- Published on
Legal Terms - ABWOR
ABWOR stands for Assistance by means of representation.
ABWOR stands for Assistance by means of representation.
- Published on
Legal Terms - Acceleration
Acceleration refers to the acquisition of a future interest in a property before the scheduled time as specified in the transaction or settlement that established the interest. For instance, if a tenant surrenders the lease before it has expired, the landlord's right in reversion is expedited. When a will grants a life interest that becomes void (for example, if the recipient dies before the person who made the will), the entitlement of the person who will get the property after the life interest is accelerated and becomes effective immediately upon the death of the person who made the will.
Acceleration refers to the acquisition of a future interest in a property before the scheduled time as specified in the transaction or settlement that established the interest. For instance, if a tenant surrenders the lease before it has expired, the landlord's right in reversion is expedited. When a will grants a life interest that becomes void (for example, if the recipient dies before the person who made the will), the entitlement of the person who will get the property after the life interest is accelerated and becomes effective immediately upon the death of the person who made the will.
- Published on
Legal Terms - Acceptance
Acceptance is the act of agreeing to the terms of an offer, which, if certain other conditions are met, turns the offer into a legally enforceable contract. If the means of indicating acceptance is specified
According to the case of Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155 (CA), it is stated that only the technique chosen by the offeror will be considered effective. If the acceptance is not explicitly stated, it can be either expressed (through spoken or written words) or implied from the actions of the offeree. For instance, if the offeree receives products for evaluation and begins using them, it can be inferred as acceptance (Beta Computers (Europe) Ltd v Adobe Systems (Europe) Ltd [1996] FSR 367). In order for an offer to be considered accepted, the person to whom the offer was made must take some form of action. The offeror cannot claim that their offer has been accepted unless the offeree explicitly rejects it (Felthouse v Bindley, 1862). If an offer is presented that replicates the conditions for accepting an existing offer, it is considered a cross-offer. However, a contract will not be established unless this cross-offer is accepted, as stated in the case of Tinn v Hoffmann & Co (1873) 29 LT 271. The validity of an acceptance is determined by four main rules:
The occurrence must happen while the offer is still valid, that is, before it has expired (see expiration of offer) or been withdrawn (see withdrawal of offer).
The conditions must be identical to those of the offer. If an acceptance is made with the condition of any change, it is considered as a counteroffer.
An acceptance subject to contract is not considered a valid acceptance since it lacks the necessary condition of being unconditional.
The communication must be conveyed to the offeror and becomes valid upon receipt. The postal rule, as established in the case of Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681, 106 ER 250, states that acceptance is considered communicated when the letter is mailed. However, this rule applies only if both parties are aware that the postal service is a probable mode of communication, as confirmed in the case of Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27 (CA). This principle also applies in cases when the letter is lost and not delivered, as established in the case of Household Fire Insurance [1879] 4 Ex D 108. However, it is important to note that this only applies if the letter was correctly addressed, as stated in the case of LJ Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping BV [2005] EWHC 134 (QB). Telex, as established in the case of Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp [1955] 2 QB 327, and likely electronic messaging, as seen in the case of Thomas v BPE Solicitors [2010] EWHC 306, are considered equivalent to the telephone. Therefore, acceptance of a communication is deemed to occur upon receipt, even if it is outside of business hours. Additionally, it is irrelevant whether the recipient has the authority to act, as stated in the case of Brinikbon v Stahag Stahl [1983] 2 AC 34.
Nevertheless, if the offer includes a commitment to provide an advantage to anyone who carries out a specific action, the person making the offer gives up the need for separate communication. In the given scenario, if he were to provide a reward in exchange for information, it is not anticipated that a person capable of providing the information would need to accept the offer in a formal manner. The act of providing the information includes the acceptance, transmission of the acceptance, and fulfillment of the contract (New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v Satterthwaite (AM) & Co Ltd [1975] AC 154 (PC)).
Acceptance is the act of agreeing to the terms of an offer, which, if certain other conditions are met, turns the offer into a legally enforceable contract. If the means of indicating acceptance is specified
According to the case of Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155 (CA), it is stated that only the technique chosen by the offeror will be considered effective. If the acceptance is not explicitly stated, it can be either expressed (through spoken or written words) or implied from the actions of the offeree. For instance, if the offeree receives products for evaluation and begins using them, it can be inferred as acceptance (Beta Computers (Europe) Ltd v Adobe Systems (Europe) Ltd [1996] FSR 367). In order for an offer to be considered accepted, the person to whom the offer was made must take some form of action. The offeror cannot claim that their offer has been accepted unless the offeree explicitly rejects it (Felthouse v Bindley, 1862). If an offer is presented that replicates the conditions for accepting an existing offer, it is considered a cross-offer. However, a contract will not be established unless this cross-offer is accepted, as stated in the case of Tinn v Hoffmann & Co (1873) 29 LT 271. The validity of an acceptance is determined by four main rules:
The occurrence must happen while the offer is still valid, that is, before it has expired (see expiration of offer) or been withdrawn (see withdrawal of offer).
The conditions must be identical to those of the offer. If an acceptance is made with the condition of any change, it is considered as a counteroffer.
An acceptance subject to contract is not considered a valid acceptance since it lacks the necessary condition of being unconditional.
The communication must be conveyed to the offeror and becomes valid upon receipt. The postal rule, as established in the case of Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681, 106 ER 250, states that acceptance is considered communicated when the letter is mailed. However, this rule applies only if both parties are aware that the postal service is a probable mode of communication, as confirmed in the case of Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27 (CA). This principle also applies in cases when the letter is lost and not delivered, as established in the case of Household Fire Insurance [1879] 4 Ex D 108. However, it is important to note that this only applies if the letter was correctly addressed, as stated in the case of LJ Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping BV [2005] EWHC 134 (QB). Telex, as established in the case of Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp [1955] 2 QB 327, and likely electronic messaging, as seen in the case of Thomas v BPE Solicitors [2010] EWHC 306, are considered equivalent to the telephone. Therefore, acceptance of a communication is deemed to occur upon receipt, even if it is outside of business hours. Additionally, it is irrelevant whether the recipient has the authority to act, as stated in the case of Brinikbon v Stahag Stahl [1983] 2 AC 34.
Nevertheless, if the offer includes a commitment to provide an advantage to anyone who carries out a specific action, the person making the offer gives up the need for separate communication. In the given scenario, if he were to provide a reward in exchange for information, it is not anticipated that a person capable of providing the information would need to accept the offer in a formal manner. The act of providing the information includes the acceptance, transmission of the acceptance, and fulfillment of the contract (New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v Satterthwaite (AM) & Co Ltd [1975] AC 154 (PC)).
- Published on
Legal Terms - Acceptance of a bill
The formal consent by the drawee, who is the person on whom a bill of exchange is drawn, to accept the order of payment.
Individual who assumes the responsibility of creating or producing it (the artist). The acceptance must be inscribed on the bill and affixed with a signature. The drawee's signature, without any extra words, is typically enough, although it is common to also use the term "accepted". When the drawee agrees to pay, they become the acceptor and assume the primary responsibility for the bill.
The formal consent by the drawee, who is the person on whom a bill of exchange is drawn, to accept the order of payment.
Individual who assumes the responsibility of creating or producing it (the artist). The acceptance must be inscribed on the bill and affixed with a signature. The drawee's signature, without any extra words, is typically enough, although it is common to also use the term "accepted". When the drawee agrees to pay, they become the acceptor and assume the primary responsibility for the bill.
- Published on
Legal Terms - Acceptance Supra Protest
Acceptance supra protest refers to the act of accepting a bill of exchange or promissory note on behalf of the original drawee, after it has been dishonored. This acceptance is made by a third party, known as the acceptor for honor. A variant of
The act of agreeing to pay a bill of exchange in order to protect the reputation of the person who issued it or endorsed it. If a bill of exchange has been protested owing to nonacceptance or protested for greater security, and it is not yet overdue, any individual who is not already obligated on the bill may, with the agreement of the holder, accept the bill supra protest. An acceptance for honor must be clearly printed on the bill, indicating its purpose, and must be signed. The acceptor for honor commits to paying the bill if the drawee fails to do so, on the condition that the bill has been properly presented for payment, protested for nonpayment, and the acceptor receives notice of these events. He is legally responsible to the holder and all parties who come after the person for whose honor he took the bill.
Acceptance supra protest refers to the act of accepting a bill of exchange or promissory note on behalf of the original drawee, after it has been dishonored. This acceptance is made by a third party, known as the acceptor for honor. A variant of
The act of agreeing to pay a bill of exchange in order to protect the reputation of the person who issued it or endorsed it. If a bill of exchange has been protested owing to nonacceptance or protested for greater security, and it is not yet overdue, any individual who is not already obligated on the bill may, with the agreement of the holder, accept the bill supra protest. An acceptance for honor must be clearly printed on the bill, indicating its purpose, and must be signed. The acceptor for honor commits to paying the bill if the drawee fails to do so, on the condition that the bill has been properly presented for payment, protested for nonpayment, and the acceptor receives notice of these events. He is legally responsible to the holder and all parties who come after the person for whose honor he took the bill.
- Published on
Legal Term - Access Land
Access land refers to land that is open to the public for outdoor recreational activities, as specified by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. It
Encompasses terrain depicted as uncultivated land (such as mountains, moors, heaths, or downs) on a definitive map issued by a relevant rural organization (such as the Countryside Agency or the Countryside Council for Wales), or as communal land, or land located at an altitude exceeding 600 meters above sea level, or land that has been designated as accessible land.
Access land refers to land that is open to the public for outdoor recreational activities, as specified by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. It
Encompasses terrain depicted as uncultivated land (such as mountains, moors, heaths, or downs) on a definitive map issued by a relevant rural organization (such as the Countryside Agency or the Countryside Council for Wales), or as communal land, or land located at an altitude exceeding 600 meters above sea level, or land that has been designated as accessible land.
- Published on
Legal Terms - Accessory
An accessory is a person who assists, advises, or encourages someone else to commit a crime. An accessory to an offense refers to an individual who takes part in the offense but does not directly cause the criminal act but may still be considered legally responsible. Section 8 of the Accessories And Abettors Act 1861, modified by the Criminal Law Act 1977, specifies that anyone who assists, encourages, advises, or instigates the commission of a serious crime can be prosecuted, charged, and penalized as if they were the main perpetrator. A similar provision is also included for summary offenses under section 44 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. 2. An individual who intentionally aids a person who has committed a serious crime with the purpose of obstructing their capture or legal proceedings. To understand the mental state requirement for being an accessory, refer to the case of R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8, [2017] AC 387.
An accessory is a person who assists, advises, or encourages someone else to commit a crime. An accessory to an offense refers to an individual who takes part in the offense but does not directly cause the criminal act but may still be considered legally responsible. Section 8 of the Accessories And Abettors Act 1861, modified by the Criminal Law Act 1977, specifies that anyone who assists, encourages, advises, or instigates the commission of a serious crime can be prosecuted, charged, and penalized as if they were the main perpetrator. A similar provision is also included for summary offenses under section 44 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. 2. An individual who intentionally aids a person who has committed a serious crime with the purpose of obstructing their capture or legal proceedings. To understand the mental state requirement for being an accessory, refer to the case of R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8, [2017] AC 387.
- Published on
Legal Terms - Abus de droit
The concept of civil law, which originated in Roman times, was incorporated into English law.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) applies it. If an individual engages in transactions exclusively for the purpose of gaining the advantages of EU legislation, their EU rights may be denied (EMU Tabac Case C-296/95 [1998] ECR I-1605). In the case of Halifax plc v Customs and Excise Comrs (Case C-255/02 [2006] ECR I-1609), the European Court of Justice (ECJ) determined that it is considered an abuse of rights when transactions lead to a tax benefit that goes against the intended aim of the relevant law. Abus de droit does not occur when the action is motivated by reasons other than obtaining tax advantages. The challenge for English law lies in reconciling the concept of abus de droit, which considers the taxpayer's motive, with a fundamental principle of English law that states: "If an action is inherently unlawful, a good motive will not absolve the defendant, and if an action is lawful regardless of motive, a bad motive will not render the defendant liable" (as stated by Lord Steyn in Three Rivers DC v Bank of England [2000] 2 WLR 1220 at 1230). The UK General Anti-Abuse Rule shares the same emphasis on intent as the European concept of abus de droit.
The concept of civil law, which originated in Roman times, was incorporated into English law.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) applies it. If an individual engages in transactions exclusively for the purpose of gaining the advantages of EU legislation, their EU rights may be denied (EMU Tabac Case C-296/95 [1998] ECR I-1605). In the case of Halifax plc v Customs and Excise Comrs (Case C-255/02 [2006] ECR I-1609), the European Court of Justice (ECJ) determined that it is considered an abuse of rights when transactions lead to a tax benefit that goes against the intended aim of the relevant law. Abus de droit does not occur when the action is motivated by reasons other than obtaining tax advantages. The challenge for English law lies in reconciling the concept of abus de droit, which considers the taxpayer's motive, with a fundamental principle of English law that states: "If an action is inherently unlawful, a good motive will not absolve the defendant, and if an action is lawful regardless of motive, a bad motive will not render the defendant liable" (as stated by Lord Steyn in Three Rivers DC v Bank of England [2000] 2 WLR 1220 at 1230). The UK General Anti-Abuse Rule shares the same emphasis on intent as the European concept of abus de droit.
- Published on
Legal Terms - Abuse of a Dominant Position
*Unfair commercial methods employed by a major corporation to hinder competition. Instances of such actions, which go against *Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Article 82 of the Treaty of Rome) and Chapter II of the UK Competition Act 1998, encompass declining to provide goods or services to a current customer without valid justification and participating in *predatory pricing. The European Commission and/or the UK Competition and Markets Authority have the authority to impose fines on corporations for violating Article 102 and/or Chapter II, amounting to a maximum of 10% of the company's annual worldwide group revenue. Google was fined €4.34 billion in 2018. Pfizer, a pharmaceutical company, was penalized with a fine of £82 million in 2016 in the United Kingdom for engaging in anti-competitive behavior that violated the Competition Act. The company was found guilty of abusing its dominant market position.
*Unfair commercial methods employed by a major corporation to hinder competition. Instances of such actions, which go against *Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Article 82 of the Treaty of Rome) and Chapter II of the UK Competition Act 1998, encompass declining to provide goods or services to a current customer without valid justification and participating in *predatory pricing. The European Commission and/or the UK Competition and Markets Authority have the authority to impose fines on corporations for violating Article 102 and/or Chapter II, amounting to a maximum of 10% of the company's annual worldwide group revenue. Google was fined €4.34 billion in 2018. Pfizer, a pharmaceutical company, was penalized with a fine of £82 million in 2016 in the United Kingdom for engaging in anti-competitive behavior that violated the Competition Act. The company was found guilty of abusing its dominant market position.
- Published on
Legal Terms - Abuse of a position of trust
Engaging in sexual behavior with a person under the age of 18 is considered an abuse of a position of trust.
A person under the age of 18 (B) is being taken care of by A in a care institution. B is being accommodated and provided with care in various settings such as hospitals, independent clinics, care homes, residential care homes, private hospitals, community homes, voluntary homes, children's homes, homes provided under section 82(5) of the Children Act 1989, or residential family care centers.
There are four criminal offenses outlined in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that entail the exploitation of a position of trust. These offenses include sexual touching (s 16), participating in sexual activity in the presence of a child (s 18), inducing or encouraging a child to engage in sexual activity (s 17), and forcing a child to witness a sexual act (s 19). The highest penalty for committing a sexual offense that involves an abuse of trust is a five-year jail sentence.
Engaging in sexual behavior with a person under the age of 18 is considered an abuse of a position of trust.
A person under the age of 18 (B) is being taken care of by A in a care institution. B is being accommodated and provided with care in various settings such as hospitals, independent clinics, care homes, residential care homes, private hospitals, community homes, voluntary homes, children's homes, homes provided under section 82(5) of the Children Act 1989, or residential family care centers.
There are four criminal offenses outlined in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that entail the exploitation of a position of trust. These offenses include sexual touching (s 16), participating in sexual activity in the presence of a child (s 18), inducing or encouraging a child to engage in sexual activity (s 17), and forcing a child to witness a sexual act (s 19). The highest penalty for committing a sexual offense that involves an abuse of trust is a five-year jail sentence.