Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
Copeland's Senate Subcommittee on Crime found that up to 25% of the federal money paid for labor under prevailing wage rates was actually returned by the wage-earner as a kickback to the employing contractor or subcontractor, or to government officials. [1] Copeland proposed the bill, S. 3041, with a brief statement in the Senate on April 26 ...
Easements in English law are certain rights in English land law that a person has over another's land. Rights recognised as easements range from very widespread forms of rights of way, most rights to use service conduits such as telecommunications cables, power supply lines, supply pipes and drains, rights to use communal gardens and rights of light to more strained and novel forms.
The Anti-Kickback Enforcement Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99–634, 100 Stat. 3523, enacted November 7, 1986, originally codified at 41 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., recodified at 41 U.S.C. ch. 87) modernized and closed the loopholes of previous statutes applying to government contractors.
The Copeland score under the 1/0/−1 method is the number of net wins, maximized by Nashville. Since the voters expressed a preference one way or the other between every pair of candidates, the score under the 1/ + 1 / 2 /0 method is just the number of wins, likewise maximized by Nashville.
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.
In parliamentary procedure, an objection to the consideration of a question is a motion that is adopted to prevent an original main motion from coming before the assembly. This motion is different from an objection to a unanimous consent request.
According to Currie v Misa, [1] consideration for a particular promise exists where some right, interest, profit or benefit accrues (or will accrue) to the promisor as a direct result of some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility that has been given, suffered or undertaken by the promisee. Forbearance to act amounts to consideration ...