Common law rules

Since each court individually chose how to define piracy and determine who was a pirate, and lacking a ubiquitous and clear procedure to guide justices, predictably, the application of these determinants were haphazard and unpredictable. This extreme environment of uncertainty meant that neither sailors nor government officials knew for certain if these aggressive maritime actions were an illegal, or at the very least, a hangable offense. So why did the crown and Parliament allow such ambiguity…

The Australian Consumer Law (ACL), common law and equity play essential roles in enforcing the appropriate standards of conduct in contractual dealings in Australia. The ACL is consumer protection legislation that sets the appropriate standard of conduct required in commercial dealings of trade or commerce. Common law and equity ensure appropriate standards are adhered to in all transactions not covered by this legislation. Common law is also important in interpreting some of the broader…

Price has filed a negligence lawsuit against the hospital due the event he went through, of his good leg getting amputated due to the careless of the hospitals staff. Prior to this event the hospital installed rules and regulations that was installed into place. Every other surgery the doctors make sure that they have a pre-surgical check-list that they use for this purpose. Everyone has to initial the area confirming that they are about to perform surgery on…

During the 17th century in the Colonial period early Americans didn’t have any suited rules, or laws to protect themselves from criminal behavior. During those years Americans developed their own mechanisms to then enforce the rules of society as well as punishing offenders. Today those are taken over by the police, courts, and corrections. Before any former laws were established in the United States, Americans relied on religion and sins to improve people’s life. That’s why many of their…

Legalism was based off a fixed system of laws that defined a specific fixed penalty for each certain offense. Legalism had no bias or changing of the penalties, no matter what class or circumstances, there wasn’t even an exception for the ruler who was considered to be above the law. While working a case judges had to find out what the crime was and then the punishment was given immediately, since penalties were fixed. On page 59, when Judge Dee begins to suspect Mrs. Djou of killing her…

In the article written by Mike O’Mara, a defense lawyer, O’Mara lays out his opinions on how awful the case of Ethan Couch, the affluenza teen, turned out. He described, in a very cynical tone, how taken aback he was when the defense gave their argument, and what made it worse is that the judge lessened Couch’s sentence because he was to rich and spoiled to know right from wrong. O’Mara alluded to other cases he believed did deserve a break showing how this teen responsible for killing four was…

Law is much like a vessel; it helps society remain afloat and functioning through means of justice, equality and higher authority. The importance it possesses in enforcing jurisdictions – alongside the diversity in areas of everyday life in which law influences – is why it is the career I seek to pursue. Exposure to cases such as the Oscar Pistorius trial reaffirmed my interest as avidly following hearings underlined significant differences within penial systems. Studying law would provide me a…

Critical Book Review: Case Critical by Ben Carniol Ben Carniol’s book, Case Critical: Social Services and Justice in Canada, is an exploratory piece of literature that presents a detailed picture of Canada’s social welfare system, through the viewpoints of social workers and, more significantly, social service users. Carniol offers an examination of the challenges and barriers faced by structural social workers within social service organizations in Canada. The use of personal and external…

In his article, “Paternalism and the Ill-Informed Agent,” Jason Hanna refutes the anti-paternalist’s use of the ignorance exception to justify intervention on the ill-informed agent’s behalf. As Hanna sees it, the use of the ignorance exception does not provide the anti-paternalist with any more justification to intervene on the ill-informed agent’s behalf than the justification used by the paternalist to intervene on the fully-informed agent’s behalf. If this is the case, there is no reason for…

As the trier of law, the Judge is obligated to weigh the competing needs of society, and conclude in a manner that results in the most justifiable satisfaction. However, due to the polar requirements of different individuals, the court may not be able to please every member of society. This juxtaposition of society’s needs is displayed in the case of R v Howard, where, although actus reus was proved, justice was not had for the accused, showcasing the nuance of law in Canada. On October 17,…