Variety of Law Exercises - Assignment Example

Exercise In the light of the above facts identify four areas of law that give rise to potential legal actions. Identify those facts that might giverise to legal actions and what actions these might be? (a) Contract Act: whether Nigel’s refusal to pay for car’s repairs is breach of contractual agreement (b) Law of Tort: Nigel’s action of slamming the car door in order to break the wing Mirror which subsequently broke needing repairs of £30 (c) Road Traffic Act 1988 with Ministry of Transport (MOT) laws: Barry’s vehicle failed the Ministry of Transport test with regard to 150 checks that are routinely conducted on cars to assess their fitness and compliance with safety and emission requirement systems. Secondly, driving without seat belt is a cognisable offence under UK law –the fine would, in most first instances, be £30 (d) Employment Act 1996: Barry has been undeservedly suspended from work due to Nigel’s action of reporting that Barry was driving a car without proper MOT approval. For each of the actions that you have outlined in number 1 above, state the courts with jurisdiction at first instance and also the appellate courts which would deal with these matters. (Each answer needs to be linked with questions 1 (a)-(d).) (a) Contract Laws - District Court – Appellate Court: Court of Appeals (b) Law of Tort – District, Circuit or High Court- Appellate Court- Court of Appeals Of England and Wales (c) Motor Vehicles Act _Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) Vehicle and (Operator Services Agency (VOSA) Contacts). Driving without seatbelt: Section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1988: (Principal Road Safety Privisions). (d) Employment Rights Act 1996: For each of the above areas of litigation, list the names of the parties who would be involved on each side of such legal actions: (a) Barry (Applicant) v. Nigel (Defendant) (b) Barry (Applicant) v. Nigel (Defendant) (c) State (Applicants) v. Nigel (Defendant) (d) Barry (Applicant) v. His Employers (Defendants) What might be the outcome of each action i.e. the remedy or the punishment given at the end of the trial process? (a) As per terms of the oral contract with Barry, Nigel is not bound to make any payment towards maintenance costs except petrol. However considering the circumstances of the case and the behaviour of the parties, the Courts may direct payment as deemed necessary. The Court must decide if any violation of the Contract Act, has, in fact, occurred, and if so what are the remedial actions to be taken for each of the affected parties. (b) Nigel had made deliberate attempts to damage Barry’s car which could be sued under law of Tort. If proved true, Nigel would have to make good the losses and also punitive compensation to Barry, as per the decision of the Courts. (c) In the UK it is illegal to drive without MOT certification as per UK laws. It could attract penalties and even imprisonment as per the discretion of the courts (d) Barry’s alleged driving despite an out –of- date MOT is independent of his employment. He needs to seek claim for wrongful suspension under the provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1966 and any covenant with his employer, in case there are no provisions of specific clause suspending him for traffic offences. It would be incumbent on his employers to prove that Barry’s suspension was legal and in conformity with service laws. In NOT MORE THAN 150 WORDS, advise Barry as to any possible actions he may bring against Nigel and vice-versa: Barry need to have told Nigel that he would have to share all common expenses for the car, including petrol, maintenance, etc. He needs to have rescinded the contract once he came to know of Barry’s mala-fide intentions, including damage to his car. He should invoke provisions of Law of Tort, Contract Act and any other law that could safeguard his interests in this case. Similarly in the case of Nigel, he needs to seek enforcement of his contract with Nigel regarding sharing of car. Since the contract is only regarding petrol, he needs to get Barry to pay for the MOT, or share the same and make use of vehicle as per contract. The other aspect is that since the car may not be roadworthy without MOT, Nigel needs to get the MOT repairs and tyre replacements done and could deduct this amount from Barry’s future petrol expense payments. Exercise 2 Instructions: Following your reading of R v Shivpuri answer the following questions as concisely and accurately as you can. Word limit 300. 1. In which court was this case heard? (2 marks) House of Lords (HL) 2. Which was the court of first instance? Who was the judge in the first instance case? (4 marks) Lord Bridge of Harwich 3. On what date was this case heard? (2 marks) : 23.2.1984 (first instance ) 15.3.1986 (Appeal) 4. Write down the citation of the case. (2 marks) Regina v. Shivpuri (1986) 2 WLR 988 5. Who was the defendant? (2 marks): Shivpuri 6. What was the binding authority for this case? (5 marks): Court of Appeals. 7. Who delivered the majority judgements? (5 marks): Lord Bridge of Harwich 8. by whom was the appeal heard (in the Court of Appeal)? (3 marks): Lord Hailsham of St.Marylebone, L.C., Elwyn-Jones, Lord Scarman, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and. Lord Bridge of Harwich 9. In one sentence, what was the appellant asserting? (5 marks) The appellant was asserting that since the distributable substance was not a banned drug but some kind of other substance, not of illegal nature, his appeal should be upheld 10. In one sentence, what was the respondent contending? (5 marks) The defendant knew that the case related to import of banned drugs, and he knowingly took part in the deal, even though he may not have been aware of the specific type of drug he was dealing in. 11. Briefly explain the facts of this case. (10 marks); While in India, the defendant entered into a contract with a person called Desai to distribute banned substance in UK prohibited under provisions of Misuse of drugs Act (1971) read with Section 170(1) (b) of Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA) 1979. However, It later transpired not to be a banned substance at all. The appellant raised various defences in respect of the Certified Question below. In relation to each of the defences raised, explain what conclusions Lord Bridge reaches: (A)The intention of the parties was to enter into an illegal transaction, dealing with banned substances. They were also fully aware of it also. The motive was illegal, whether it was prepatory or not is another issue. (B)The mens rea was to transact with illegal drugs. It is another matter that it later transpired to be some other matter. (C)It is similar to Anderton v. Ryan in that in both cases the actus rea was a wrong act, but the mens rea proved, not to be illegal. (D) The intentions of the party was to defraud the law, evade customs law and carry on a illegal act. It could be tantamount to putting a hand in another man’s pocket, which however is empty, or stealing one’s one umbrella thinking it to be another man’s. 11.What was the decision in the case? (5 marks) The appeal was quashed (Shivpuri). ASSESSED EXERCISE 3 Explain the process of reasoning by which Lord Bridge reaches his conclusion in the case of R v Shivpuri and then explain how you used your intellect and reasoning processes to analyse and comprehend this piece of knowledge and how these have been affected by your work during the semester. (700 words) The process of reasoning adopted by Lord Bridge reaches his conclusion in the case of Regina v. Shivpuri [1986] 2 WLR 988 was that he was more concerned about the state of mind, or mens rea, and fraudulent intentions of the party, than actus rea, or actual commission of the crime. In the case of R v. Shivpuri, the crux of the issue lay in the fact that its perpetrators had full knowledge about the illegality of their venture, and its legal implications, while entering into the transaction. There could be two aspects to the question of legality- whether a legal matter could become illegal afterwards; in such a case, if illegality occurred before the transaction, and if the parties are aware of it, the parties could be held liable, since a cognisable offence has been committed, but if the illegality occurred after the contract was signed, the parties being unaware of such developments, they are not guilty. In the case of In R v Barbouttis (1995) 37 NSWLR 265, the defendants entered into an agreement to procure from a secret service police officer, fifty boxes of cigarettes at $400 per box, much below its market price. While showing the boxes, the agent confided that the cigarettes were stolen property and they agreed to take delivery, upon payment of some money. However, the cigarettes were not stolen goods. The respondents were charged with conspiring to carry out the crime of receiving stolen property in breach of Section 188 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). They were granted an order by a District Court judge overruling the judgement. The court held that the crime of conspiracy is not committed when, unknown to the parties, it would be impossible to accomplish the criminal objective by the course of conduct agreed. As the cigarettes were not stolen, the crime of conspiring to receive stolen property was not committed. The Crown unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal also proved a failure and the charges were dropped unceremoniously. (Barrett). The aspects which Lord Bridge considered were in terms of offering refutation to the defences provided by the appellant. Their contention was as follows: In order for crime to be established it is necessary that the alleged violators should have done more than mere preliminary work. In the case of R v. Shivpuri, it is seen that that only the substance was found in their possession. They had not distributed it to clients. Therefore the crime had not been fully committed, and only the early part had been fulfilled. Lord Bridge contended that the intention of using banned substances itself was illegal; whether it was being distributed is a secondary issue. The conspiracy hatched by the parties, and their modus operandi was itself legal. In the event they had not been intercepted, they would have achieved their nefarious intentions. Their intentions were illegal as a matter of law if not as a matter of fact.” The defendant was held to be guilty, since he had clearly intended to commit the offence and had carried out an act that was more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence. Under such circumstances, the lower degree of severity of the crime does not overshadow its authenticity, or its culpability. The second aspect was that the indictability of the offence would have matured only if the subject matter was illegal. There is nothing to suggest illegality in transacting snuff powder business. In the case of Anderton v Ryan, the defendant purchased a video recorder and believed it to be a stolen one. After she deposed before the police, it transpired that the video recorder was in fact, genuine. She was convicted of possessing stolen goods but was acquired upon appeal. Just a year later, in 1986, Lord Bridge overturned a similar case, apparently to rectify an incorrect decision in the Anderson v. Ryan case (1985) The Judge observed that it is necessary to correct a previous wrong, if need be. In such cases involving criminal law, the psyches of the parties and their degree of involvement takes precedence over the actual commission of their crimes. (Concluded) Works Sited Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) Contacts. Directgov. 05 Aug. 2008. 04 Aug. 2008. . Principal Road Safety Privisions. Office of Public Sector Information. 04 Aug.2008. . Barrett, Malcolm. Conspiring to do the Impossible: The Queen v Barbouttis: Commentary on an Appeal to be heard Against a Judgment of the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal (reported in (1995) 37 NSWLR 256). High Court Review. 04 Aug. 2008 . Shivpuri, Regina-v. Judgement. Lawindexpro-Caselaw. 11 Nov. 2002. 04 Aug. 2008. . Read More