contract. One should be mindful that in English law, every promise may not be legally enforceable; it requires the court to distinguish between are enforceable and non-enforceable obligations. This brings us to the controversial cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v the Roffery brothers. Many argue that that the case of Williams was wrongly decided leading to impairments in the rule initially established in Stilk v Myrick. This essay seek to analyse and critique the cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey Brothers and also highlight whether or not the new rule of Practical benefit lead to serious impairments in later cases.

In this article, Justine Kirby (2000) analyzes the basic law, section 11 of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979, and acknowledged routines for "exchanging" commitments, and after

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

Proprietary estoppel, on the other hand, is a “legal bar preventing a (first) party from denying another (second) party's right in first party's property where the second party has incurred costs in that property to its detriment”. Proprietary estoppel, like other types of estoppel, is not a remedy in itself but a tool to raise “estoppel equity”, on the basis of which the court is able to decide on the type of remedy that this equity will satisfy. Similarly to the need for the element of common intention for the purpose of establishing a constructive trust, there is a need for the establishment of an active or passive assurance on the part of the defendant that leads to some form of consequential detriment on the part of the claimant when acting in reliance on that assurance. Thus, there must be a causal connection between the actions undertaken by the claimant and the initial assurance on the part of the defendant. The extent and the nature of the detriment suffered by the claimant, however, appears to be substantially more flexible than that necessary to find the existence of a constructive trust. For example, in Inwards v Baker [1965], such detriment amounted to the improvement of the defendant’s land, while in Gillett v Holt [2001] it was manifested in both financial and personal detriment. Yet unlike in most cases involving common intention constructive trusts, in neither of

The court of appeal in Akindele briefly referred to a new approach to the personal liability of a recipient known as the unjust enrichment approach. This approach does not disregard the issue of dishonesty entirely, rather it restricts the issue of dishonesty to the application of the change of position defence in that only an innocent recipient can avail themselves of this defence .

Hair Connection: Officers found hair clenched in the victim's hand, that was sent to a lab in Texas to be tested. The DNA showed that the hair belonged to Frank wright who was listed as a suspect, because an outside witness had seen Wright and Anagnos fighting in the bar earlier that day.