Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
It is common for a person seeking the services of a lawyer (attorney) to pay a retainer ("retainer fee") to the lawyer, to see a case through to its conclusion. [2] A retainer can be a single advance payment or a recurring (e.g. monthly) payment. Absent an agreement to the contrary, a retainer fee is refundable if the work is not performed. [3]
Retainage is a portion of the agreed upon contract price deliberately withheld until the work is complete to assure that contractor or subcontractor will satisfy its obligations and complete a construction project. [1]
The Constitution of Australia contains no specific provision permitting the Commonwealth Parliament to pass bills of attainder. The High Court of Australia has ruled that bills of attainder are unconstitutional, because it is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine for any body to wield judicial power other than a Chapter III court—that is, a body exercising power derived from ...
Legal professional rules have tended to adopt the broad view of the scope of duty recognised in contract law. The obligation to retain information in confidence, according to the professional rules in Australian jurisdictions is premised on its connection with the legal retainer rather than the source of the information. Hence, the professional ...
Retainer agreement, a contract in which an employer pays in advance for work, to be secured or specified later, when required; Domestic worker or servant, especially one who has been with one family for a long time (chiefly British English) Affinity (medieval), also Retinue, a person or group gathered around in the service of a lord
In the court case S.J. Amoroso Construction Co. v. U.S., 26 Cl. Ct. 759 (1992), Judge Plager wrote an opinion suggesting that the court had used the Christian Doctrine to resolve a case that could have been resolved more satisfactorily using other legal principles. He argued for very limited use of the Christian Doctrine based on the following ...
The $32 billion implosion that sent the second-largest crypto empire, FTX, into bankruptcy, is now also a criminal matter, after the U.S Justice Department filed fraud charges against the company ...
Justice Douglas, writing for a unanimous United States Supreme Court, first distinguished the case from Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, holding that because the U.S. government was exercising a constitutionally-permitted function in disbursing its own funds and paying its debts, the commercial paper it issues should be governed by federal law ...