- Published on
Legal Terms - chain of executorship (chain of representation)
A provision found in Section 7 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 that designates an executor who was also a lone or surviving executor to serve as the testator's executor upon the latter's death. Therefore, if A names B as his sole executor and B names C as his own executor, then if A dies and B dies later after obtaining a grant of probate for A's will, then C becomes the executor of both A and B after obtaining a grant of probate for B's will. The failure of a testator to name an executor or to get probate breaks the chain. The rule does not apply to an administrator or intestacy.
A provision found in Section 7 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 that designates an executor who was also a lone or surviving executor to serve as the testator's executor upon the latter's death. Therefore, if A names B as his sole executor and B names C as his own executor, then if A dies and B dies later after obtaining a grant of probate for A's will, then C becomes the executor of both A and B after obtaining a grant of probate for B's will. The failure of a testator to name an executor or to get probate breaks the chain. The rule does not apply to an administrator or intestacy.
- Published on
Legal Terms - chain of title
The subsequent documents that convey *real property, starting with the grant or other source and extending to the individual making the title claim.
The subsequent documents that convey *real property, starting with the grant or other source and extending to the individual making the title claim.
- Published on
Legal Terms - challenge to jury
a process via which the parties can contest the jury's makeup prior to the jury being sworn in. A challenge may previously be made for cause or peremptory, meaning there was no justification for it. The Criminal Justice Act of 1988 eliminated peremptory challenges; nonetheless, in some situations, the prosecution might have the right to request that a juror "stand by" when he is about to take the oath. Usually, this is the case where either
In a case involving terrorism or national security, either (a) the defense concurs with the prosecution that a juror is completely unfit, or (b) the Attorney General has mandated a security check on the jury. Any party may file a cause challenge. This could apply to the jury summoning process as a whole (e.g., bias or favoritism on the part of the jury summoning officer) or to the polling, where challenges can be made to certain jurors or the entire panel. Just before to the juror being sworn in, there is an opportunity for a challenge for cause. This challenge may be based on the juror's lack of qualifications or potential bias. The trial judge hears any challenge to jurors for cause.
a process via which the parties can contest the jury's makeup prior to the jury being sworn in. A challenge may previously be made for cause or peremptory, meaning there was no justification for it. The Criminal Justice Act of 1988 eliminated peremptory challenges; nonetheless, in some situations, the prosecution might have the right to request that a juror "stand by" when he is about to take the oath. Usually, this is the case where either
In a case involving terrorism or national security, either (a) the defense concurs with the prosecution that a juror is completely unfit, or (b) the Attorney General has mandated a security check on the jury. Any party may file a cause challenge. This could apply to the jury summoning process as a whole (e.g., bias or favoritism on the part of the jury summoning officer) or to the polling, where challenges can be made to certain jurors or the entire panel. Just before to the juror being sworn in, there is an opportunity for a challenge for cause. This challenge may be based on the juror's lack of qualifications or potential bias. The trial judge hears any challenge to jurors for cause.
- Published on
Legal Terms- Chambers
chambers pl. n. 1. The offices occupied by a barrister or group of barristers. (The phrase is also used to refer to a group of barristers who work out of a designated chamber.) 2. A judge, master, or district judge's private office. The public is not permitted to attend the majority of *interim procedures, which take place in private chambers. However, if the case is one of public importance, the judge may render a decision in public. 3. An alternate to the entire 15-member court that consists of a three-judge panel of the *International Court of Justice. One instance of the chambers being used is in the Gulf of Maine Case [1984] ICJ Rep 246.
chambers pl. n. 1. The offices occupied by a barrister or group of barristers. (The phrase is also used to refer to a group of barristers who work out of a designated chamber.) 2. A judge, master, or district judge's private office. The public is not permitted to attend the majority of *interim procedures, which take place in private chambers. However, if the case is one of public importance, the judge may render a decision in public. 3. An alternate to the entire 15-member court that consists of a three-judge panel of the *International Court of Justice. One instance of the chambers being used is in the Gulf of Maine Case [1984] ICJ Rep 246.
- Published on
Legal Terms- Chancellor of the Exchequer The minister who, as political head of the Treasury, is responsible for government monetary policy, raising national revenue (particularly through taxation), and controlling public expenditure in the UK. Each year he or she presents to Parliament a Budget (usually in March) proposing changes in revenue and taxation and a statement (in November) proposing government expenditure.
- Published on
Legal Terms - Chancery Division
The division of the *High Court of Justice, which took the place of the *Court of Chancery, was established by the Judicature Acts of 1873–1875. Although corporation law, patents and other *intellectual property, real estate, trusts, and estate administration are among the division's primary areas of focus, it also handles situations involving
instances involving confidentiality. It might pick up some *appeals. The Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 changed the title of the Division's head, which was previously known as the *Vice Chancellor, to Chancellor of the High Court.
The division of the *High Court of Justice, which took the place of the *Court of Chancery, was established by the Judicature Acts of 1873–1875. Although corporation law, patents and other *intellectual property, real estate, trusts, and estate administration are among the division's primary areas of focus, it also handles situations involving
instances involving confidentiality. It might pick up some *appeals. The Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 changed the title of the Division's head, which was previously known as the *Vice Chancellor, to Chancellor of the High Court.
- Published on
Legal Terms - change of circumstances (in contract law)
The circumstance when, following the conclusion of the contract, one of the contracting parties' positions is materially changed. If the circumstances reach the point of *frustration in such a scenario, or if the contract has a *force majeure clause covering the particular event, the contract may be discharged. If not, even if doing so is far more difficult or no longer beneficial for one of the parties, the contract should be carried out as agreed. Financial difficulties do not justify poor performance. Under English contract law, the parties are not required to renegotiate in the event that their circumstances change. This is not the situation in certain other jurisdictions; for example, the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts stipulate that the parties shall renegotiate in the event of economic hardship. Nonetheless, while interpreting contractual provisions to ensure that they accurately reflect the parties' intentions, courts have the authority to consider notable developments in the law or the economy. According to With v. O'Flanagan [1936] Ch 575 (CA), if circumstances change after a *representation was made but before the parties finalize the contract, the representor should notify the representee of the change.
The circumstance when, following the conclusion of the contract, one of the contracting parties' positions is materially changed. If the circumstances reach the point of *frustration in such a scenario, or if the contract has a *force majeure clause covering the particular event, the contract may be discharged. If not, even if doing so is far more difficult or no longer beneficial for one of the parties, the contract should be carried out as agreed. Financial difficulties do not justify poor performance. Under English contract law, the parties are not required to renegotiate in the event that their circumstances change. This is not the situation in certain other jurisdictions; for example, the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts stipulate that the parties shall renegotiate in the event of economic hardship. Nonetheless, while interpreting contractual provisions to ensure that they accurately reflect the parties' intentions, courts have the authority to consider notable developments in the law or the economy. According to With v. O'Flanagan [1936] Ch 575 (CA), if circumstances change after a *representation was made but before the parties finalize the contract, the representor should notify the representee of the change.
- Published on
Legal Terms - change of name
A natural person, or human, has the ability to change their *surname by merely adopting a new name and using it consistently enough to become recognized by the public. Although it is not required by law, changes are typically announced formally (e.g., through a legislative declaration, deed poll, or newspaper advertisement). When a woman gets married, she can also legally alter her surname. On the other hand, neither a young child nor a parent can alter their surname without the other's permission. (To stop a parent from trying to change a child's name on their own, an injunction may be requested.) When a mother who is divorced and remarried or who lives with
a court order must be sought and the child's wellbeing will be the top priority if the parent wants to rename the child after her new partner and is in a relationship with someone else. According to church law, the bishop alone has the authority to alter a person's Christian name—that is, the name they were given at baptism—only after the individual has been confirmed.
* A juristic person may change its name, but it may need to go through formal procedures before it can be implemented. For instance, a corporation limited by shares can only change its name if a special resolution is approved by the company at an extraordinary or annual general meeting.
A natural person, or human, has the ability to change their *surname by merely adopting a new name and using it consistently enough to become recognized by the public. Although it is not required by law, changes are typically announced formally (e.g., through a legislative declaration, deed poll, or newspaper advertisement). When a woman gets married, she can also legally alter her surname. On the other hand, neither a young child nor a parent can alter their surname without the other's permission. (To stop a parent from trying to change a child's name on their own, an injunction may be requested.) When a mother who is divorced and remarried or who lives with
a court order must be sought and the child's wellbeing will be the top priority if the parent wants to rename the child after her new partner and is in a relationship with someone else. According to church law, the bishop alone has the authority to alter a person's Christian name—that is, the name they were given at baptism—only after the individual has been confirmed.
* A juristic person may change its name, but it may need to go through formal procedures before it can be implemented. For instance, a corporation limited by shares can only change its name if a special resolution is approved by the company at an extraordinary or annual general meeting.
- Published on
Legal Terms - change of position
In Lipkin Gorman v. Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 AC 548 (HL), Lord Goff first expressly acknowledged a defense to a demand for restitution for unjust enrichment. The defendant can use the defense to offset the amount of disenrichment he has experienced but would not have otherwise incurred if not for the enrichment. In Lipkin Gorman, the wealthy casino was had to reimburse sums collected from an obsessive gambler who had gained the stake money through dishonest means. But the amount of money the casino had given the player offset the scope of its obligation.
In Lipkin Gorman v. Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 AC 548 (HL), Lord Goff first expressly acknowledged a defense to a demand for restitution for unjust enrichment. The defendant can use the defense to offset the amount of disenrichment he has experienced but would not have otherwise incurred if not for the enrichment. In Lipkin Gorman, the wealthy casino was had to reimburse sums collected from an obsessive gambler who had gained the stake money through dishonest means. But the amount of money the casino had given the player offset the scope of its obligation.
- Published on
Legal Terms – Cessat Lex Ipsa , Cessante Ratione Legis
cessat lex ipsa, cessante ratione legis [Latin: a law ceases to exist when its purpose is fulfilled] the idea that a law expires along with the conditions that gave rise to it. The immunity of counsel, as addressed by Lord Hoffmann in Arthur J. S. Hall & Co. v. Simons [2002] 1 AC 615 (HL), is a fair illustration of this.
cessat lex ipsa, cessante ratione legis [Latin: a law ceases to exist when its purpose is fulfilled] the idea that a law expires along with the conditions that gave rise to it. The immunity of counsel, as addressed by Lord Hoffmann in Arthur J. S. Hall & Co. v. Simons [2002] 1 AC 615 (HL), is a fair illustration of this.
