Law and Justice

Posts Tagged ‘Cases’

People with criminal cases in Houston, Harris County, Texas, should look for the Houston attorneys who have a good deal of experience as well as an excellent reputation. Some people may consider selecting an attorney who is new to the practice of law, perhaps because he may offer lower fees. This may backfire, since such an attorney may lack a deep understanding of the law or the experience to deal with the case.   

You may find some lawyers who practice general law and take on all sorts of cases as well as attorneys who specialize in criminal cases. While a general-practice attorney may offer to handle your case, you may find it most beneficial to select an attorney who specializes in criminal cases.  So it is advisable to select the attorney who is specialized in particular cases. An attorney with this specialty will usually stay up-to-date on the laws regarding your type of case and have strategies developed for winning. With hundreds of criminal statutes in local, state, and federal or regional law, choosing the best criminal defense lawyer may be a matter of finding an attorney with considerable experience and a good reputation.   

An excellent DWI lawyer may have experience beating up inexperienced misdemeanor prosecutors, but may not have any serious understanding of how to handle a non-intoxication offense.  Even if a person is admittedly guilty, the best Houston criminal defense attorneys will treat him or her with dignity and respect, and work hard to ensure the best result.  Many times, a “win” is getting the best possible sentence in a case for a client who the prosecution can prove is guilty.  

The experienced Houston criminal defense attorneys works with the defendant to develop the best way to minimize the best result the attorney can achieve. If the client is innocent, it is the job of the criminal defense lawyer show that the prosecutor cannot meet its burden of proof.

Houston criminal defense lawyers also have the task of counseling clients on how to proceed in a case.  As President Lincoln once said, an attorney’s counsel is his “stock and trade.”  President Lincoln would know, since he handle criminal cases as a lawyer himself.

At the end of the day, a good rule is: hire the best lawyer you can afford.  As with other areas, in criminal law, you often get what you pay for.  You want a to hire a criminal defense attorney for $500 to handle a Houston criminal case? Well, you’re likely to get a criminal attorney worth only that.

Product Description
Now in its Eighth Edition, <b>CRIMINAL LAW AND ITS PROCESSES: Cases and Materials</b> maintains great success as the longtime leading book in Criminal Law. In addition to a highly respected and renowned authorship,… More >>

Incoming search terms:

When an employee or consultant obtains works without a license and they are used within a business (such as photographs or software), they will infringe copyright. In the ordinary course, employers are vicariously liable for the acts of employees during the course of their employment and for the acts of independent contractors. A copyright owner is likely to have several courses of recovery for the infringement against:

the employee or consultant for authorising the infringement by the employer;

the employer on the basis of vicarious liability;

a person responsible for a place of public entertainment, for allowing or permitting to be used for performance of a literary, dramatic or musical work;

a person providing the means by which to reproduce the work.

Obviously, the employer is the most likely target for a claim to damages, as they are seen to be 1. a stable enterprise with a vested interest in avoiding litigation followed by a damages payment; and 2. the employee is more than likely not going to be in a position to satisfy a judgment and the legal fees incurred in the conduct of a claim.

The Measure of Compensation

Damages are said to be at large in copyright cases, as they are not fixed to any particular measure. Damage caused by infringement of copyright is quantified by the value by which the copyright is diminished as a chose in action.

The measure of pecuniary damage likely to be ordered in an action for copyright infringement is that of its commercial value. The commercial value of a work in the circumstances of infringement is reached by one of two methods. Firstly, where the infringing works are sold (by the defendant), the commercial value is represented by the loss of profit to the owner, as the owner has been deprived of the opportunity to sell licenses for the work. The alternate means applies where the work is simply used by the defendant, and not resold by them.

Sales of Goods and Diversion of Customers

When a copyright work is copied and sold, the owner of copyright is entitled to recover their loss of profit caused by the diversion of trade to the defendant. Thus, in a case where the claimant was in the business of producing Christmas cards and offering them for sale to the public, the claimant was awarded the profits that the claimant was deprived by the actions of the defendant.

This is not to say that the claimant would be entitled to recover for all of the sales made by the defendants, as the claimant may not have sold as many as the infringer; whether the claimant will be entitled to recover for all of the infringing sales of the defendant depends on the circumstances of the case at hand. In the events that the particular copyright work is sold at reduced prices serves aggravate the damage suffered by the claimant.

The owner is also entitled to recover for the loss to the reputation of the original copyright work. A loss of reputation will take place where the works are sold at a reduced price, at a reduced quality or in a vulgar or distasteful fashion, such the claimants’ own sales in the future would be prejudiced.

Reproductions without Sale

Where the defendant does not trade in the goods copied, such as using photographs on a website, or uses infringing software, the method of calculation described above (which accounts for loss of profits for diversion of trade) is not the appropriate measure for calculating damages. The proper measure in these circumstances is a reasonable license fee that the copyright owner would reasonably charge for a license to use the photographs in the particular circumstances. The award of damages will be that of a willing copyright owner and a person in the position of the notional licensee, being the defendant.

Conclusion

Simply because a copyright owner seeks to recover from business, does not prevent the business seeking recovery from the employee or consultant who was responsible for, that is, authorized the infringement by obtaining the copyright work unlawfully and making it available to the business for use.

Despite frequent claims of excessive damage by owners, they are not in a position to enforce a claim for a sum of compensation greater than the loss that they are able to prove with reasonable certainty. This process takes in a process of ascertaining on the particular facts what the copyright owner would in fact be entitled to recover at law.

Incoming search terms:

In victories against piracy, Nintendo Co Ltd (Nintendo) successfully protected its copyright. These cases illustrate that infringers can be tracked down and with serious consequences

The facts

James Burt, 24, of Sinnamon Park, Brisbane copied New Super Mario Bros — one of Nintendo’s new Wii games — and uploaded it to the internet a week before its official Australian release on 12 November 2009.

Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cwlth), Burt should have sought Nintendo’s permission, as the copyright owner, before copying and distributing its games.

As a result of Mr Burt’s conduct, thousands of people around the world downloaded illegal copies of the game causing substantial loss to Nintendo.

What action did Nintendo take?

Once notified of the breach, Nintendo engaged a private investigator to apply sophisticated technology to determine the identity of the infringer, Burt.

On 23 November 2009, Nintendo obtained a Federal Court order to search Burt’s residence. During the search, Nintendo seized property to use as evidence to substantiate its claims against Burt. The Court ordered Burt to allow access, including passwords, to his social networking sites, email accounts and websites.

What was the outcome?

Nintendo then sued Burt in the Federal Court of Australia. Under an out-of-court settlement in January 2010, Burt is required to pay Nintendo $1.5 million in damages to compensate Nintendo for the loss of sales revenue and a further $100,000 to pay Nintendo’s legal costs.

Copyright infringement is taken seriously by the courts. This case illustrates the broad range of orders and remedies that can be obtained from the courts to successfully protect your copyright.

The lesson

This case highlights the severe penalties that are imposed on individuals or companies that infringe copyright laws. Be cautious when dealing with copyright material. Even if your breach is unintentional, action can be brought against you. Companies such as Nintendo are becoming more pro-active and innovative in pursuing offenders. In a statement, Nintendo commented that it guards its intellectual property rights to protect the interests of its consumers, its own interests and the interests of game development companies.

Another win for Nintendo

Since this decision, Nintendo has won another Australian Federal Court case. This case was against online console and accessory seller IT Solutions Pty Ltd trading as GadgetGear — involving the gadgets known as R4 cards, which pirate games for its handheld DS system.

GadgetGear and its directors have acknowledged that:

the game copying devices infringe both Nintendo’s copyright and Nintendo’s trademarks; and
they are illegal circumvention devices.

As a result of this case, GadgetGear and the directors have agreed to permanently refrain from importing, offering for sale and/or selling game copier devices.

GadgetGear and directors Patrick and James Li were ordered to pay Nintendo $620,000 in damages and hand over all their stock of copiers to Nintendo for destruction.

Incoming search terms:

LAW OF CONTRACT SUMMARY, WITH EXPLAINATIONS OF LAW OF CONTRACT DEFINITIONS, AND CASES

Of the various agreements made some are social or domestic; some others are contracts – legally enforceable.

Jones -v- Padavattan 1969 was about an agreement between a mother and daughter ~the mother had promised to support her daughter during her studies the daughter argued -the judge decided that it had not been intended to be legally binding, so it was a domestic agreement.

But in Simkins -v- Pays 1995, the mother and daughter had intended to be legally bound by jointly entering a competition to share the prize won, it was a contract.

In Jones -v- Vernon Pools Ltd. 1938, and also in Appleson -v- Littlewoods Pools 1939, there was an intention to be bound legally, but it was one-sided; the other had not so intended it to be, for the football pool company showed that the coupon contained the words ‘binding in honour only’, and it was not enforceable.

A Local Authority did not have to sell a house at the price applicable at time of application -which it was to consider; no offer existed to accept but an invitation to treat: Gibson -v- Manchester C. C. 1997.

A reward-poster (if a product did not protect against influenza) was Intention to be legally bound, as Offer, and Acceptance too had Consideration -the essentials of a contract: Carlill -v- Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. 1893.

A Contract is distinguished from other forms of agreement by determining whether it contains those three basic essentials -as matters of fact, oftener of law.

An agreement is a Contract if it contains the three basic elements of Intention to create Legal Relations, Offer & Acceptance, and Consideration; but what constitute these, how, and why, or not, are matters, mostly, of precedent; therefore, it is useful, on each of these, to look at some more of such precedent…

Intention to Create Legal Relations: It is, of course, most unusual when commercial agreements between businesses are made that a legal relationship was not by both parties intended to be created; it is, essentially, more so a different situation than an exclusion clause making it binding in honour only, when, while may have been intended as a matter of fact, that an agreement may not be made the subject of the jurisdiction of the courts -in terms at least of whether it is legally binding, is not capable in law of having been intended; yet a contract in Rose & Frank Co.-v- J P Crompton 1925 was not the agreement -it showed that a legal relationship was not intended to be created.

That the husband would pay his wife £30pm was not intended in Balfour -v – Balfour 1919 to be binding; that he was to repay the mortgage and transfer ownership of the property to her in Merritt -v- Merritt 1970, as she had asked him to be put in writing and he had, was intended as binding ~as meant a travel firm’s sign that failed holidays would be reimbursed for in Bowerman -v-ABTA Ltd. 1995

Offer and Acceptance: An ‘offer‘ is not an ‘invitation to treat’ ~an advert. in Partridge -v- Crittenden 1968 was an invitation to treat as the numbers of birds could not be infinite to make it capable of being ad-infinitum accepted -in Pharmaceutical Soc. -v- Boots 1953 drugs in self-service store could not be an offer to sell as a chemist at pay-point could refuse to. Nor is it ‘information’ ~’Will sell? State lowest price’ replied to stating it was information in Harvey -v- Facey 1893; the announcement of the auction cancelled did not in Harris -v- Nickerson 1783 entitle to travel expenses, as in Pane -v- Cane 1789, a bid constituted the offer.

Nor is an offer unwithdrawable if the offeree is informed -by anyone Dickinson -v- Dodds 1876, before acceptance Byrne -v- vanTienhoven 1880 ~and it can lapse eg shares Ramsgate Victoria Hotel -v- Montefoire 1866, or if goods become damaged or destroyed, or by a counter-offer (£950 ok?) Hyde -v- Wrench 1940, or if the offeror rejects it or dies.

A valid offer, therefore, as an expression of a proposition willingly to contract, can be, as by a reward poster in Carlill to any or many persons, if communicated -e.g. by biding by raise of hands, with clear terms, while it exits capably of being accepted.

Acceptance of such a valid offer constitutes contract.

Agreement to the offer is ‘acceptance‘ -if communicated.

Generally, the offeree’s silence is not tantamount to acceptance and ‘if I don’t hear from you I’ll deem it so’ in Felthouse -v- Bindley 1862 did not constitute it.

Any effective way will do, Entores -v- Miles Far East 1955, if fax or e-mail, during working hours or the following work day: Brinkbon -v- Stahag Stahi 1982. If acceptance is posted or telegraphed, it is effectively made, even if it is incorrectly addressed and delayed Adams -v- Lindsell 1818, or lost in the post Household Fire -v- Grant 1879 -unless handed to a postal staff not authorised to receive mail; such acceptance is, and the contract is made, at that time -even if before its receipt the offer is withdrawn Byrne -v- vonTienhoven 1876 ~and, Blackpool Aero Club -v- Blackpool C.C. 1990, the offeror must check his mail before closing the offer.

The offeror may prescribe a way of acceptance -then only that, or possibly one more advantageous to the offeror, will do; in Ediason -v- Henshaw 1819 postal acceptance was not as specified -giving it to the driver; if unspecified conduct may imply it -e.g. purchasing aware of the offer, Carlill.-v- Carbolic Smokeball Co. 1893.

Acceptance must be unqualified, ‘subject to contract’, or Neale -v- Merrett 1930 ‘the rest later’, is not so; unless it is capable itself of acceptance, Hyde -v- Wench 1840, requesting information is not a counter offer barring later acceptance, Stevenson -v- McLean 1880.

Consideration: A contract’s point is consideration: ‘executed’ -something done because of which another has to also; or ‘executors’-to be done because of which a contract will exist that another will have too ~it is the benefit or the detriment involved: Currie -v- Misa 1875.

What is contributed to the bargain must be of some value – not necessarily adequately matching the other’s: in Thomas -v- Thomas 1842 £1pa rent was so; and in Chappel & Co.-v- Nestle Ltd. 1960 chocolate wrappers were the stipulated consideration for a music record.

Consideration is owed in return for pre-agreement considerations: the King’s favour was got upon the other’s request, not for £100 overjoyed promised later in Lampleigh -v- Braithwaite 1615; the children’s promise to pay was after repairs were begun in Re. McArdle 1951; also not for a duty: in Glassbrook Bros. -v- Glamorgan C.C. 1925 it was more than the job of the police, in Hartley -v- Ponsonby 1857 more than the sailor’s, but in Stilk -v- Myrick 1809 it was the sailor’s job -his duty. Nor, in is it owed to thirds parties -in Tweedle -v- Akinson 1861 the bridegroom was not a party to the parents’ agreement to give the couple £500 ~unless since Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 named in or identifiable from a contract as beneficiary.

Consideration less than agreed is not good -Pinnel 1602 -except in settling debts, but is if fair commercially -more funds to complete job: William -v- Roffley 1990.

Terms: Those conditions which, if breached, entitle to remedies (depending on their status and the type) are ‘terms’.

Express Terms, subject only to judicial interpretation, as a rule, cannot be argued, if in writing, to have misstated intentions: Jacobs -v- Batavia etc. Trust 1924 -unless unreasonably creating an inequity ~where oral, parole evidence is allowed: Hanish -v- Bank of Montreal 1969.

Implied Terms, unless by statute so, if customary or not occurring to the parties (‘the bystander test’) disregards business efficacy, are deemed so: In The Moorcock 1889 safety of the anchorage did not have to be express, nor in Liverpool CC -v- Irwin 1977 that dwellings must habitable. In Rowland -v- Divall 1923 that seller transfers ownership, Microbeads -v- Vinehurst Road Markings 1975 buyer’s right to quiet possession, Priest -v- Last 1903 (scalding hot water bottle) merchantable quality and Grant -v- Australian Knitting Mills 1936 (underpants -dermatitis) fitness for the purpose, Beale -v- Taylor 1967 that sale is by description also when upon inspection, are, respectively, ss. 12 & 12(1), 12(2), 15, Sale of Goods Act 1979 ~in s. 15 the bulk must be as the sample in quality, ss. 1(2) & 1(2B) Sale & Supply of Goods Act 1994 limited fitness to ‘satisfactory’, s. 1(2C) quality if defect not told of or where examined could not have been reasonably noticed ~they must not be serious: Frost -v- Aylsbury Diaries 1905 (contaminated milk -death), ss. 13, 14 Supply of Goods & Services Act 1982 imply reasonable care-skill-time; interpretation is strict: Re. Moore & Landau 1921.

Conditions are terms entitling to withdraw from the contract and sue if breached. A singer’s partly not turning up to perform breached a condition: Poussard -v- Spiers & Pond 1976. In e.g. the Sale of Goods Act 1979 s. 12(1), seller transfers ownership, s. 15, bulk must correspond to sample, are implied conditions.

Warranties if breached are of trivial consequence, not entitling to withdraw from the contract: 19 out of 24 months could still be worked a ship in Hong Kong Fir Shipping -v- Kawasaki Ltd. 1962; a singer only from rehearsal had been partly absent: Bettini -v- Gye 1876. In s. 12(2) SGA a buyer’s quiet possession is an implied warranty.

Exclusion Clauses limit or disclaim liability, if not inequitably in bargaining power, as in Photo Productions -v- Securicor Transport 1980 for failures of employees -both equal in power and legal advice. In standard contracts, they are binding on who sign them: L’estrange -v- Graucob 1934; but how & when incorporated matter; on a receipt it would not do: Chapelton -v- Barry UDC 1940, it had to be pointed out: Spurling -v- Bradshaw 1956 -’red hand rule’, it could not be relied on contained in the delivery: Interphoto Picture Library -v- Stiletto Visual Programmes 1988, nor on a sign in a room (theft) -contracted at the reception: Olley -v- Marlborough Court 1949.

They are confined to the matters excluded, strictly interpreted -ambiguity unfavourably to a party seeking enforcement -’contra-preferentum rule’: Pollock -v- Macrae 1922.

The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 makes them void for death, personal injury, loss, damage, negligently caused -reasonableness in circumstances as proof of one relying on it. Supply of Goods & Services Act 1982 & 1984 invalidate suppliers’ exclusion of statutory implied terms; so the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994 any unfair individually unnegotiated -it requires plainness in written consumer contracts, allows consumer organisations to challenge terms.

Discharge of Contracts: Fulfilled or comes to an end.

Performance is when the parties have fulfilled their obligations -not necessarily fully nor all at once. Part performance, if substantial, does not entitle to withdraw: Hoenig -v- Isaacs 1952 (£55 of £750) ~in severable contracts if performance in stages ceases, part performed must be paid -so also if prevented performance: Planche -v- Colburn 1831 (cancelled £100 job done £50 payable on a quantum meriut basis); to accepted part performance ends the contract and any remainders may be contracted for anew.

Agreement to other considerations is new contract: Pinnel 1902.

Breach of a condition frees the other party of obligations; of a warranty, only entitles to sue for damages.

Frustration is when it is, or becomes, due to no fault of either party, not possible to carry out the contract; if so when made, it does not exist: Paradine -v- Jane 1647; else, it is a breach which makes it void: Taylor -v- Caldwell 1863 (destruction of the subject -hall burnt down) and Condor -v- Boron Knights 1966 (incapacity re. personal service -ill) and Re. Shipton, Anderson & Co. 1915 (government intervention or supervening illegality -state requisitioned it) and Krell -v- Henry 1903 (non-occurrence of sole purpose -event cancelled). Under The Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 money paid before the frustration is irrecoverable, if due is not payable; a party is entitled to expenses, and a valuable benefit has to be paid for: Gamerco -v- ICM Fair Warning Agy. 1995.

Remedies: Breach of one’s contract entitles remedies.

Damages are the actual financial loss of the wronged party that were in the reasonable contemplation of both of the parties, at the time they contracted, as would naturally arise from the wronged party’s normal activity: Hadley -v- Bexendale 1845, and any not so but of which the parties were expressly informed: Victoria Laundry -v- Newman 1945, in loss aiming to put the wronged party in the position that he would have been if the contract had been completed: Jarvis -v- Swan Tours 1973 ~general damages for distress or annoyance being recoverable where comfort or freedom from discomfort (e.g. holiday contracts) is the basis of a normal commercial contract: Alexander -v- Rolls Royce Motor Cars 1995 -but Forthsyth -v- Ruxley Electronics & Construction 1995 did awarded for amenity and disappointment (less deep pool than ordered); but one’s must have taken steps to mitigate his loss: Brace -v- Calder 1895.

Quantum Meruit is piecemeal as an implied term, unless conditional to completion: Sumpter -v- Hedges 1898.

Equitable Remedies may be specific performance if only that would do (e.g. land sale), except for personal services: Lumley -v- Wagner 1852; or injunction if must prevent, also in personal services: Warner Bros. -v- Nelson 1937.

Liquidated Damages as terms in advance agreed which are fair Dunlop Tyre Co. -v- Garage Motors 1915, not tantamount to a penalty: Ford Motor Co. -v- Armstrong 1915 (above list-price).

This is an outline of the English Law of Contract ~laws change, always ascertain current law.

Incoming search terms:

No one can deny the fact that crime rate in the USA tops the world. You can hardly know whether the new employee in your company has committed a credit card crime before, or the nanny you hire to look after your kids is a sex-offender. It is so necessary to do some checks before you bring them to your office and home.
There are basically there ways to conduct postal address search with the help of World Wide Web: General-purpose search engine, free people finder website, and a paid site. The first two ways are free, but they cost time and energy. What’ worse, you may come up with nothing after you sacrifice the quality time and parties. However, a paid site can accurately locate the people within minutes. Type in the name and it’s done! Just a small fee can save your happy days; you know how the money is worth.
But which site should we choose? There are thousands available out there. Gov Resources.com of course! It has the most comprehensive and detailed records which you can find no where else. What’ more, a sample report is provided before you join and any questions related to your search are answered patiently. Just make sure you tell the company what coverage you want and you’ll get qualified and deep information which out values the small fee you pay for it.
Gov Resources.com provides more than you can find anywhere else, and it is much more convenient than you expect.
Be a member of Gov Resources.com Click here.

There are many different people that are injured when there is a construction accident. Napoli Bern law firm can help any of the people involved. Often, workers are the ones who are injured while working on a construction site. Sometimes though the employer is the one who is injured. Really though, anyone can be injured in a construction accident and Napoli Bern law firm is there to help.

If you were working and are injured in a construction accident then you should be compensated. You should turn to the Napoli Bern law firm to help you through your legal matters. Construction accidents happen all the time to construction workers. Sometimes accidents happen due to unsafe work practices. People may be leaving tools out and not keeping the maintenance up on them. There could be tripping hazards or a machine may turn on or off at unexpected times. Any of these things can cause terrible accidents that can change a person’s life. Many times when a construction worker is injured, he or she cannot work afterwards. That is when he or she should look for a something like the Napoli Bern law firm to help them in their plight.

Employers can also benefit from the Napoli Bern law firm. It is unfortunate but workers are not always the most honest people. A person may set up an accident or try and fake an injury in order to sue their boss. This is why an employer should always contact a lawyer when there is an impending lawsuit. An employer may be reluctant to do so and decide to just use their insurance. It is important for employers to have construction accident insurance just in case, but it needs to be a back up plan. If they use up all of their insurance then the construction will stop. The Napoli Bern law firm is very experienced and can help an employer to make the best decisions when facing a lawsuit.

The Napoli Bern law firm is not just helping construction workers; they are helping the public in general. They are helping to protect the workers rights and helping to make sure that they are safe. Workers that are not injured and are going to work are helping the economy. An employer on a construction site that continues to have a license makes more buildings and continues to be in work. Lawyers are a vital part of the economy and make sure to protect the safety of the citizens. They make sure that a construction site does not pose a threat to the general public. Using faulty materials in a building would result in it crashing down. A man might double think doing that if they knew there would be severe consequences to their actions.

Incoming search terms: