Promissory estoppel is an exception to the common law rule requiring consideration. In a typical contract, each party provides something of value (consideration) to support the agreement. This exception prevents a party from going back on their promise when the other party has acted upon it in good faith, ensuring fairness in contractual relationships.
Promissory estoppel is an exception to the common law rule requiring consideration. This legal doctrine is often referred to as detrimental reliance. It allows a party to enforce a promise made without consideration if the promisee relied on the promise to their detriment. For example, if someone promised to give you $100 and you relied on that promise to pay for something, but they later refused to pay, you could argue promissory estoppel to enforce the promise. In essence, the doctrine prevents the promisor from going back on their promise when the promisee has already relied on it. However, promissory estoppel allows a promise to be enforceable even without consideration if it would be unjust not to enforce the agreement due to one party's reliance on the promise.
To know more about exception visit:
https://brainly.com/question/31238254
#SPJ11
17. Would Will Smith hitting Chris Rock during Oscar's ceremony be a tort or a crime or neither? 18. What is most important number in the statement of cash flows and why? What would you like to see ha
17. Committing physical violence against Chris Rock during the Oscar's ceremony would likely be considered a criminal act, specifically assault and/or battery. In legal terms, a tort refers to a civil wrong that causes harm or loss to an individual, while a crime is an offense that is deemed harmful to society as a whole and is punishable under the law. Since physically hitting Chris Rock would cause harm to him as an individual, it would fall under the category of a crime.
18. The net increase or decrease in cash and cash equivalents is the most significant figure in the statement of cash flows because it provides a comprehensive view of the company's overall change in cash position during the specified accounting period.
This particular number serves as a crucial indicator of the company's liquidity and its capacity to meet financial obligations and invest in future growth.
While the net increase or decrease in cash is of primary importance, other significant figures in the statement of cash flows include the operating cash flow, investing cash flow, and financing cash flow.
These figures offer further insight into the sources and uses of cash, providing a more detailed understanding of the company's financial activities.
Read more about Will Smith hitting Chris Rock
https://brainly.com/question/31863539
#SPJ11
Prinz v US Analyze Prinz v United States (1997), discussing the overarching issue, how the case arose, the Supreme Court's decision, and the rationale for that decision. Please include whether you agree with SCOTUS, and why?
1) This case arose as a result of Printz's main argument, which was that the federal government could not compel state and local governments to carry out federal policy for the following reasons: The Tenth Amendment for the Constitution strengthens the concept of a limited federal government and protects states from such mandates.
2) In Printz v. United States, the United States Supreme Court decided the case in 1997. The Court agreed with Printz and Mack and declared the mandatory background check provisions unconstitutional. Writing for the case's 5-4 majority. "The federal government might neither issue directives requiring the states to address specific problems, nor command the officers of the states, or those of their political subdivisions, to manage or enforce a federal regulatory scheme," Justice Antonin Scalia concluded. 3) The Printz decision reaffirmed the Court's 1992 decision in New York v. United States, in which the Court invalidated provisions of a federal statute governing nuclear waste policy for violating state sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment.
4) According to the Federalism Five, there are fixed boundaries between federal and state and local powers, and the Court must be willing to define and enforce those boundaries. 5) These and other cases have sparked heated debates among scholars and commentators about the Court's proper role in defining the scope of federal powers.
6) In issuing this wave of federalism decisions and resurrecting doctrines long thought to be buried in a judicial graveyard, the Rehnquist Court has been dubbed a "federalism revolution," though others argue that the Court's decisions in this area are far from revolutionary. 7) In conclusion, the Court's interpretations of the Tenth Amendment and other constitutional federalism provisions suggest that there are legal limits to federal power, and in doing so, the Court appears to have strengthened state and local sovereignty.
Learn more about Printz, here:
https://brainly.com/question/30830002
#SPJ4
On November 2018, there was a huge debate in Spain over who should pay the mortgage creation tax. Should the buyers (consumers) or the sellers of the mortgage (the banks) pay the tax. During early 2018, the civil division of Supreme Court clearly ruled that the tax on mortgages should be paid by consumers and not banks. However, on the 18th of October the administrative division pronounced the other way, that banks should pay. Using the knowledge that you have learned from this course, what is your recommendation to Spanish people? Explain what do you think about their debate? does the incidence of the tax depends on who pays the tax?
The debate regarding who should pay the mortgage creation tax in Spain reflects differing perspectives on the incidence of the tax.
Both sides have valid arguments: those who believe consumers should pay argue that they ultimately benefit from acquiring property, while those advocating for banks to pay argue that it's part of the costs associated with providing mortgages.
The economic burden that the tax imposes on the parties concerned is referred to as its incidence, and it may be affected by a number of variables, including market circumstances and governing laws.
It would be prudent for Spanish citizens to seek the advice of legal professionals or financial consultants in order to comprehend the significance of the court decisions and choose the best course of action in light of their unique circumstances.
Learn more about mortgage creation tax, here;
https://brainly.com/question/30514465
#SPJ4
Polonium-210 has a 1/2 life of 138 days how long will it take a 2g sample to decay to .25g
A highly uncommon natural element is polonium. Although it can be found in uranium ores, its extraction is not profitable. It is created by subjecting bismuth-209 to neutron bombardment, which yields bismuth-210, which subsequently decays to make polonium. Russia manufactures all of the polonium used for commercial purposes worldwide.
The chemical element polonium has the atomic number 84 and the symbol Po. Polonium, a chalcogen and extremely radioactive metal with no stable isotopes, is chemically related to selenium.
Only when Po-210 enters the body through inhaling, ingesting, or puncturing a wound does it pose a radiation risk. Internal organ exposure from this "internal contamination" may result in severe medical symptoms or even death at high doses.
Learn more about polonium here:
https://brainly.com/question/5048860
#SPJ1
what is the difference between moral and legal reasoning?
Moral reasoning and legal reasoning are two distinct approaches used to make decisions and judgments, although they can overlap in some instances. The main differences between moral and legal reasoning lie in their foundations, sources of authority, and the scope of their application.
Moral reasoning refers to the process of making judgments and decisions based on moral principles, values, and ethical considerations. It involves evaluating actions or situations from a moral standpoint and determining what is right or wrong, just or unjust, based on individual or societal moral beliefs. Moral reasoning is often influenced by personal conscience, cultural norms, philosophical perspectives, and principles such as fairness, compassion, and integrity.
Legal reasoning, on the other hand, is the process of interpreting and applying the law to make legal judgments and decisions. It involves analyzing statutes, precedents, legal principles, and the overall legal framework within which a decision must be made. Legal reasoning aims to determine the legal rights, obligations, and consequences associated with a particular case or situation. It relies on the interpretation and application of existing laws, legal doctrines, and legal procedures.
One key difference between moral and legal reasoning lies in their sources of authority. Moral reasoning often draws upon personal values, religious beliefs, cultural norms, and philosophical frameworks. It is subjective and can vary across individuals and societies. In contrast, legal reasoning derives its authority from the legal system, which includes constitutions, statutes, regulations, and judicial decisions. It is based on the established rules and principles set forth by the governing legal authority.
Another distinction is the scope of their application. Moral reasoning applies to a broader range of human behavior and decision-making, including personal choices and interactions that may not necessarily involve legal implications. It addresses questions of morality and ethics beyond the realm of law. Legal reasoning, on the other hand, is specific to the legal domain and focuses on issues governed by legal rules and principles. It is concerned with determining legal rights, obligations, and responsibilities within the boundaries of the law.
While moral reasoning and legal reasoning can intersect in some cases, it is important to recognize that they operate on different grounds and serve distinct purposes. Moral considerations can influence legal judgments and the creation of laws, but the legal system has its own set of rules and procedures that govern the application of the law. Ultimately, moral reasoning and legal reasoning are complementary but separate frameworks used to guide decision-making in different contexts.
Learn more about Moral reasoning here
https://brainly.com/question/29352952
#SPJ11
