86-Year-Old Shoplifter Gets 2 Days

Where are you now, Morty and Helen Seinfeld? Having famously defended the rights of senior citizens to shoplift batteries and other things that seem to need constant replacement, Jerry's fictional TV parents might enjoy the story of Ella Orko, who, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, got sentenced Monday to time served -- two days -- after her arrest for shoplifting at a Chicago grocery store on August 2.

Thing is, she wasn't exactly a naive first-timer. Authorities say that the 86-year-old has a petty-crime history going back half a century, beginning with her first shoplifting arrest back in 1956. In total, Orko has been pinched 61 times, and convicted on more than a dozen occasions.

Harassment Lawsuit: The Toothpick Case

n Carlisle, PA, the nightmare is finally over for two men that were, for some time, trapped with the mentality of children.

One man/child, Richard Cantor, 56, went out of his way to throw a toothpick on "the sidewalk in front of another man's home" (The Patriot-News). The natural response from the other man/child, Brian Taylor, 43, was to do an equally ridiculous action: call the police.

When they arrived, instead of a simple littering charge, Cantor was cited for harassment. Only recently did the two decide to handle their harassment lawsuit out of court and save the tax payers from funding their absurd "He started it" circus.

Driver wearing Islamic face veil fined in France

PARIS (AP) - A lawyer says a woman driving her car while wearing an Islamic face veil has been fined by French police for not having a clear field of vision.

Lawyer Jean-Michel Pollono says traffic police in the western city of Nantes fined his client euro22 ($29) in early April. The fine was based on a rule that says drivers should have "freedom of movement and a sufficient field of vision."

Pollono said Friday on France-Info radio that he is protesting the decision, saying a veil is "the same as a motorcycle helmet" in terms of hindrance to vision.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has ordered a law drafted that would ban veils that cover the face and body anywhere in public. Such veils are very rare in France.

http://news.findlaw.com/ap/i/1103/04-23-2010/20100423023509_10.html

International Law news

Bangkok business district crippled after attacks
By THANYARAT DOKSONE Associated Press Writer

BANGKOK (AP) - The Thai capital's main financial district was partially crippled Friday following deadly grenade attacks and a tense standoff between die-hard, anti-government demonstrators and a government that has yielded vital areas of Bangkok to them.

Many banks, offices, restaurants and a major shopping complex were closed along Silom Road, known as Thailand's Wall Street. Traffic was light in the normally jammed four-lane thoroughfare, and even many small-time food vendors had left their patches of pavement.

The late-night attacks involved five M-79 grenades shot from near where anti-government Red Shirt protesters have been encamped for weeks, and the blasts struck areas where counter-demonstrators gathered, but the government stopped short of directly blaming the Red Shirts.

The late-night attacks killed at least one person and wounded 86, according to the government's Erawan Emergency Center, which handles victim counts in crises and disasters.

The head of a key security agency, Tharit Pengdit, urged the general public to avoid the area near the protests and warned that anyone involved in "terrorism" will face the death penalty.

Thousands of mostly rural Red Shirts have been entrenched on Bangkok's streets since March 12 in a campaign to dissolve Parliament and hold immediate elections, and Thailand's powerful military has warned them that time is running out to clear the streets or face a crackdown.

In New York, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon voiced concern that the situation could escalate and called for dialogue, his spokesman said.

And the U.S. State Department advised American citizens to avoid travel to Bangkok. Earlier in the week, the U.S. had recommended against visiting the Thai capital but did not go as far to advise against it.

"Due to escalating violence in central Bangkok, all U.S. citizens should avoid nonessential travel to Bangkok," the advisory said. "The possibility of more such attacks cannot be ruled out."

The latest violence occurred in Bangkok's financial district where soldiers have been stationed. Across the intersection, Red Shirts have built barricades of tires and bamboo stakes.

Behind the barricades, Red Shirts have created a virtual village complete with sleeping tents, canteens and portable toilets. Five-star hotels, shopping malls and office buildings in the upscale district have closed.

Silom Road is lined with bank headquarters and other office buildings, but also is a popular tourist destination, filled with restaurants and popular nightlife venues. But late Thursday, it looked more like a war zone with grenade blasts lighting the night sky and panicked people fleeing the scene. Some rushed the bloodied wounded to safety as throngs of riot police and armed soldiers swarmed the area.

A protest leader, Nattawut Saikua, said he spent the night in talks with Deputy Prime Minister Korbsak Sabhavasu, but that there appeared to be no resolution to the crisis.

The Red Shirts consist mainly of poor rural supporters of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and pro-democracy activists who opposed the military coup that ousted him in 2006 after months of demonstrations by the Yellow Shirts.

The Red Shirts believe the government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva is illegitimate because it came to power under military pressure through a parliamentary vote after disputed court rulings ousted two elected pro-Thaksin governments. They want Parliament dissolved and new elections held.

The first three blasts Thursday evening struck an elevated train station on Silom, and passengers were rushed away down the station's stairs by soldiers who were stationed there.

Two later blasts struck an intersection filled with demonstrators protesting against the Red Shirts as well as bystanders. Chaos ensued, as scores of wounded were tended to and carried to ambulances. The front window of the sandwich shop was shattered, and a pool of blood was on its stoop.

Bangkok's elevated train and subway transit systems shut nearby stations Friday.

Government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn said the blasts were under investigation but that it was too soon to come to any conclusions. "This is the work of the terrorists that the government has always been wanting to get rid off," he said.

Since the beginning of the crisis, Abhisit's government has threatened to curtail the protests but has failed to follow through. Military units from the 200,000-strong army have been routed in several encounters with the crudely armed demonstrators. And the police have often melted when faced with determined rioters.

In a previous paroxysm of violence, 25 people were killed and more than 800 wounded on April 10 when the army sought to clear out Red Shirt protesters from an encampment in another part of the capital.

Since the protests began, 45 incidents of grenade attacks and bomb explosions have rocked the city, said Tharit, who heads the Department of Special Investigations.

Nobody has yet been apprehended, giving rise to speculation, including that some attacks were the work of renegade army officers either seeking to provoke the Red Shirts or to settle scores within the fractious military.

Culprits in violent incidents related to politics are rarely brought to justice. There have still been no arrests, for example, in mysterious bombings on New Year's Eve 2006.

The anti-Red Shirt group includes office employees, middle class families, academics, some low-wage workers and members of the Yellow Shirts, a group that supports the current government and who themselves rampaged through Bangkok and seized the city's airports two years ago.

Although some are genuinely aggrieved by the inconveniences wrought by the protests, many seem to have primarily political objections to the Red Shirts, including claiming the movement is directed against the country's widely revered monarch.

---

The Sale of Goods Act .. The rights of customers: goods

If you sell your customers goods that don't conform to contract - that aren't as described, are unfit for their purpose or of unsatisfactory quality - you are legally obliged to resolve the problem if they seek redress.

The Sale of Goods Act states that if customers want to reject faulty goods, they have to do so within a 'reasonable time'. A legal definition of 'reasonable' is not given though - it varies from case to case and could be just a few weeks from the date of purchase.

If a customer rejects faulty goods within this 'reasonable' period, they're entitled to ask for their money back. All customers can claim compensation at any time if they choose. If you sell to consumers - not other traders - they can ask for a repair or a replacement immediately (instead of asking for a refund) at any time until six years after purchase.

If you're dealing with a consumer, any repair or replacement you arrange must not cause them too much inconvenience. You may have to pay for other costs such as transportation. However, if a replacement is impossible and the goods cannot be repaired economically, or vice versa, then you can offer a full or partial refund.

In law you have a responsibility to your customer for up to six years from the date of purchase (in Scotland, five years from discovery of the problem). During this period, you are legally obliged to deal with any claim of breach of contract.

Your responsibilities at the time you sell goods

Whenever you sell goods to a customer you have certain responsibilities.

You must make sure the goods 'conform to contract'. This means that they must be as you describe them - for instance, a car must be the exact model that you say it is, of the correct engine size and with the same number of previous owners as you tell the customer it has had.

By law, all descriptions - whether verbal, written, implied or given in an illustration, must be accurate and not misleading. If you describe goods inaccurately, the customer may have a claim against you for breach of contract, and it may put you in breach of the Trade Descriptions Act.

Ebay did not infringe tiffaby's trademarks

2nd Circuit Panel Affirms That EBay Did Not Infringe Tiffany's Trademarks
NEW YORK - Online auction provider eBay Inc. is not guilty of infringing the famous marks of jeweler Tiffany and Co., despite the existence of counterfeit goods on its site, a panel in the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled April 1, mostly affirming a lower court's judgment (Tiffany [NJ] Inc., et al. v. eBay Inc., No. 08-3947, 2nd Cir.; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 6735). From Mealey's Litigation Report: Cyber Tech & E-Commerce

Business Law

Shipping Company Accused Of Defrauding Consumers With Fuel Charge Scheme
ROME, Ga. - International shipping company United Parcel Service was hit with a class action lawsuit on April 5 in a Georgia federal court, accusing the company of defrauding consumers by engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity (Zakroff and Associates v. United Parcel Service Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-0997, N.D. Ga.). From Mealey's Litigation Report: Class Actions

insurance law issue

Fired Employee's Bad Faith Claim Fails; Discrimination Claims Survive Judgment
HONOLULU - An insurance company's terminated employee failed to allege her basis for suing her former employer for insurance bad faith, a Hawaii federal judge ruled April 15, dismissing the claim and finding no allegation that the insurer unreasonably delayed any benefit payments (Anastasia Victorina Lehuanani Abbey v. Hawaii Employers Mutual Insurance Co., et al., No. 09-00545, D. Hawaii; 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37463). From Mealey's Litigation Report: Insurance Bad Faith

Insurance law

Insurer Had No Obligation Over $1 Million Policy Limits, 2nd Circuit Panel Rules
NEW YORK - Having determined that an excess insurer's umbrella liability policy covered contractual indemnification claims brought in a wrongful death lawsuit, a panel of the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 14 affirmed a lower court's grant of summary judgment to a primary insurer on indemnification, as well as on fiduciary duty and bad faith claims (Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. v. Transcontinental Insurance Co., No. 09-2794, 2nd Cir.; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 7613). From Mealey's Litigation Report: Insurance Bad Faith

Sick Leave Bill Fails in Legislature

Category: Legal Article
Created: Mar 28 2010 - 21:00
Updated: Apr 6 2010 - 10:32


Employers are due for some good news. This morning, the Maine Legislature killed LD 1665, the sick leave bill, for this session. You may recall that this bill, which was titled "An Act To Prevent the Spread of H1N1," originally would have mandated the provision of paid sick leave by all Maine employers. When that idea ran into strong opposition from the employer community, the bill morphed into a prohibition against terminating anyone who takes up to five days of sick leave a year. But this approach also ran into a firestorm from employers, and the votes simply did not materialize.

From the information available, the bill died "under the hammer" which means that there was no recorded vote in either the House or the Senate. So there will be no way to tell who supported the bill, and who did not. There are often political reasons why both proponents and opponents do not want such a record, usually for fear of displeasing a particular interest group.

In this case, maybe "good" news really means "not bad" news. The demise of LD 1665 does not improve anything; employers are left with the status quo, for now. Depending on the state of the economy and the outcome of the fall election, this bill could well be back.

In the meantime, however, what matters most is that employers were heard, loud and clear. Keep it up!

unpaid internships under law scrutiny

Earlier this month, the New York Times published an article noting an increase in the number of unemployed adults accepting unpaid internships as part of their strategy to retool their skills for a new career. The article touched upon, but did not discuss in depth legal issues that such internships could cause for employers.

The Fair Labor Standards Act significantly restricts the circumstances under which unpaid interns are exempt from minimum wage requirements. In order to be exempt, the internship must (1) be a requirement of an academic program leading to a degree; and (2) must be largely educational in nature. This second requirement means that the intern must spend his or her time observing and not engaging in productive work of value to the company. This requirement avoids situations where employers use unpaid interns to displace work from employees.

For decades, these rules have been largely ignored by employers. Observational internships may be ineffective in allowing a prospective employer to determine an intern's skills and talents. Enforcement actions have been few because unpaid interns rarely complain about the lack of pay.

The Times article speculated that as these adult internships become more common, DOL may begin questioning employees about the specific tasks performed by the interns, and whether or not they were paid. Employers can avoid these FLSA issues by formally employing the interns at minimum wage.

Company law

McCurry (Malaysia)
In 2006, McDonald's won a five year legal battle in Malaysia against a small restaurant named "McCurry". The defendant claimed that McCurry stood for Malaysian Chicken Curry, but a High Court judge ruled that the prefix Mc and the use of colors distinctive of the McDonald's brand could confuse and deceive customers.[12]
In April 2009 however, McCurry won the case again after a retrial. Again in September 2009, McDonald’s lost an eight-year trademark battle in a precedent-setting judgment by Malaysia’s highest court. The Federal Court ruled that McDonald’s cannot appeal against another court’s verdict that had allowed McCurry to use ‘Mc’ in its name. The ruling by a three-member panel of the Federal Court ends all legal avenues for McDonald’s to protect its name from what it said was a trademark infringement. “On the basis of unanimous decision, our view is that McDonald’s plea to carry the case forward has no merit," said chief judge Arifin Zakaria. “It is unfortunate that we have to dismiss the application with costs,” he said. McDonald’s will have to pay RM10,000 to McCurry, a popular eatery in Jalan Ipoh on the edge of Kuala Lumpur’s downtown.[13][14]
McDonald’s lawyers refused to comment, except to say the company will abide by the judgment. A three-member Appeal Court panel had ruled in favour of McCurry Restaurant in April, 2009 when it overturned a 2006 High Court ruling that had upheld McDonald’s contention. Arifin said McDonald’s lawyers were unable to point out faults in the Appeal Court judgment, which had said there was no evidence to show that McCurry was passing off McDonald’s business as its own. The Appeals Court also said McDonald’s cannot claim an exclusive right to the ‘Mc’ prefix in the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_legal_cases

We need the Law to Settle cases

Read through and you will understand that indeed we truelly need the LAW...this story is the story of Botswana's Former minister of Education and the scandals he created while he had the power..


I lied - Nkate
Written by KHONANI ONTEBETSE
WEDNESDAY, 21 APRIL 2010 00:00
The Voice newspaper


• He could be charged with perjury
• He says his statement to the DCEC on Nchindo case was false

Southern Regional Magistrate Lot Moroka will decide whether or not to impeach former Minister of Lands and Housing, Jacob Nkate.

“In this case we have a witness who brings in a lot of material, and put contradictory material before Court,” said Moroka.

Nkate is a State witness in the case in which former Debswana boss Louis Goodwill Nchindo's son, Garvas, and co-accused Joseph Matome, face corruption charges relating to the allocation of Plot 55720 in Block 10, Gaborone, to Nchindo’s company, the Tourism Development Consortium (TDC).

Last Thursday Nkate had told the Court while being cross-examined by Advocate Craig Webster that there was no evidence that Debswana was involved in the TDC project. “I can’t recall this as a Debswana project. The application by TDC had nothing to do with Debswana,” he had said.

But when being re-examined by the prosecutor, Senior State Counsel Kgosietsile Ngakaagae, the following day, Nkate revealed inconsistencies between what he had earlier told the Court and a statement that he had made to the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC).

Nkate told Magistrate Moroka last Friday: “The Court will judge whether it was a bad thing to tell a falsity under oath, and if it is done deliberately.”

Ngakaagae suggested that Nkate had changed his testimony to mislead the Court.

“I have no interest in the matters of this case and my desire is to tell the Court the truth. At the time I wrote the statement I was confused whether the land at Block 10 was obtained under TDC or under the Debswana venture. I mixed up the projects because of similarities,” Nkate replied.

Ngakaagae pointed out to Nkate that when he made the statement to DCEC director Tymon Katholo it was clear to him that the TDC was a Debswana subsidiary; only at a later stage - while in the dock - was it clear to him that it was not a Debswana subsidiary.

Nkate said the statement that he had made to Katholo under oath was false, adding: “There is a mistake in the statement; that is the case.” He said he was not under any pressure when he wrote the statement; he had also understood the gravity of his oath.

Ngakaagae reminded Nkate that on Page Four of his statement he had told the DCEC director that the TDC was a Debswana subsidiary. Nkate replied that he had understood the application by TDC to be a Debswana project.

Nkate said it was his total conviction when he used the word ‘clearly,’ that there were facts that made it clear that this was a Debswana project. At all times he had believed that the TDC was a Debswana project and that it would be based at Debswana. The application for Plot 55720 was a direct allocation that did not have to queue with others because it was of national importance, he said.

Asked by Ngakaagae if his decision to approve the application for plot 55720 was not based on what the officials in his Ministry had told him, but on a briefing by Debswana, Nkate said he had confused the application by TDC with Debswana’s.

“It must be borne in mind that there were two projects: to build a hotel and a golf course pursued by the same individual in the person of Nchindo. I had access to interact with both applications and when I wrote my statement concerning TDC I confused it with the Debswana project,” he said.

Nkate said when he learnt about the Debswana project he had become confused whether the project would be done as a TDC project, or whether there was a relationship between the two. “They were promoted by the same individual and I could not say which one was which,” he said.

Asked by Ngakaagae why as Minister he had not blown the whistle that the Debswana managing director was running a project that was in conflict with Debswana’s, Nkate suggested: “It could be that they wanted to collaborate on the same plot?”

He said he could not see any conflict of interest, even if the TDC and Debswana applications had not come at the same time.

Ngakaagae asked him if he was a friend of the late Nchindo’s. “He was an acquaintance, not a friend,” Nkate said.

what is law and what can we really do with it?

As such, there is no single or correct answer to this question. In past no one really questioned lawmakers, law distributors, or the laws themselves. But of late, society has begun to question most legal activities as to their effectiveness and competence. The cause of these reviews has emerged by changing times, changing thoughts, understanding, beliefs, as well as the development of technology and other such new developments within societies.

There are 2 sources of law – parliament (legislation) and court (case) made law. These laws can be regarded as being purely formal, irrespective of whether they are good or bad.

Law can be ‘positivist’ in nature – meaning no judgement is made in regards to the quality of that law - implement it regardless if it is a good or bad. Such a theory does not look at the moral implications of the laws – it’s a amoral view of law. Natural law on the other hand, is the idea that ‘God’ makes laws. This theory originates as far back as early Greece and the ‘Gods’. The most complete account of natural law doctrine can be found by Aquinas St. Thomas. For instance – "Nothing else than the rational creature’s participation of the eternal law", "Every human law has just so much of the character of the law as it is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it differs from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a corruption of a law", "…that positive law is a determination of natural law". One natural theorist is Kant Emmanuel – "No law can be right merely by convention", "Laws, as such, are to be regarded as necessary a priori – that is as following of themselves from the conceptions of external right generally – and not as merely established by statues".

Bentham Jeremy

He accepted Hobber’s identification of law – A law is what a sovereign commands (This approach can be associated to the case of Hitler and his power).
Principle of utility – the ability to way up the benefits of a product or situation and make decisions about it based on its usefulness or cost.
Suggested that certainty in the law could not be had without codification.
In 1832, Austin John published his theory that sought to clarifyy the distinction between law and morality. He stated that 'commands' are expressions of desire that another shall forbear, which is accompanied by a threat of punishment (the "sanction") for disobedience.

The disputed question is "is law really needed"? As simplistic as it may seem to answer, it is fundamental that we ask. Personally, laws are guidelines that set out appropriate behaviour that has been developed over time, and are based on moral beliefs, a human condition that sets out a purpose that society in general is called upon – or required to fulfill. Without the fulfillment of these desired tasks, man simply will become equal to animals – or worse still, allow their darker sides (or impulses) to emerge and control their lives. Thus, law acts as a guardian against the inevitable anarchy that would engulf humanity (if you want proof, simply turn to the riots that take place in America when officers of the law go out on strike).

On the other hand, we have those who believe that mankind is naturally good, and it is the external forces that surround us that are completely responsible for any wrong doing that takes place – for instance, the government.

Augustine’s assertion that law was a natural necessity to curb man’s sinful nature held the field for many centuries. But the belief that man’s nature might be corrupt and sinful has been at times weighed against the belief that man posses a natural virtue which is capable of development. Leaning heavily upon Aristotle’s conception of the natural development of the state from man’s social impulses, Aquinas held that the state was not necessary evil but was a natural foundation in the development of human welfare.

This continued perception of man with no laws or structures to force certain behaviours creating the ultimate ‘utopian’ society is legally termed (or coined) as laissez faire. But when we think about this supposed utopian society, we can see that it is not possible. The only time it would have ever been a feasible theory would have been at the time of man’s conception as in Adam and Eve – and history has already show us that their duration in paradise did not last that long. Come to think of it, even Adam and Eve had guidelines, no matter how limited, that they had to follow for their retention in paradise – and they failed - as would any other anarchy based, or limited direction society.

The most influential of all people that promoted anarchy of sorts, would undoubtedly be Karl Marx. He envisaged the overthrow of the capitalist society by a violent revolution of the oppressed proletariat. Law was nothing but a coercive system devised to maintain a classless society would be brought into being, and law and the state would ‘whither away’ as being no longer needed to support an oppressive regime. The Marxist looks forward rather than back to the Golden Age (if it ever really existed) when social harmony will be attuned to the natural goodness of man unimpeded by such environmental snares as the institution of private property. But it can be seen that the introduction of Marxist socialism has always been closely followed by the implementation of more laws and legal repression, rather than having them abolished.

It is fact, that even in the simplest of societies, some form of legal rule and guidance is without doubt needed to control the anarchist like environment – which ironically counteracts the entire purpose of a lawless society.


http://www.uplink.com.au/lawlibrary/Documents/Docs/Doc31.html

incometax india

The Central Government has approved notification of 'specified territory' for the purpose of Explanation 2 to Section 90 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Section 90 of the Income Tax Act was amended by the Finance Act 2009 to enable the Central Government to enter into an agreement with any specified territory outside India, in addition to the already existing provision of agreement with the government of any country. Explanation 2 provides for notification of such specified territories.



http://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/

Income Tax Law

From Wikipedia

The federal government of the United States imposes a progressive tax on the taxable income of individuals, partnerships, companies, corporations, trusts, decedents' estates, and certain bankruptcy estates. Some state and municipal governments also impose income taxes. The first Federal income tax was imposed (under Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution) during the Civil War, then again in the 1890s, and again after the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in 1913. Current income taxes are imposed under these constitutional provisions and various sections of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, including 26 U.S.C. § 1 (imposing income tax on the taxable income of individuals, estates and trusts) and 26 U.S.C. § 11 (imposing income tax on the taxable income of corporations).

sale of goods law

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (c 54) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which regulates contracts in which goods are sold and bought. The Act consolidates the original Sale of Goods Act 1893 and subsequent legislation, which in turn had codified and consolidated the law. Since 1979, there have been a number of minor statutory changes and additions to the 1979 Act, and a new consolidated Sale of Goods Act is perhaps overdue.

The Sale of Goods Act performs several functions. The Act lays down a small number of compulsory legal rules, but these restrictions are minimal: the bulk of the Act is concerned with an array of presumptions and implied terms, which aim to reflect the commercial expectations in the most commonly agreed sales contracts. In the absence of contrary agreement these terms will govern a contract within the Act's remit. The benefits in efficiency (through lower bargaining costs) and legal certainty have led to many jurisdictions adopting the legislation wholesale, and versions of the Sale of Goods Act have been adopted in almost all the former territories of the British Empire and Commonwealth (with the notable exception of Canada, which has adopted hybrid legislation incorporating elements of the US Uniform Commercial Code).

The Act applies to contracts where property in 'goods' is transferred or agreed to be transferred for a monetary consideration,[2] in other words: where property* in personal chattels is sold. (* Note that in this context, the word "property" means "ownership").

Insurance Law

Insurance Law
Up until 1944, insurance was not considered "commerce" and not subject to state or Federal regulation. But, because of some key cases, including United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, Congress passed acts that provided the power to states to regulate and control the insurance businesses. While state insurance statutes override most Federal laws, some portions of federal law (like Federal tax laws) are always commanding. State laws govern the "business of insurance," while federal laws govern the peripherals of the industry (e.g., labor, tax, securities, etc.). Insurance Law encompasses the state statutes and Federal laws governing the insurance business and the peripherals of the industry.

What is Insurance?

While there are a lot of types of policies with varying regulations and benefits, the purpose of insurance is all the same: to allocate the risks of a loss from the individual to a great number of people. In the absence of insurance, three possible parties bear the burden of an economic loss; the individual suffering the loss; the individual or entity causing the loss via negligence or unlawful conduct; or a particular party that has been allocated the burden by the legislature, (e.g., employers under workers' compensation laws and statutes). With insurance, individuals pay a "premium" into a pool, from which losses are paid out. Insurance companies are generally considered the safe keepers of this pool of premiums and they are the ones who pay the claims of the individual losses.

What is Insurance Bad Faith?

If an insurance company violates principles or regulations governing insurance law, it may constitute bad faith in denying a claim, stalling in making a decision on a claim, or requiring unreasonable actions or documentation by the insured to prove a claim.

Caveat Emptor

Under the doctrine of caveat emptor, the buyer could not recover from the seller for defects on the property that rendered the property unfit for ordinary purposes. The only exception was if the seller actively concealed latent defects or otherwise made material misrepresentations amounting to fraud.

Before statutory law, the buyer had no warranty of the quality of goods. In many jurisdictions now, the law requires that goods must be of "merchantable quality". However, this implied warranty can be difficult to enforce and may not apply to all products. Hence, buyers are still advised to be cautious.

Salomon V salomon & Co Ltd

Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 is a landmark UK company law case. The effect of the Lords' unanimous ruling was to firmly uphold the doctrine of corporate personality, as set out in the Companies Act 1862.

The Court of Appeal [1895] 2 Ch 323 confirmed Vaughan Williams J's decision against Mr Salomon, though on the grounds that Mr. Salomon had abused the privileges of incorporation and limited liability, which Parliament had intended only to confer on "independent bona fide shareholders, who had a mind and will of their own and were not mere puppets". Lindley LJ (an expert on partnership law) held that the company was a trustee for Mr Salomon, and as such was bound to indemnify the company's debts. Lopes LJ and Kay LJ variously described the company as a myth and a fiction and said that the incorporation of the business by Mr Salomon had been a mere scheme to enable him to carry on as before but with limited liability.

Sony refuses to sanction PS3 refunds No compensation for retailers coughing up over Other OS

Sony says that it has no intention of reimbursing retailers if they offer fat PS3 users partial refunds because of the removal of the Install Other OS function.

Last week, the first PS3 user successfully secured a partial refund from Amazon UK as compensation for the removal of the ability to run Linux on the console.

The punter quoted European law in order to persuade the online retailer that the goods he had bought in good faith were no longer fit for purpose because of the enforcement of firmware update 3.21, which meant that users who chose to keep the Other OS functionality would lose the ability to play the latest games or connect to the PlayStation Network.

Sony was accused of contravening the Sale of Goods Act and more than one forum poster across the web suggested that a class action suit might be in order.

But Sony is standing fast, insisting it has done nothing wrong as the company's PR head honcho David Wilson told us. "We do understand the frustration a small number of consumers may feel at SCE's decision to provide an upgrade to the firmware to disable the Linux operating system but we refute any suggestion that this action is in any way a contravention of the terms of Sale of Goods Act," he said.

The fact that the ability to install Linux was heavily promoted when the console was launched by Sony Computer Entertainment (the word 'computer' is important here) seems to hold little sway for the company or its spokesman.

"The PS3 is first and foremost a games console and our marketing materials for the console reflect this," said Wilson. "The console packaging and the in-box manual for the console do not refer to the use of Linux on the console. Rather, the console packaging states that the product's design and specifications are subject to change without notice and that the system software within the console is subject to a limited licence between SCE and the consumer, and this licence permits SCE to update the system software and services offered from time to time."

The fact of the matter is that no end of complex Terms and Conditions, or even the most draconian End User License Agreements (EULA) have the power to override the law of the land, and Sony is fully aware of this. The company knows that it is protected by those same laws.

"The provision in the Sale of Goods Act which requires an item to be fit for a purpose made known by the consumer to the retailer prior to purchase and confirmed by the retailer applies only to the contract between the retailer and the consumer," Sony told us. "The decision by Amazon to give a consumer a partial refund is clearly between Amazon and the consumer, but we do not expect the decision to have a legal basis and we have no plans to compensate retailers."

So it looks like fat PS3 owners have three choices:

1. Continue using Linux but give up the ability to download games from the PlayStation store, play disk-based PS3 games which require version 3.21 or higher, play Blu-Ray Disks which require profile updates or download movie.

2. Give up Linux altogether and use the PS3 the way Sony now wants you to use it.

3. Get an £84 refund from your retailer and put the money towards an XBox.

There is, of course, a fourth way. You could wait for the hackers who caused these shenanigans in the first place to release a fiddled firmware update which would allow you to do all of the above.

company LawUBS chief to apologise for bank's role in tax evasion

BASEL, Switzerland — The chairman of UBS will apologise Wednesday on behalf of the Swiss banking giant for helping some US clients to evade taxes, an act which sparked lawsuits from US tax authorities.

"I am aware that UBS triggered this problem itself and we are deeply sorry," Kaspar Villiger, chairman of the bank, will say, according to a copy of his speech to be delivered to shareholders at the bank's annual general meeting.

UBS, the US and Swiss governments last August reached an agreement that requires the bank to reveal the identities of 4,450 American account holders suspected of having evaded US taxes.

In return, US authorities were prepared to drop their lawsuit against the bank. However, this deal now hangs in the balance, as it is pending approval from parliamentarians.

While acknowledging the bank's culpability, Villiger will also urge parliament to approve the deal, saying that a failure of the accord "would damage Switzerland's credibility abroad and could dramatically impact economic relations with the US."

Villiger is set to address boisterous shareholders who are likely to challenge the bank on its plan to absolve former executives from blame for its recent woes.

Just hours before the meeting, a parliamentary commission also urged shareholders to reject a proposal by the bank to discharge former executives of the bank, thereby exempting them from possible lawsuits from the bank unless new evidence came to light.

Villiger will however seek approval for the plan, by telling shareholders that none of "nearly 10 internal and external investigations have brought forth evidence" to pose legal challenges.

He will also say that in certain cases, bringing legal charges may not be in the interest of the company or shareholders.

"Experience shows that such trials last a minimum of 10 years, cost millions of francs, keep a company in the headlines for years, lead to a paralysis within the company and in the end turn out to be much ado about nothing," he added.

But some shareholders wanted more details about the investigations.

Roby Tschopp, director of Actares -- a group of small shareholders, told AFP ahead of the AGM that details were lacking on the the investigations carried out by UBS which led to the decision to absolve the former executives from blame.

Tschopp added that a parliamentary commission is expected to begin a separate probe in June, and therefore the timing of the call to discharge the former executives was not right.

"If the commission finds something else that is clearer, it could help us" in building a legal case, he said.

Copyright © 2010 AFP. All rights reserved.

Judge: Insurers won't supper 'irreparable harm' from rate rejections

By Kyle Cheney/Statehouse News Service

GateHouse News Service

Posted Apr 12, 2010 @ 06:21 PM

BOSTON —

A Superior Court judge on Monday rejected a request by six major health insurers to delay the rejection of hundreds of proposed small business premium hikes by the state insurance commissioner, Joseph Murphy.

An injunction would have permitted the health plans to implement premium increases for tens of thousands of small businesses ranging from 8 percent to 32 percent, levels the Patrick administration has targeted as prohibitive to job creation and in excess of underlying medical inflation rates.

The decision, announced just after 3:30 p.m. Monday, came as a victory to Gov. Deval Patrick and as a blow to the carriers, who said the inability to charge higher premiums to small businesses could destabilize the insurance industry and force companies to absorb losses totaling more than $100 million over the next eight months, depleting their reserves.

“We are disappointed that the court denied our motion for preliminary injunction, but we appreciate that the court has acted quickly in making its decision. We remain confident in the merits of our case and plan to consider all of our available options in light of today’s ruling,” the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans said in a statement.

The Patrick administration has hailed the rate rejections as immediate relief for small businesses who have been slapped with double-digit premium increases in recent years. Murphy rejected 235 of 274 proposed small business premium hikes on April 1. The rejections came after Patrick, in a sharp shift towards rate regulation that his political opponents labeled a gimmick, announced in February that any premium increases “significantly” above the 3.2 percent rate of medical inflation would be rejected.

“I appreciate the court’s decision. It’s a welcome decision for small businesses and working families who need immediate relief from excessive and unreasonable increases in their health care costs,” Patrick said in a statement issued shortly after the ruling was made public. “We look forward to working with the insurance companies, as well as hospitals and other providers, to secure this short-term relief, and to working with the legislature on proposals to reduce costs throughout the industry.”

Patrick’s Republican opponent Charles Baker blistered the governor in a subsequent statement.

"Despite today's ruling by the Suffolk Superior Court, nothing changes the fact that Deval Patrick has spent three and a half years taxing and spending small businesses into the ground, while failing to implement any solutions that address the underlying causes of skyrocketing healthcare costs under his watch,” said Baker, who stepped down as the head of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care last year to run for governor.

Speaking with reporters, Patrick admonished Baker, saying he should “stop playing politics.”

“It would be great to have him lend a hand,” he said.

In quashing the injunction request, Judge Stephen Neel endorsed the state’s argument that insurers failed to pursue all their administrative options before filing suit. According to Division of Insurance regulations, carriers can appeal rate rejections within 15 days of the ruling. As of Monday afternoon, three of the six insurers participating in the suit – Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts and Tufts Health Plan – had appealed.

The other three insurers, Health New England, Neighborhood Health Plan and Fallon Community Health Plan, haven’t appealed, although each had dozens of premium hikes rejected.

Neel, who was appointed to the Superior Court by Republican Gov. William Weld in 2002, also rejected the insurers’ contention that they will suffer “irreparable economic harm” in the short-term, as a result of rate rejections.

“The Court reaches that conclusion because … the plaintiffs’ supporting affidavits do not present compelling evidence that the Plans’ business will be irreparably crippled over the next few months if injunctive relief is denied,” Neel wrote in his ruling. “[T]o the contrary, the Commissioner has demonstrated that one measure, calculated by the Plans themselves, indicates that the reserves and solvency of the Plans are stable, and should continue to be so in the near term.”

“As the Court has ruled above, whether the Commissioner’s disapproval was validly exercised should be determined on a factual record to be developed before an administrative hearing officer,” Neel concluded. “Were the Court now to grant the injunction which plaintiffs request, the Court would in effect be weighing in on issues that should in the first instance be decided by that hearing officer. The orderly process which Massachusetts law provides for administrative review, followed if necessary by Court review, will in the Court’s view best serve the interests of the parties and of the public.”

Insurers maintain that their proposed hikes reflect increases in the cost of medical care and have been approved by actuaries. They argue the commissioner overstepped his legal authority in rejecting the rates and by proposing to tie any rate increases to the cost of medical inflation. Although their injunction request failed, the lawsuit against the commissioner will continue.

Murphy rejected the premium hikes on the grounds that they were “excessive” and “unreasonable.” Insurers dismissed the rulings as a political ploy in an election year.

During last week’s court hearing, the insurers’ lawyer, Dean Richlin, alleged that the insurance commissioner agreed to approve any proposed rate hikes below 7.7 percent. Insurers said that proved Murphy was imposing an “arbitrary” cap on insurance premiums, while small business backers said it showed the commissioner was being flexible.

Insurers have repeatedly targeted the “market clout of certain providers” as a principal cause of rising health care costs. Reports from the Patrick administration’s Division of Health Care Finance and Policy and Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office have found that providers like Partners HealthCare command higher rates for services that other hospitals and community health centers perform at a much lower cost with no difference in quality.

“Health insurance premiums and medical costs are inextricably linked,” according to the MAHP statement. “An increasing portion of the premium dollar is attributed to the cost of medical care, with four of the five major health plans experiencing operating losses last year. Making health care affordable needs to start with addressing the market clout of certain hospitals and physician groups that was identified in the Attorney General’s recent report on health care costs and health care cost trends; otherwise, the cost of health care will continue to rise.”

The Division of Insurance has called for health plans to refund or credit to small businesses premiums paid at a higher rate in advance of the rate rejections.

Gay couples sue Calif. pension fund over insurance

SAN FRANCISCO — Three gay couples are suing California's giant public pension fund and the Internal Revenue Service to make long-term care insurance available to the same-sex spouses of state government workers.

The Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center filed the federal lawsuit Tuesday in San Francisco on behalf of the three married couples.

Lawyer Claudia Center says the California Public Employees' Retirement System is violating the couples' civil rights by making gay spouses ineligible for the program.

Pension fund spokesman Brad Pacheco says the agency makes the rest of its benefits available to gay spouses but that the long-term care program must abide by federal law, which does not recognize same-sex unions.

Sale of Goods contract

A sale of goods is a "contract by which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for money consideration called the price": s 2(1) Sale of Goods Act.

In order to constitute a sale of goods under the legislation, the consideration must be money, the price is fixed during the course of negotiations between the parties and the contract of sale must be in relation to goods (or chattels) rather than land or buildings. The agreement need not be in writing, but is sound practice to do so to avoid uncertainty and the terms of the sale contract, such as the time of delivery, the price, standard of goods, whether they have been sold subject to a description, whether they may be returned, and whether a retention of title is intended to apply to the goods sold under the contract.

The ownership of goods passes at different times, depending upon the type of goods sold in the sale of goods contract, and are different for specific and named goods, unascertained goods and future goods. The time the ownership (i.e. title) passes in sales of goods is important as the owner of the goods bears the risk in the event that the goods are destroyed or they perish. In some instances the contract may be able to be avoided in its entirety.

Terms implied into sales of goods contracts by the Sale of Goods Act include:

1. the seller has the right to sell the goods;
2. the goods are free from any security interest;
3. the buyer will have quiet enjoyment of the goods;
4. where the goods sold by description, the goods will conform with the description;
5. where the goods sold by sample, the goods will conform with the sample;
6. the goods are of satisfactory quality unless defects are brought to the notice of the buyer prior to the contract or a reasonable inspection would reveal the defect;
7. the goods are reasonably fit for the purpose stated by the intended buyer or implied by the buyer's statements and conduct;

Possible Exclusions

The parties may agree that the implied warranties relating to sale by description, satisfactory quality and sale by sample do not apply in commercial, rather than consumer sales. The warranty that the seller has the right to sell the goods may not be excluded by agreement.

Usage: The title passed under sale of goods upon delivery.

Related Words: personal property; retention of title; quiet possession; security; contract; mortgage; charge; lien.

Insurance Law

Georgia Insurance Commissioner Balks at Request on New Health Law

By ROBBIE BROWN

Published: April 13, 2010

• Sign in to Recommend
• Twitter
• Sign In to E-Mail
• Print
• Reprints
• ShareClose
  • Linndkedin
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • MySpace
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Permalink
  • 
    

ATLANTA — The insurance commissioner of Georgia has chosen not to comply with a federal request to create a state pool for high-risk insurance plans, opening a new front in the resistance by state Republican officials to the new federal health care law.

Readers’ Questions on the New Health Care Law

Prescription Blog answers your questions on the effects of the new health care legislation.

• Go to Prescriptions.

Related

• Times Topic: Health Care Reform

The commissioner, John W. Oxendine, who is a Republican candidate for governor, appears to be one of the first politicians in the country to take that stance. His decision will not affect the cost of insurance for any patients, but it means that the federal government, not the state, will oversee the distribution of certain federal health care funds in Georgia.

Nineteen state attorneys general — nearly all Republicans — are filing lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the health care law. The issue has been especially contentious in Georgia. After the state attorney general, a Democrat, called the lawsuits a waste of taxpayer money, Republican lawmakers here drafted a petition calling for his impeachment, and the Republican governor appointed a “special attorney general,” a private lawyer, specifically to file a lawsuit on the state’s behalf.

Mr. Oxendine, in a letter Monday to Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said he could not allow Georgia to join “a scheme which I believe the Supreme Court will hold to be unconstitutional, leads to the further expansion of the federal government, undermines the financial security of our nation, and potentially commits the State of Georgia to future financial obligations.”

In an interview, Mr. Oxendine said he had spoken to at least two governors and one insurance commissioner from other states who were considering taking the same stance, although he would not say which states.

This month, Ms. Sebelius had asked the governors and elected insurance commissioners of every state to decide by April 30 whether, and how, to create the insurance pools. Under the health care law, a total of $5 billion in federal money will be allocated to reduce the costs of insurance premiums for high-risk patients by the end of 2013.

A spokesman for Ms. Sebelius, Nicholas Papas, said the decision by Mr. Oxendine would not affect the premiums that any Georgians pay.

“For too long, Georgians with pre-existing conditions have been locked out of the insurance market,” Mr. Papas said in a statement. “If state officials in Georgia elect not to participate in the high-risk pool program, our department will work to ensure Georgians with pre-existing conditions have access to affordable insurance through the federal high-risk pool program that we will establish this year.”

Mr. Oxendine said his opposition to the pool program was legal and financial, not politically motivated. But some political experts noted that any stance against the federal health care law could help him in the crowded Republican primary race for governor in July.

“I suspect the decision was heavily influenced by politics,” said Charles Bullock, a professor of political science at the University of Georgia. “The electorate here is hostile to Barack Obama and health care reform.”

Mr. Oxendine’s decision is not necessarily the final word on whether Georgia will create the insurance pool. Bert Brantley, a spokesman for Gov. Sonny Perdue, said the governor’s office would also issue a response to Ms. Sebelius, but agreed with Mr. Oxendine’s arguments against the pool.

To be taken before court

LUCKY TO BE ALIVE

Woman fights off robber and foils rape attempt
Dubani-wa-Dubani
Recently a mother of two, Ivy Medupi of Palla Road, was attacked by a man who threatened her with rape and robbed her minutes after getting off a bus on which she had travelled from Mahalapye to Palla Road. Here she tells the story of her brave fight and escape from her assailant. She spoke to The Voice last Thursday; just three days after the arrest of the man she believes attacked her.
“I got off the bus in the evening. While on the bus I had sent my cousins a text message asking them to meet me at the bus top and had phoned when I got off the bus. They said they were on their way so I decided to walk and meet them on the way since it is a short distance from the bus stop to the first homesteads. As I walked through the gate of fence that separates the village from the road I noticed a man coming towards me. I thought it was one of my cousins but when we got nearer to each other I realized he was a stranger. I noticed he was holding a white pipe and became apprehensive but relaxed when he greeted me nicely and asked me if I had left anybody at the bus stop saying a friend had asked him to meet him there. I told him I had left nobody there. He thanked me and continued his walk. I called after him close the gate, which I had found open. When I looked back I saw him close the gate and seemed to make his way to the bus stop.
“Suddenly I was fighting for my life. The man had silently come from behind me, got his white pipe over my head, onto my throat and was strangling me. Instinctively I grabbed at the pipe that was cutting my air supply and fought hard for free myself. I do not think I screamed because my focus was on fighting off this beast and saving my life. We wrestled for some time and I eventually tripped and fell to the ground with him on top of me. It was at this point that I realized he would overpower me and I pretended to give up the fight in the hope that he would think he had overpowered me and relax his grip. He fell for the rouse. The little air that I got when he relaxed his murderous hold onto my throat revived me and I blindly kicked out catching him between the legs. The kick made him stand up and drop his pipe. I managed to stand up too.
“As we got up he grabbed my hand and prevented me from running away. When I realized I would not get away yet, I decided to talk to him in the hope that someone would come along while I was talking to him and rescue me from my ordeal. As I thought he was after my bag which had my cell phone, jewelry and P17 000 and asked him why he did not get what he wanted from me without hurting me.
“In response he said: ‘If you want me to get what I want without harming you let’s get behind that bush and have sex. If you resist I am going to kill you and then have sex with you.’
“I told him he would have to kill me first and he said he had no problem with that as he had killed others like me and had sex with their corpses. He said this in a casual yet menacing way that I realized I had to keep him talking if I was to have any chance of escaping or being rescued by a passerby. I asked him if he had a woman of his own and he said he had a wife back at the cattle post where he lives but did not feel like having sex with her but me. He added that he was taking me back to the cattle post with him. As I told him that that was not going to happen he bent as if to pick up something. I thought he was going to pick up a rock and hit me. His grip on my hand had been loosening as we spoke and as he bent down I freed myself and ran away as fast as I could shouting out for help. He did not chase after me because people from nearby homesteads responded to my call. When I looked back I saw him grab my handbag and a plastic bag, which I had dropped during our scuffle and run into the bush.
“When the first of those who heard and responded to my cries got to me he had disappeared. My throat and arms were bruised but I was happy to be alive.
“I am glad the man has been caught and I hope he will get the punishment he deserves.
“I was quite scared during the whole fight but I somehow managed to keep calm. I guess this is because my desire to live and not surrender to possible rape were stronger than his physical might. I guess the experience of fighting boys while growing up and herding goats in Serowe also helped. These fights made me realize while still young that I could stand up against a man in a fight.
“This attack has also taught me not to take anything for granted. Until then I had thought Palla Road to be a safe place. I also urge other woman to do their best not to go anywhere at night unaccompanied. It is dangerous out there and until it happened to me I never seriously thought I could be attacked.”
Meanwhile, Mahalapye Police Station Commander Superintendent Neo Kedumetsi has confirmed that a man has been arrested in connection with Medupi’s alleged assault and robbery and is likely to be taken before court soon.

online unregistered investment portal

Geena runs an unregistered investement online portal from her home in Kl where she managed to get people deposit money to her account.

It was discovered that the investment was a scam, and she attempted to flee with the money, only to be arrested in the airport by immigration officers because she held a fake passport.

- determine Geena's liability civil or crimal?
-What laws and statutes do u think Geena has violated?

ANSWERS

• Criminal Law
• Fraud and money laundering
  

Ryan driving in Georgetown

When driving his car home in Georgetown, Ryan called and talked with his wife thru his mobile phone without the use of hands free device.While talking, he lost control over his car and eventually hit a walking pedestrian.

• is Ryan liable under civil law or criminal law?
• should this case go to court, what will be Ryan s right?
• What should the pedestrian do to recover his injuries/loss?

Answers

Ryan is liable under criminal law.

should this case go to court Ryan has the right to remain innocent until charged guilty.

The pedestrian can sue Ryan for the injuries incured.

why we need Law

Law

Is generally any set of uniform rules or principles,requires the existence of 3 things: rules, sovereignty and enforcing power.

Marriages wouldnt work if law wasnt there..and the road users to respect each other law has a part to play. To keep the community in order its still has a lot to do with the laws that are set...

There are 2 types of laws

• Public Law
• Civil law

business Law

Its always awesome to learn something new and different..i have never in my life thought i would get a chance to learn Law and i feel honoured to be part of this class... :-)