Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
According to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), this motion is not debatable and requires a two-thirds vote against consideration. [2] This objection may be applied only to an original main motion, that is, a motion that brings a new substantive issue before the assembly. [ 2 ]
Consideration may move from the promisee or any other person. Under Indian law, consideration may be from the promisee of any other person i.e., even a stranger. This means that as long as there is consideration for the promisee, it is immaterial who has furnished it. Consideration must be an act, abstinence or forbearance or a returned promise.
The leading case is Stilk v Myrick (1809), [3] where a captain promised 8 crew the wages of two deserters provided the remainders completed the voyage. The shipowner refused to honour the agreement; the court deemed the eight crew were unable to enforce the deal as they had an existing obligation to sail the ship and meet "ordinary foreseeable emergencies".
In parliamentary procedure, using Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), the motion to consider by paragraph (or consider seriatim) is used to consider separately the different parts of a report or long motion consisting of a series of resolutions, paragraphs, articles, or sections that are not totally separate questions.
A contract will be formed (assuming the other requirements for a legally binding contract are met) when the parties give objective manifestation of an intent to form the contract. Because offer and acceptance are necessarily intertwined, in California (US), offer and acceptance are analyzed together as subelements of a single element, known ...
A sample argument using objections. Some argument mapping conventions allow for perspicuous representation of inferences. [12] In the following diagram, box 2.1 represents an inference, labeled with the inference rule modus ponens. [12] An argument map with 'modus ponens' in the inference box. An inference can be the target of an objection.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action in student admissions.The Court held that a student admissions process that favors "underrepresented minority groups" did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause so long as it took into account other factors evaluated on an individual ...
University of Melbourne Creative Arts student, Rosalie Delaney, claimed the university was censoring students' artworks critical of the Melbourne's new teaching model, saying universities should "be a bastion of free speech and critical thought and questioning of structures and authority", describing their alleged actions as "appalling ...