Anyone in Law field can teach me what is the Facts, Held and prinicple of :\nKaragiannis v Malltown Pty Ltd (1979) 21 SASR 381?\nThank u..
201274
I looked it up on westlaw...it looks like a landlord/tenant case.  the plaintiff, Karagiannis, leased the sixth floor of a building from defendant Malltown.  The lease stated that all "common areas" (shared areas) would be under the control of the lessor (defendant)  When other floors became unoccupied, the defendant stopped service of some of the elevators/escalators that brought people to the sixth floor cafeteria owned by the defendant.  The plaintiff requested an injunction, he wanted people to have access, obviously.  The defendant said it opened up his unoccupied floors to vandalism, etc.  The court held that the defendant needed to resume service immediately.  It looks as though the reason the court gave was that there was an implied promise on the part of the defendant, b/c the plaintiff had been using the services for a year.....there is alot of detail at the end, but I think that sums it up.  If you need more on reasons why, and if this is for a class you probably do, try googling the case, or findlaw.com\n\nGood luck!
67205
Typically most state dram shop acts provide for liability only if the person served was "visibly intoxicated" when served.  Under that standard, probably.
214480
That is a toughy and not something that a non-professional is going to be able to help you with. I would try to find a lawyer who can give you a little free advice. Get a phone book and just go down the list. Get 10 or 20 answers and see what they gravitate toward. I would also like to know what happens in this. It's interesting. Email with what you find out: mj12@email.arizona.edu. Thanks man.
470975
I liked your answer on one of my questions and followed you here.  Muahaha!\n\nUm, it was interesting.  You have to wonder if "the law" followed that principle on all consensual agreements between people.  For instance, once you started building a house, you couldn't cancel for any reason.  Once you bought a product, you couldn't return it.  After you begin to form a company, you cannot stop the formation.\n\nThe article is food for thought.  My initial reaction is "no means STOP what you're doing right now."
350019
This is a far from appropriate question to put on this site, as the answer could occupy several (very thick) books.  What's more, I've never come across self-defence as a concept in civil cases.  If you look up this website and follow the various links yourself, then perhaps you will find that you have done your own homework! http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/law/jargonbuster_c.shtml
34165
YOU CAN SUE FOR ANYTHING, BAR NONE! However, if you can show there is no good reason for their untrue and negative written statement about you they shared with another party, then you have good grounds for a liable suit. Further, if you can show you have suffered injury or damages as a result, then you have a very strong case. \n\nWARNING: The courts are secretly biased towards corporations and lawyers/barristers will only take you for your money. If you want to persue this I would do it myself or retain on a strict contingency basis only.
238218
It hasn't gotten to the Supreme Court yet.  Read the Fouth Amendment and case law surrounding it if you want an understanding of it.  I had to use it several years ago and convinced equal employment officials that my employer couldn't divulge the fact that I was scheduled for a standard drug test to anyone else in my workplace.  So, sometimes it can be interpreted fairly liberally although it isn't worded specifically to support such a claim.  It depends on who you have to convince.  I doubt my case would have stood up in court even though it would have stood up in the eyes of the media.  Research the topic for yourself before you believe what anyone (government or media) has to say about the issue.
489307
I can't find the text of the decision online, but if you have access to LexisNexis or Westlaw, the citation for the case is 595 F. Supp. 1521. You could also go to a law library and look it up in the Federal Reporter. The ruling was made by a Connecticut Federal District Court in 1984.
3511
http://www.rightsatwork.com.au/\n\nHeres a start for you.
76191
im not sure about people, but i think that is when the state itself is not the plaintiff, but the people themselves, basically its not a government case.  There are only 11 commonwealths in the country, but i am not sure what the full listing is.  For example, Pennsylvania is a commonwealth so you you would never see the sate of Pa vx georgia ferret, but the comonwealth of Pa vs georgia ferret...
133892
if you can prove that the information given to the police was false you have grounds to sue for false arrest.\nDid the vendor attempt to take payment from your bank and if the vendor did there is your proof however if the vendor did not attempt to take a payment form your account and you had authorised it then the vendor has gone against your wishes. go to qld law society @ www.qls.com.au or legal aid @ www.legalaid.qld.gov.au  both services can provide you with free information regarding this matter. if your not in qld those two sites can redirect you to your states website
494383
Uh Lawyer Here--Do your own homework, start by reading the case, then look for comentary on it.  Also, you only got 2 days to do this?  Sounds like you left it to the last minute.  The case has to do with the remoteness of damages in contract and is related to the much earlier case of Hadley v. Baxendale.  \n\nA simple Google search has pulled up a scholarly article on this case--why is it that you couldn't do the same? Of course, I don't have access to the full article....
336605
Well even though there seems to be a contract orally for the sale of land s.53 of the law of property act 1925 applies as well as s2. law of property act 1989, which means that all sale of land must be in writing and are usual by deed. So practically there is not legally enforceable agreement until contracts are exchanged. So even if tom has spent money on a survey he may not recover.\nThere is debate in this area , but in the uk this is inherent risk in these transactions. He may bring a claim for damages under Hadley v.Baxendale, only for his loss eg the survey costs.\n\nAs far as the car is concerned, no consideration has passed so Tom has not really lost anything, he could enforce the contract, but courts are unlikley to enforce specific performance. Practically if the car is £500 there are plenty like it perhaps, but if the price was more £100,000 eg for a RUF modified porshce which are built to order then as there is nothing like it the court may order specific performance of the contract. Orally contracts cannot usually be enforced without some evidence showing intention.
369357
Who knew that British law professors were as nasty in first year property courses as American profs?\n\nA. Julia is out, as is Stephen and Margaret, assuming they were not on the title (and that's pretty clear, since the land office registered the title to Samantha free and clear) and assuming there's no landlord/tenant law that protects them.\n\nB. see above.\n\nC. Jones retains his leasehold unless the relevant jurisdiction has a requirement that a least of that duration be recorded (and this one presumably wasn't).\n\nD) Haye presumably is within the requirement of C, and thus his lease retains validity.\n\nE. Michael had a future interest which is now a present interest, if the lease has been signed then the same lease recording provisions apply. However, if he has a contract with the previous owner for a lease but never got that lease, his contract is invalid against the new owner, and his recourse, if any, is against the old owner, for breach of contract.\n\nHad the property been register in J&S and executed by both, no difference, except that any Landlord/Tenant consideration would not apply to Stephen.\n\nPS - I hated property class.
447132
You've quoted only secondary sources.   It seems the law changed on 13 Oct. 2003.  You should consult the primary source; the statute that changed the law.
15470
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/3158.html\n\nPlease check this link...the AMA is the problem.\n\nContact a lawyer right away.
305916
hi, \n\nto get the text of the statutes in question you'll probably have to go to a law library.  however if you are just looking for citations of where these weird laws are enacted, this book might be helpful:\n\nhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0749950366/203-0753525-2215951\n\nhere's an article from the times that tells you some of these details:\nhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1987507,00.html\n\nnote that at the end of the article it says that many of these weird old laws are repealed in yearly Statute Law Revision Acts.  you might hunt them down, as they are probably just a laundry list of weird old stuff.\n\ngood luck!