Analysis This case resulted in an explicit rejection of economic substantive due process. The Court overruled the holding in Adkins and changed the way the Court viewed state regulatory powers. The Court replaced substantive due process with a rational basis test that assumes the constitutionality of economic legislation and assigns responsibility to the law’s challengers to show there is not rational basis between the law and a legitimate government function. I disagree with the majority that the that this Washington state minimum wage requirement passes beyond the broad protective powers of the state. The decision in Adkins should have served as binding precedent and the Court should have held the law to be unconstitutional as well.
Is past consideration regarded as adequate and sufficient when determining the validity of a contract? B. LAW Doctrine of promissory estoppel In contract law, it is a general rule that where a party to the contract makes a representation in form of a promise to another party relating to the contract, such party is restrained from reneging regardless of nonexistence of consideration (Jill, 2012, p. 148). The doctrine was espoused in Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd  KB 130. It requires of the promisor to honour a unilateral promise he made to the promisee who is not required to pay consideration from in certain circumstances.
Discussion: The Act as a simple mechanism Avoiding Inconsistency: inconvenience in commercial life and other legal actions By acknowledging right of TPs have in contracts, where benefit is intended to confer on them, The Act helped to limit inconsistency in cases. For example, in Bourne v Mason, TP was allowed to enforce promise in contract, contradicting to Price v. Easton, where plaintiff could not recover. In these cases, even reasoning varied in judgments. Such inconvenience greatly affects the commercial life. Barrister and Law professor Stephen Guest criticized that "…it undermines the social interest of the community in the security of bargains and it is commercially inconvenient" .
Caleb Stephens April 15, 2017 Introduction to Philosophy The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Philippa Foot’s objection, raised to her own argument against utilitarianism, is correct. Her initial thesis is that benevolence, while the foundation of utilitarianism, is an internal end of morality, rather than the ultimate end of morality. The possible objection to this that there must be some overarching reason behind morality, which must imply a form of consequentialism. The response she offers is that there should be some other form of morality, which is a weak argument, as it does not provide an alternate conception of morality itself. The context of the paper is discussion of why utilitarianism is consistently appealing.
Nozick's Counter-Argument to the Principle of Fairness In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick takes up a counter-argument against Herbert Hart's “principle of fairness”1 Nozick contends that the general framework of Hart's principle of fairness, is incoherent, because it produces special obligations that force others to behave as if they were obligated under a presupposition of a right, in general, not to be coerced. Nozick explains this as, On the face of it enforcing the principle of fairness is objectionable. You may not decide to give me something, for example a book, and then grab money from me to pay for it, even if I have nothing better to spend the money on.2 Prima facie, this counter-argument intuitively seems correct. As an example, consider the wearing of a remembrance poppy on Memorial and Veteran's Days. In the days prior to these “holidays,” there are always volunteers at the entrances and exits of nearly all commercial venues.
Das would have to prove that he gave some sort of consideration to Ali to keep the offer open and if Das has taken a bank loan, the court may consider it as a valid consideration. Otherwise, the agreement does not stand according to the law. Therefore, Das cannot have any legal action against
Using Kant’s notion of a maxim it would be wrong to cheat on the final exam in a course that you do not like and feel you will not benefit from. In the book it stated this, “Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) argued that lying is wrong under any circumstances. He did not appeal to religion; instead, he held that lying is forbidden by reason itself” (Rachels 129). This shows that no matter what the situation may be that lying is looked down upon. He believed that every rational person should believe the Categorical Imperative.
Assignment: Laws 7100 Abstract Before Donohue v Stevenson was decided in 1932 it was unclear whether the transferor of a product owed any duty of care to the ultimate receiver of the goods. It was taken as a matter of fact that there was a clear absence of contractual agreement between the parties and therefore no Duty of Care. The only Duty of Care implied was if the goods were in a class of “Dangerous Chattels” (the privity of contract fallacy 10-2) or if the goods in question were known to the transferor as being dangerous. (Langridge V Levy (1837).) The problem with this framework was not only the fact that ultimate receiver of the goods and the purchaser of the goods were often different individuals, but also in the confusion of the classification of Dangerous Goods.
Antigone Essay When unjust laws exist, it is up to us for to decide if we are satisfied to be under such obedience or if we should either go beyond the bounds of moral principle if we find it to be a justifiable reason. Many, such as Henry David Thoreau, express that we should rather put our priorities in front and break an unjust law for it is the fault of an inequitable government who should provide for reform. If the law is unjust to such an extent, then we should go beyond and disobey that law. The boundaries of law should not be followed if it comes to the point if we wonder if we are treated as humans or subjects.We are loyal to the government, but if the government is not loyal to us, then we should take it as an leeway to break the law. We break the law, knowing that there will be consequences afterwards and that we should willingly accept the discipline, following civil disobedience.