Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
1 if more voters strictly prefer candidate i to candidate j than prefer j to i 1 / 2 if the numbers are equal; 0 if more voters prefer j to i than prefer i to j. This may be called the "1/ 1 ⁄ 2 /0" method (one number for wins, ties, and losses, respectively). By convention, r ii is 0. The Copeland score for candidate i is the sum ...
According to Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure, the purpose of the objection to consideration is to bar from discussion or consideration "any matter that is considered irrelevant, contentious or unprofitable, or that, for any reason, is thought not advisable to discuss." [3]
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.
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.
(Jury Trial-Morning Session)XIII - February 11, 2015 Pledger v. Janssen 1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 2 CIVIL TRIAL
This page was last edited on 13 September 2023, at 02:33 (UTC).; Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License; additional terms may apply.
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 ...
Another example is the D.C. Circuit Court's 2007 ruling in Abigail Alliance v. von Eschenbach that compelling government interest was demonstrated in the restriction of unapproved prescription drugs. [1] The burden of proof falls on the state in cases that require strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny, but not the rational basis.