Williamson’s employment? Was this even battery at all? The plaintiffs did not want that to be the case, as there is a law preventing personal lawsuits against federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. Holding: The trial court has determined that Mr. Williamson was outside of the scope of his employment. The appellate court however, determined that he was within the scope of his employment and this cannot be sued personally.
They also determine the court made a mistake as difficulty of the law by definition; the plaintiff is independently liable for the judgment against OPL, a limited liability partnership preceding an alter-ego viewpoint. Therefore, the judgment should be reversed, and return to the courts for issuance of a statement of verdict and a new judgment should be made. They did not reached the dispute of whether significant evidence supported the court 's discovery that the plaintiff stands as the alter ego of OPI. The plaintiff may possibly be judged to have contributed in the governing of OPL simply because he implemented his responsibilities as president of OPI or because he may have represented as an indemnity for, or loan funds to, OPL. Furthermore, nothing in the records suggests that the plaintiff, in his capability as a limited partnership, should be held accountable for OPL 's partnership
“Time to Assert” contains several opinion based facts within the argument when describing how to deal with crime. Within “Time to Assert,” it comments, “A case like Michael Fay’s is important because it provides a chance to challenge an inhumane practice that ought not to exist anywhere” (Time to Assert 179). This quote from the editorial illustrates no true factual evidence and supports more of a biased argument that is heavily based on the editors opinions. The editorial implies no evidence that effectively helps with supporting the argument. According to “Time to Assert,” it explains, “The Fay case provides a legitimate opening for American citizens and companies to bring political and economic pressure to bear in the propagation of freedom and basic rights” (Time to Assert 180).
This is so that judicial members can make decisions without fear of consequences. The Tribunal Vice-chair’s decision to refuse Mrs. Ferjo’s previous adjournment was protected under The Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22. In addition the tribunal brought up the fact that Under Rule 13.1 of its Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal was able to dismiss an application that it had no jurisdiction over. Judicial immunity and judicial independence prohibited the tribunal of having the jurisdiction to review Mrs. Ferjo’s
The unanticipated events did not make the performance impossible, but rather potentially delayed it to a later date. Reasons For Judgment: In Folia v. Relenski (1997), 14 R.P.R. (3d) 5 (B.C.S.C)., the test for frustration is states: “…The Disruption must be permanent, not temporary or transient. The change must totally affect the nature, meaning, purpose, effect and consequence of the contract so far as concerns either or both parties.” There is no indication that the unanticipated circumstances changed the nature of the contract or made it impossible to perform, and therefore frustrated. There was nothing explicitly stated within the contract that required a timely flight either.
Part one: I strongly believe that judge Foster’s view is more persuasive. The judges should take into consideration the legislative intent when judges interpret and apply statutes due to the fact that words do not always show the intent that the legislative branch had when it created a statute. As a result, the goal of the statute will not be reached. The fact that words sometimes do not convey the real message of it is really important when it comes to criminal system. It will never be fair to punish a person when the judge knows that the words existing in the statute are not what the legislative branch intended to punish.
In the “Ethics of Belief,” William Clifford argues against pragmatic justification for religious belief in saying that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” Clifford provides a thought experiment exemplifying the immorality of belief without sufficient evidence with an allegory about a parsimonious ship owner, who refrains from shelling out for necessary repairs his ship needs. Suppressing his doubts, he forms a genuine belief that his ship is sea-worthy, rather than going through the costly process of checking it and making the necessary repairs; as Clifford put it, “he got his insurance-money when she went down mid-ocean and told no tales” Clifford explains that the negligent ship owner is culpable for the accident, not because his belief that the ship was sound turned out to be false, but because his reasoning was based on emotions instead of the evidence before him. He was not justified in his belief so he is responsible for the lives lost with the ship. According to Clifford, even if the ship had survived the voyage and had been able to safely sail for many years to come, the owner would have been just as liable for his belief since it was founded on upon insufficient evidence. The lack of negative outcome does not absolve the owner of his negligence, but only hides the fact.
Eradication of the identities of marginalized groups infringes upon freedom. If everyone were the same on all levels then there would be an absence of freedom, because it would be frowned upon to be different. Although it is clear in the Rodney King scenario that the officer initiated the act and did not represent himself well in a place of authority, it didn’t seem to matter to the hierarchy of the court system. Furthermore, imagined violence is a possible place of power for those who cannot actually commit violence, even when it is continuously
Now, the court cannot deliver a judgement solely on the principles of corrective justice as that would be completely unfair. The court also has to take into account other factors such as the situation in which the poor boy was on the basis of humanitarian grounds. Similarly, in the present case of Shylock and Antonio the court of duke cannot solely consider the terms and conditions of the contract as Antonio had no intension to cause monetary harm to