Stop, search and arrest
Assignment 1.1 By Roxanne Slevin ) The main piece of legislation regulating police powers is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). The act was passed due to the miscarriage of justice in 1980, when a man (Maxwell Confait) was murdered. He had been strangled to death with an electrical flex in a burning house. Three boys at the age of fourteen, fifteen and eighteen were charged with the murder; however, three years later they were released after the Fisher report concluded they had nothing to with the murder. In the case of Jack, there are many things to consider about the legality of the actions of the police. Code A Under section 1 of PACE, the police officer was legally allowed to search Jack as there was a reasonable suspicion; this was due to the fact that the patrol officer was looking for suspects that were vandalising bus shelters, and where jack was acting suspiciously this is therefore reasonable. On the other hand, if it had been on the basis of personal factors, this would have been seen as discrimination and therefore, would have been illegal. Before the search begun, the police officer would have had to indentify himself and the police station of where he/she is based and tell the person to be searched the grounds for the search. Plus, If the police officer is not in uniform, then the officer must provide documentary identification, under
"The requirement of consideration is an unnecessary complication in the formation of contracts."
Elements of the law of contract Zone A examination paper Question 1 "The requirement of consideration is an unnecessary complication in the formation of contracts." Consideration is probably regarded as one of the most controversial issues in the law of contract. The traditional and/or orthodox doctrine is based on the principle of "reciprocity", which seems to suggest that a promise given should be exchanged for something in return. The requirement of Consideration was established since the sixteenth century in Common Law. The first mention of which had been in the form of quid pro quo, inter alia, a promise for a promise, and later, it was acceptable that even a detriment or forbearance like fulfilling the promise to marry such as in the case of Shadwell v Shadwell[1860] would be sufficient consideration. Consideration was first associated with debt such as in the Pinnel's case and had subsequently spread to other simple contracts. This has been criticized by Lord Mansfield in 1756, and was in view that it could only be treated as evidence of the parties' intention and held that a moral obligation should be sufficient consideration. It was only in the case of Eastwood v Kenyon[1840] that Lord Denman confirmed that the law required some factor additional to a defendant's promise, which is, consideration, whereby the promise becomes legally binding. So, if a
Contract Law - Acceptance.
Acceptance Acceptance of an offer means unconditional agreement to all the terms of that offer. Acceptance will often be oral or in writing, but in some cases an offeree may accept an offer by doing something, such as delivering goods in response to an offer to buy. The Courts will only interpret conduct as indicating acceptance if it seems reasonable to infer that the offeree acted with the intention of accepting the offer. CASE: Brogden v Metropolian Rail Co (1877) Remaining silent cannot amount to acceptance, unless it is absolutely clear that acceptance was intended. CASE: Felthouse v Bindley (1862) Re Selectmove Ltd (1995) - The Court of Appeal pointed out that an acceptance by silence could be sufficient if it was the offeree who suggested that their silence would be sufficient. Thus in Felthouse, if the nephew had been the one to say that if his uncle heard nothing more he could treat the offer as accepted, there would have been a contract. Unilateral contracts are usually accepted by conduct. If I offer £100 to anyone who finds my lost dog, finding the dog will be acceptance of the offer, making my promise binding - it is not necessary for anyone to contact me and say that they intend to take up my offer and find the dog. Acceptance must be unconditional An acceptance must accept the precise terms of an offer. CASE: Tim v Hoffman (1873) - one party
