swoosh Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 Just now, Shady Slim said: Greg, accessory to the stealing of a car by his cousin, is joyriding around with his cousin and asks to be let out of the car. The cousin does not stop and the joyriding continues, and there is an accident and they are both hurt. Generally, there is no duty of care when parties engage with joint illegal enterprise; Greg argues this is precluded here as he requested the other cousin let him out of the car, and he has a claim against his cousin. Does he? 2TIT said that there was a claim D2S said there as not Yes – as said, the bar on claims during joint illegal activities was nixed upon Greg asking he is let out of the car – but he’s still not immune to any criminal prosecution for the theft itself of the car. The case is Miller v Miller. greg met the withdrawal requirements as short of flinging himself out of the car he couldn't really do much else D2S leads it by 10-9 ouch. embarrassing @Ragnarok 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malfatron Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 (edited) Just now, swoosh said: pro pedophiles and anti blind people. I'm a proud tribe captain tonight. now...what if the pedophile was blind now we have a moral dilhema for the ones that partook in this challenge (i didnt) Edited May 27, 2020 by Malfatron 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 Just now, Shady Slim said: Greg, accessory to the stealing of a car by his cousin, is joyriding around with his cousin and asks to be let out of the car. The cousin does not stop and the joyriding continues, and there is an accident and they are both hurt. Generally, there is no duty of care when parties engage with joint illegal enterprise; Greg argues this is precluded here as he requested the other cousin let him out of the car, and he has a claim against his cousin. Does he? 2TIT said that there was a claim D2S said there as not Yes – as said, the bar on claims during joint illegal activities was nixed upon Greg asking he is let out of the car – but he’s still not immune to any criminal prosecution for the theft itself of the car. The case is Miller v Miller. greg met the withdrawal requirements as short of flinging himself out of the car he couldn't really do much else D2S leads it by 10-9 We demand a retrial. In 'Murica Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swoosh Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Slim Posted May 27, 2020 Author Share Posted May 27, 2020 Greg agrees with a shopping chain to build a store for one of their franchises, and has to begin construction before a contract is fully formed to get the store completed by the date requested by the chain – the store is informed of Greg beginning construction though they do not sign the lease, but let them continue building. When Greg is 40% done they tell him they don’t actually want the location any more. Greg tries to use estoppel – a way to enforce a promise not yet a full contract – to make the store honour their side of the deal, but does this work? Yes – estoppel can in limited circumstances be used as a “sword” (to create a contract from just a promise when departure from the promise would be unconscionable) and in this instance it was ruled so. The case is Waltons Stores v Maher so estoppel is quite fun and a favourite of mine tbh 11-10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malfatron Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 guess goody 2 shoe Rags never been out joyriding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Orca Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 Just now, Matts4313 said: We demand a retrial. In 'Murica We let the guy get bail and a blind man fall in a hole...this shouldnt be close 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pickle Rick Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 1 minute ago, Shady Slim said: Greg, accessory to the stealing of a car by his cousin, is joyriding around with his cousin and asks to be let out of the car. The cousin does not stop and the joyriding continues, and there is an accident and they are both hurt. Generally, there is no duty of care when parties engage with joint illegal enterprise; Greg argues this is precluded here as he requested the other cousin let him out of the car, and he has a claim against his cousin. Does he? 2TIT said that there was a claim D2S said there as not Yes – as said, the bar on claims during joint illegal activities was nixed upon Greg asking he is let out of the car – but he’s still not immune to any criminal prosecution for the theft itself of the car. The case is Miller v Miller. greg met the withdrawal requirements as short of flinging himself out of the car he couldn't really do much else D2S leads it by 10-9 I'm actually proud of this one. I even said throw me in front of the judge and I'd argue this case for her. Also we got one @Ragnarok didn't!!!! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swoosh Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 Just now, Malfatron said: guess goody 2 shoe Rags never been out joyriding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Slim Posted May 27, 2020 Author Share Posted May 27, 2020 and then there was one Greg is in the market for a horse and buys one. Upon delivery of the horse Greg is told that it is free from vice; Greg finds that the horse is not, in fact, vice free, and sues the vendor for a breach of contract. Can he? 2TIT said that there was no suit D2S said that there was Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 Jokes aside, nice job so far @swoosh and crew. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swoosh Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 Just now, Matts4313 said: Jokes aside, nice job so far @swoosh and crew. just crew tbh 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malfatron Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 Just now, swoosh said: just crew tbh skeleton crew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Slim Posted May 27, 2020 Author Share Posted May 27, 2020 past consideration is not sufficient consideration for future promises. we have a tie. we're back to overtime again. five cases. two days. they will come up soon. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swoosh Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 lmao no... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.