Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Copeland's method falls in the class of Condorcet methods, as any candidate who wins every one-on-one election will clearly have the most victories overall. [1] Copeland's method has the advantage of being likely the simplest Condorcet method to explain and of being easy to administer by hand.
Copeland v Greenhalf [1952] Ch 488 is an English property law case establishing that excessive use of another's land cannot be granted by way of an easement. The defendant claimed that he held a prescriptive right to leave an unlimited number of cars on his neighbour's land, by way of such a right having existed for some fifty years previously.
As an example, he described a person considering whether to take an apple out of a basket without being greedy. If the only two options available are "take the apple" or "don't take the apple", this person may conclude that there is only one apple left and so refrain from taking the last apple as they don't want to be greedy.
Example of past consideration is, A renders some service to B at latter's desire. After a month B promises to compensate A for service rendered to him earlier. When consideration is given simultaneously with promise, it is said to be present consideration. For example, A receives Rs.50/- in return for which he promises to deliver certain goods ...
[2] [3] [4] "Past consideration is no consideration": consideration must be "executory" or "executed", but not "past"; that is, consideration must be supplied in the present or in the future, but things done beforehand cannot be good consideration. [5] ex nudo pacto actio non oritur; Dyer's case (1414) 2 Hen. 5, 5 Pl. 26
Thus whether $1.00 is consideration does not depend on the benefit received but whether the $1.00 had actually been bargained for. In some [clarification needed] jurisdictions, contracts calling for such nominal or "peppercorn" consideration will be upheld unless a particular contract is deemed unconscionable.
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".
The issue as to whether resources are a relevant consideration in the field of public service provision is said to be a "particularly difficult" one. [33] Whether resources are a relevant consideration in each case depends on the wording of the relevant statutory provisions, and how the court reads the overall legislative scheme. [33] [34]