Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Mere silence is not fraud. a contracting party is not obliged to disclose each and everything to the other party. There are two exceptions where even mere silence may be fraud, one is where there is a duty to speak, then keeping silence is fraud. or when silence is in itself equivalent to speech, such silence is fraud. 4.
Ordinary contracts do not require "good faith" as such, [20] and mere compliance with the law is sufficient. However in particular relationships silence may form the basis of an actionable misrepresentation: [21] [22] Agents have a fiduciary relationship with their principal. They must make proper disclosure and must not make secret profits. [23]
The insured need not mention what the under-writer ought to know; what he takes upon himself the knowledge of; or what he waives being informed of. The under-writer needs not be told what lessens the risque agreed and understood to be run by the express terms of the policy. He needs not to be told general topics of speculation.
In the Nigerian Criminal Code, the same offence is covered by article 419, which has now lent its name to the advance fee fraud. [6] The title of two popular Hindi films – Chachi 420 (in English: Trickster Aunt, a 1997 remake of Mrs. Doubtfire) and Shri 420 (in English: Mr. 420, a 1955 film) – are direct references to Section 420 of the IPC.
I created and run the nation’s first school for college and university presidents with roughly 100 participants a year for over ten years and find they value this part of their job, even if it ...
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts slammed what he described as “dangerous” talk by some officials about ignoring federal court rulings, using an annual report weeks before President ...
Mr Trump began exploiting that dynamic at his civil fraud trial only a few doors down from the criminal courthouse, where a months-long proceeding gave him ample access to a stable of ...
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that, unless and until a criminal suspect explicitly states that they are relying on their right to remain silent, their voluntary statements may be used in court and police may continue to question them.