The supreme court of United States was established by the constitution and served with the responsibility of hearing appellate cases from the federal circuit courts of appeal, as well as appeals from federal district circuit courts but under certain circumstances. Within this court, only the evidence used in other cases is reviewed. The Supreme Court seeks to prove whether any error occurred in the rulings made by the lower courts. Further, the process of making a decision is quite long and requires a decision from the congress, which is allowed to establish new rules. This could be quite discouraging to people who want to have their cases reviewed. Further, the cases to be heard are decided upon by the justices. The process involved filing for a certiorari, in which the petitioner asks the Supreme Court to hear the case. After the case is chosen, the court issues a writ of certiorari.
However, considering that the court issues about 100 opinions every year, writs of certiorari are only issued to cases that concern constitutional matters and other important matters, which mean very few of the cases that apply for a certiorari are considered. Other matters could be important to the people as well, but fail to go to the Supreme Court. Therefore, many of the cases that file for review by the Supreme Court are not considered, and some may take a long time before they are reviewed. Considering that the Supreme Court will give priority to some cases, other cases should not be ignored. It would therefore be good to establish another supreme court in order to have more cases reviewed or others reviewed twice. If a supreme court would not be possible, some of the Supreme Court’s jurisdictions could be delegated to some of the courts at a lower level in order to have more of the cases reviewed. However, this would require changing or adding characteristics of supreme courts to the other courts. Establishing another supreme court represents the best option in order to issue more opinions. Additionally, this would reduce the amount of time it takes before a case is reviewed.
In the case of mark and Mary, the parole evidence could be used to show that the evidence used does not represent a full agreement. According to the parole rule, before a contract is written down the parties have to have come to an agreement after negotiations. In this case, the two parties had already agreed to the contract, except that one party did not sign the document. Lack of signing of the documents could be used to mean she had not agreed to the contract. Both parties were supposed to assign their signatures as proof of agreement. Otherwise, one party could not be a proof that an agreement occurred. Additionally, it is a requirement that in formation of a contract where both parties have the intention to be bound should amend their signature.
Additionally, there was no sufficient writing considering the agreement did stated that the cost would be $30,000 but got too complicated. In this case, the agreement had failed to state the complexity of the design of the room.
Under the parole evidence, Mary’s word cannot prove that she had agreed to the plans since a written contract states that words out of a written contract are not admissible in any court. Under the parole rule, only several cases are exempted from the parole evidence. These include cases where the contract is void or misrepresented, it seeks to explain a language that is ambiguous, fills some gaps in a contract, or corrects an error, probably clerical. In this case, not all these apply, which makes the parole evidence provided by Mary inadmissible to the agreement. The fact it was written means that no parole would be admissible.
An agency contract of relationship is a case where the principal confers certain rights to another person, the agent, to act on his or her behalf. The rights of the agent as well as the principal are guided by the express as well as implied terms of the agreement. For the agreement to be in existence, both parties have to be aware or have consent to the agreements both expressed and implied. The principal must intend to allow the agent to act on his behalf, while the agent must be ready to accept as per the authority. The agreement can either be inferred out of the conduct of both parties, or expressly stated. Precisely, there has to be one party with authority to control or oversee the activities of rights of another person for a contract to exist.
In the formation of an agency, the principle appoints the agent through an express agreement, which could be oral or written. The agent can agree to work under a consideration or a form of payment for services or work under gratuitous where there is no consideration for his or her reward. In a general perspective, the agency applies even when the agents are appointed for signing on behalf of the principal for the sale of goods including immovable goods. However, where an intermediary is used in a negotiation, agency depends on the intention of both parties. Therefore, a part from the aforementioned conditions, there has to be consent and intention of both parties to play the role agreed.
In the case of Jan and Ann, the first agreement of Ann acting as the agent means she has been appointed by Jan, which is one way of forming a contract of agency. Additionally, both parties have agreed to the terms of the agreement, where Ann will be negotiating for the house on behalf of the principal, in this case Jan. However, they further agree that Ann will have no authority to make any decision concerning the purchase of the house. Rather, Jan will make the decision on her own behalf, which eliminates the authority an agent is supposed to have. It is a requirement in agency that one has the authority to make a decision in the property of another person. In this case, the agency has no authority to make any decision, which means it cannot be an agency.
A frolic occurs when an employee departs from working for the employer in pursuit of his or her own interests for a long time or to a significant level. On the other hand, detour occurs when an employee deviates from the employer’s course of work for a short time that may not be significant. Under frolic, any damages caused by the employee do not affect the employer or the employer is not held liable. However, under detour the employer is held liable for any damages caused by the employee during the time he or she is in pursuit of his own business interests. Detour does not make sense considering the employee is acting under his or her own interests; it remains unfair to make the employer liable. In this regard, it does not make sense.
The frolic and detour rule is subject to manipulation considering it depends on external proof whether the employee committed frolic or detour. It would require external sources to determine whether it was a frolic or detour. Additionally, the fact that under detour, the employer will be held liable for damages caused would encourage the employers to prove it was a detour while it might have been a frolic. More so, the base for proof depends on the motivational intention of the employer or the Respondeat superior. This is hard to prove since it would not be obvious to find out the intention behind a person’s actions. The method of proof states that an employer is liable for tort given that the employee was acting within the scope of employment even if the means and methods chosen were not right or appropriate. Additionally, this makes is hard to interpret since it is supposed to cover for risks involved wit business operations. For instance, it a truck driver deviated from the main road t pursue his own businesses with an intention of finishing the delivery later, it would be hard to prove it was not a normal need such as to buy some basic goods.
Many people find themselves in hard financial situations that make them consider filing for bankruptcy. There are two options in bankruptcy, one under chapter seven while the other one is under chapter 13. Under chapter 7, the assets of the bankruptcy trustee are sold except for the exempted assets. After the assets are sold, the money or proceeds are used to pay off some of the debts or all of them if it would be possible. This means that one will lose much of his or her assets. However, after the assets are sold, it does not matter whether all the debts are paid. The unpaid debts will be cleared.
On the other hand, under chapter 13 one can have an option of paying the debts within a certain amount of time until they are fully cleared. This is an easier option for paying ones debts. However, in order to file under chapter 13, one has to proof a strategy in which they intend to use in order to repay up their debts. This requires one to have a steady income from where one can pledge to pay a certain part of it every month. However, the income has to be assessed in order to determine the ability of paying up the debt, where it is compared to a state’s median income level as well as allowable expenses.
In this case, Mary has a steady income that could be used to pay her debts. Although chapter 13 leaves her with a long-term obligation, it will allow her to keep her assets unlike filing bankruptcy under chapter 7, where all her assets could be sold, which is what she does not want. Therefore, Mary could consider the two options, but considering she does not want to lose everything, chapter 13 would be a better choice than chapter 7.
The law is quite clear about discrimination especially in employment where it protects discrimination against age. The antidiscrimination law says that discrimination based on age when it comes to programs that are funded by the federal government is prohibited. It further allows ages to be distinguished as opposed to an age that meets the requirements of the act. Further, the antidiscrimination law on employment prevents the discrimination of certain people, those who are above the age of 40 years based on their age. The law clearly indicates that it would be unlawful to deny people above the age of 40 years employment based on their age alone as long as they are qualified. The first law does not apply to the advertisement considering the car dealership is not funded by the government.
However, the issue is different in this case, where it requires an experience of 40 years, which means the preferred candidate, should be more than 58 years old, having been a driver since he or she was 18 years of age. The advertisement clearly eliminates people who are below this age. Although the act does not protect against people who are below 40 years of age, people above the age of 40 and below 58 are discriminated. Although according to the ant discriminatory law the advertisement has not discriminated anybody based on his or her age, there is something wrong with the advertisement. The advertisement states 40 years of experience and not below or above 40 years. The dealership should have reasons for this requirement. If there are no reasons for such a requirement, then it has discriminated some of the people who are protected under the indiscrimination law.