a.Paraphrase what the patient tells you, to ensure you understand. b.Remain silent for 15 seconds each time the patient speaks, to ensure everything has been said. c.Kneel down so that your face is below the patient’s, to demonstrate your willingness to listen. d.Move your body as close as you can to the patient’s, to provide emotional support when the patient speaks. 25.
Unlike other lawsuit cases that involve a slave suing his master this one was different. Mum Bett challenged the very existence of slavery in Massachusetts. Her argument was that slavery violated the most basic principle of the American Revolution that all human beings were created equal. Mum Betts argument was very powerful and she won her court case. Mum Betts victory spread across the nation and within two decades every state in the north was on the road to abolishing slavery.
It must be positive and not passive meaning that the party accepting the contract must actively accept an offer and he or she cannot accept the offer by doing nothing. In Felthouse v Bindley (1862), the court held that there was no acceptance because there was no communication between F and B. It shows that silence does not fulfill the communication requirements of acceptance. Lastly, acceptance must be unqualified. In other words, an introduction of new terms leads to counter offer and as a result there is a revocation to the original offer.
In Haynes v. Harwood, the defendant’s servants negligently left a horse van unattended in a crowded street. The throwing of stones at the horses by a child, made them bolt and a policeman was injured in an attempt to stop them with a view to rescuing the woman and children on the road. One of the defences pleaded by the defendant was novus actus interveniens, or remoteness of consequences, i.e., the mischief of the child was the proximate cause and the negligence of the defendant’s servants was the remote cause. It was held that the defendant was liable even though the horses had bolted when a child threw stones on them, because such a mischief on the part of the children was anticipated. “It is not true to say that where the plaintiff has
According to Section 2(b) of the Contracts Act specifies that when the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted: a proposal, when accepted, becomes a promise. Acceptance may be communicated, that is oral or in written form, and intimated from the conduct of the offeree. An acceptance should likewise conform to specific rules before it gets to be substantial and enforceable. Unless the proposer objects, failure to accept in detailed form refutes the acceptance. Section 7(a) also states that the acceptance must be absolute and inadequate which implies that the intention of the offeree to accept must be unmistakably understood with certainty, from his conduct.
Silence is not an acceptance. Acceptance must be communicated to the offeror. It is because he posted an advertisement in newspaper for a reward of $2000 for any Person who could return the dog to him, so it is belonged to acceptance of unilateral contract. Quote the case Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company  To sum up, Mary is entitled to gain $ 2000 as a reward legally. 1b) Consideration
The owner was the bidder and defendant knocked down the horse to the owner for 61 guineas. The Plaintiff sued in court that the horse must be his because he was the highest bid. As the result, the courts held that the seller cannot bid and the horse offered must selling to the highest
For instance, the contract exists once the offeree accepted the offer by replying the telex communication. In contrary, an agreement without communication is not enforceable. In this case, Felthouse (plaintiff) wished to buy a horse from his nephew and the offered stated the horse is belonging to him if no reply as an open offer. But then the auctioneer sold the horse negligently and Felthouse sued the auctioneer but failed because silence could not constitute to an acceptance. Despite this, silence is not sufficient to create as an acceptance to the offer, but communication of acceptance is not always essential where Machon Paull (defendant) did not sign the building contract which is offered by the Empirenall (plaintiff) who was a property developer but it constituted to acceptance since the defendant had received the benefit from the plaintiff although they just silent (WikiLaw