Legal Issues

First of all, the defendant has committed more than one offence. First, he is in possession of some illegal drugs and chemicals in his car which is a criminal offence on its own. Secondly, he flees from the police officer which is another offence that he commits by failing to comply with the officer requirement. The third offence is that he was in possession of guns in his car. There are chances that when he was trying to reach the floor of his car, he wanted to take the gun and shoot at the officer. This is a clear indication that this person is a serious criminal as he has committed more than one offence at a time. (Jowett, 2009)

Therefore, granting this person the motion to suppress the seized evidence will be against the law. It will be encouraging other people who have such behavior of conducting such activities to carry on with their activities. It would be a great idea if the evidence is kept and then the officer looks for the criminal who is at large. He should be put in police custody immediately he is found and he should be charged in court for the three offences which he has committed. He should be charge in court for being in possession of illegal drugs and chemicals, being in possession of two weapons and running away from police officers. (Chemerinsky, 2006)

Under no circumstances should such a person be granted a motion to suppress the seized evidence. After all, doing this would be as good as encouraging such illegal activities. The defendant was in the process of renting a new unit and this means that he might be having some more chemicals or drugs. This means that if the evidence is suppressed, there are chances that he would transfer all the other drugs that may be in the Storage USA to a new location and thus it would be very difficult to trace them and prosecute him. Even though some these chemicals were not narcotic, they will help in looking for illegal drugs that the defendant may be having.

It is crucial to keep a good image of a law firm so as to gain and maintain the potential clients trust (Henderson  Galanter, 2008). The manner in which the law firm shows its outward image clearly tells what the law firm is with all the activities and the quality therein. Majority of law firms have attempted to employ various techniques to present the best image to their potential clients but each of the method applied has specific effectiveness and no one method is similar to the other. Another important aspect in any law firm apart from creating a good image is the importance of a good law office manager. It is imperative to have a competent law office manager who will be involved in automating various functions of a law firm to sustain the smooth running (Henderson  Galanter, 2008). This paper is aimed at explaining various techniques employed by law firms to create its good image to the prospective employers. In addition, specific methods of presenting law firm image will be evaluated. The second part of this paper will involve the explanation of the duties of a law office manager who is a very important member of the management of a middle-sized law office. During recruitment of this important position, it is necessary to look for specific characteristics in an individual which will merge with the duties required in the management of a law office.

Marketing a law firm is analogous to any form of marketing involved in other products. It therefore shares the similar requirement that professionalism is highly valued (Henderson  Galanter, 2008). Professionalism constitutes the mode of dressing, the style of performing duties and the general quality of the law firms work.

Several marketing companies have employed promotional materials about themselves. Similarly, law firm should consider providing promotional materials to their clients although this has been very rare particularly in law firms dealing with criminal defense.

Posting some articles about a law firm in local newspapers can achieve significant marketing goals (Henderson  Galanter, 2008). Explaining terms in the local newspaper and clearly analyzing the activities of the law firm will provide the potential clients with a glimpse about the firm.  Publications may also include writing scholarly articles in professional journals explaining law reviews. This strategy has not been so often employed but has a potential to show the image of a law firm.

Other important techniques of marketing a law firm exist. These techniques include websites, yellow pages, signage, civic affairs and organizing events to increase publicity. Birthday and Christmas cards may also be used in marketing ventures. All in all, these methods used appropriately can keep the good image of a law firm. For a law firm to succeed in its functions, a competent law office manager is required. The duties of this position entail the supervising support staff and facilitation administrative activities. This is a supervisory position which requires an individual to independently make decision to appoint, promote, evaluate, transfer, suspend, discharge and adjudicate all grievances of the subordinate personnel (Henderson  Galanter, 2008).
Other duties in the law office will include the arrangement on the repair and maintenance of office furniture and equipment, administration of record management system, control and reconciliation of petty cash and the maintenance of office supplies. An individual best suited for this position need to have the ability to supervise, motivate, train and evaluate employees (Henderson  Galanter, 2008). He or she must have strong skills in written and oral communication. Skills in computer applications, organization and time management will be a requirement of any law office manager. This is an important role in a law firm and the recruitment should be done with rigor as the position will determine how the firm will be run.

The field of law in its own certainty requires much deliberation and clarity.  Parties representing either side of an issue occasionally become so deadlocked that resolve seems impossible.  Third-party assistance is a concept developed as an alternative to an actual long trial.  All the pertinent issues being represented from either side are taken into consideration and evaluated for flaws, misconceptions, and illegalities.  It is important to preserve the legally binding relationship between the parties.  The neutral used throughout this process is unbiased, well educated, and have no prior or present affiliations with either side.  This impartial representative is responsible for finding a quick resolve.  There are four types of neutrals used for this role.

They are termed as follows  director influencer steady and complaint (Maria  Gregg, 1997).  A director is determined to find resolve through power and authority.  An influencer attempts to make a favorable impression and find resolve through expression.  The steady focuses on getting the matter solved as quickly as possible, but all the while making sure that the needs and rights of the parties are protected.  The compliant uses the tactic of messenger.  This form of neutral usually acts as the go-between for either party when face-to-face negotiations are ill advised or physically impossible.  Before a neutral begins the task of conflict resolve, either party must agree on the neutral chosen.  In some cases, the court will assign or appoint a neutral as the designee for the matter at hand, but in order for resolve to be effective it is imperative that both parties feel comfortable with the neutral.  The legal system has incorporated the tactic of using third-party assistance through a neutral representative (Federal Trade Commission, 1997).  This concept allows for resolution to be reached in a timely manner, and it keeps the court dockets cleared from stale-mate cases.
   
Conflict in any instance creates disturbance and unrest.  When legal questions and issues are permitted to fester, they take on a life of their own and begin to deteriorate the standard of decency among the parties involved.  According to the Blacks Law Dictionary, a dispute is a controversy that has led to a particular lawsuit (2001).  In the business world, the existence of conflict resolution is a must.  Ethics and policy are brought into question when a business arrangement or relationship is thought to have been violated in some way.  This sometimes involves employment contracts, issues of sexual harassment, employee performance with regard to promotions and raises in salary, and mergers.  There is a gray area that exists between an employee and an employer.  These differing points of view combined with the insistent personalities of either party will have an erroneous effect on everyone.  Family law is another facet of the legal system that relies on third-party conflict resolution.  Divorce and custody are handled through mediation.  Neutrals, also called mediators, bring the parties together to address issues of custody, visitation, medical provisions, child support, grounds for divorce, and in some cases and abandonment of previous divorce filings.  Conflict resolve and dispute resolution is also used as a means of damage control.  When matters are being dealt with in a straight forward fashion, the public is less likely to become overly concerned or enter into a panic phase.  This is especially true when family members are involved with either of the parties to the dispute.  This resolution effort keeps the court dockets freer and allows more room for either party to feel that his or her needs were heard and adhered to.  This method assures that decisions were reached in a legal and unbiased manner by an educated and authorized representative.
   
The best way to understand how dispute resolution and conflict resolve is to sometimes look at a scenario involving the issue.  In a recent conflicting and controversial issue, a son-in-law was hired to work for his father-in-law on his personal farm.  At the end of the first work day, the employee was instructed to drive a combine, large vehicular farm equipment, out to the back side of the property in the late evening after work.  The employee informed his employer of his lack of experience and lack of confidence in doing so, but complied with the employer after being instructed to do so anyway.  He also decided to take a short cut to the back side of the property, but it can only be assumed that this was done to save time and to get the job finished sooner.  As a result, the employee ended up causing damages to a neighbors barn and to the combine farm equipment belonging to his employer.  The neighbor seems to be fine with the circumstances, but is wishing to be reimbursed at twice the rate of what the damages actually were.  The employer is demanding that the employee pay for the damages and is insisting that his personal insurance company is looking to sue him personally for damages as well.  Effectively, conflict resolve and a dispute resolution neutral would be most beneficial to all the parties involved in this matter of legal litigation.
   
The employee in the above scenario could save himself from much legal issue if he were to seek out a mediator.  Despite the fact that the employee did cause damage to the neighbors barn and damage to the vehicular farm equipment belonging to his employer, he is still protected under certain dialects of the law.  Clearly there exists an issue of contributory negligence in this matter.  The employer should have never put such a demand on his employee after the work day was completed.  The fact that the employee informed the employer of his lack of experience in driving such equipment shows that there was a reasonable possibility for trouble from the beginning.  This does not excuse the fact that the employee was negligent to the fact because indeed he was.  Negligence is defined as failure to use reasonable care (Garner, 2001).  The employee failed to use reasonable care because he voluntarily chose to drive the farm equipment knowing that he did not possess the experience to do so.  In essence, he could have simply refused to comply with the employer and said emphatically, no.

In the aforementioned scenario, it seems most appropriate to seek out meditation rather than arbitration at this point.  The issues surrounding the dispute are still very close to the surface and emotions are likely to be running high.  When the employers insurance company becomes fully involved for the purpose of seeking justification for the wrong they feel was done to their client, the negotiation process would likely move into the arbitrary phase of resolution.  The employee in this matter clearly has the ball in his court.  It would protect him in the long run both legally and financially if he were to begin mediation as soon as possible. The minor cost of a non-binding mediation would far outweigh the length and cost of a full fledge trial.  The neutral presiding over the matter would be able to initiate the mediation process where all parties were concerned as well as facilitate appointment scheduling and locale (Fiadjoe, 2004).  Each party is privy to having their own private representation via an attorney, but this is not a legal requirement.  Many businesses choose to be represented by counsel in order to protect their investment or to simply represent certain key players in their absence.  Often times in larger corporate businesses, it is virtually impossible for certain officials to appear in person due to prior engagements, appointments, or because of other pending business matters.  Privacy and confidentiality matters would assuredly be discussed and agreed upon before any mediation were to begin.  Everything would be handled in a professional atmosphere and setting making sure as to not add to the already stressful situation.
   
The neutral takes on the role of evaluating once the mediation process begins.  This means that all information from all parties will be heard and listened to very carefully.  This method assures that each intricate detail is taken into consideration and that no stone is left unturned.  There may be some non-binding feedback offered on the particulars of the case at hand, but no decision will be made without it being consensual.  Evaluations usually take more than one session to complete (2004).  This is sometimes due to scheduling conflicts.  In the evaluative phase of this particular dispute resolution, the employee would be afforded the opportunity to explain his side of the story in his own words.  He would be able to express his lack of confidence when asked to drive the vehicular farm equipment.  He would also be permitted to offer an explanation as to why he chose to take a short-cut with such a large piece of equipment in the middle of the night.  While the employee has never denied his portion of responsibility surrounding this issue, it is imperative that he be able to cite his employer for contributory negligence in asking him to perform such an unreasonable task.  Future dialogue would allow for the employee to admit his part in the incident, but would substantiate that he be able to set up some kind of payment plan to provide restitution to the injured party for his role in the matter.  At this juncture in the dispute resolution process, the parties begin to move into the adjunctive phase.  This phase is a form of arbitration which is binding.  Any agreement reached would be implemented as a settlement.  This settlement would be entered into a court for documentation depending on the state handling the matter.  Some states only require that this be done administratively and without the aid of the court (2004).  The neutral would be responsible for drawing up the agreement and providing for all parties to sign.  Upon signing the agreement, the matter would be considered to be resolved and finished.
   
The legal world is full of many obstacles and adventures.  While conflict is not usually deemed to be an adventure, it is a path often exploited.  Conflict does not always have to carry with it negative connotations.  There are feasible ways in which to find civil ground and understanding for all those involved.  Business matters and family matters use conflict resolution everyday although it is sometimes done so on a lower scale of formality.  Employees may find it easier to use a mediation process to resolve their issues while protecting their level of employment.  Employers and business owners may choose to do likewise in order to protect their vested interests and reduce turnover.  The timeframe involved is a little less restrictive and reduces the amount of stress produced when working within a deadline.  In any instance, the legal system has plunged forward into conflict resolution with the aid of professional neutrals at their side.  The outlook could only be a hopeful one for all involved.

Question 1
I submit that there is a contract between Kath and Andrew because of the following reasons. First, there is an element of offer. Usually, for a contract to be considered legal, there must be an offer that should be accepted by both parties- Brogden v Metropolitan Railway co (1877) 2 APP Case 666. This is considered the root of any form of bargain. Since the offer is the basement of any form of transaction, it needs to be in reasonable detail. In other words, it should be clear and explicitly outline the terms and conditions related to the same. Notably, the contract between Andrew and Kath has a clear offer. Andrew offered Kath 3000 for the supply of food and drinks at his party. However, I suggest that there is no contract between the vendor and Andrew there is lack of a clear offer.

Secondly, the principle of acceptance is apparent in the contract between Kath and Andrew. Essentially, this is achieved when the person making the offer is assured that the terms are agreed to. This is often done orally, implied from the conduct of the accepting party, such as acting according to the requirements of the offer and in writing. The acceptance needs to be communicated to the person giving the offer and it can not be entirely inferred from silence- Felt house v Bindley (1862) 142 E.R. 1037. In this respect, Kath agreed to deliver the foods and drinks for the cost of 3000 and delivered the same as agreed. As such, she accepted to enter the contract.

Thirdly, the principle of consideration is also apparent in the contract between Kath and Andrew. In this regard, it is certain that there is a mutual benefit from this contract in the sense that while Andrew would receive the foods and drinks for his party, Kath would in return get the money. Legal studies ascertain that mutual benefit is exemplified through some right, profit, interest or benefit to both parties- Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Exch 153. Basically, a party is expected to enter the contract only if it pays a certain price. In this context, Andrew promised to pay Kath 3000 and Kath in return delivered the foods and drinks accordingly.

Fourth, the contract between Andrew and Kath exhibits an acceptable degree of the intention of creating a legal relationship that is enforceable. Regardless of the fact that Andrew and Kath are good friends and did not have a written legal contract, it is clear that the terms of their contract that are represented through the offer and acceptance  are clear and therefore according to the Trade Practices Act (1975), an intention of entering in a legal enforceable relationship is apparent. In addition, it is presumed that the contract has possible implications on both parties- Parker v Clarke (1960) All ER 93.

Question 2
I submit that there is a contract between John and Bill for the following reasons. First, the principle of offer is also well presented in the contract between Bill and John. Initially, Bill agrees to sell the car to his fried John at a cost of 90,000. Notably, this offer is well defined and both parties agree to this. Further, by agreeing to give John the first right to buy the car, it shows that both parties had agreed to the terms. The later contract between Bill and Andrew indicates that offers made in advertisements are not contractual- Partridge v Crittenden 1968 2 All ER 421. This is ascertained when Andrew offers 90,000 for the car.

Second, the principle of acceptance is also presented by the contract between John and Bill. John agrees to pay the 90,000 for the car although he requests to be given the fist right. Seemingly Bill is comfortable with the terms and accords John the right. However, Bill latter advertises the car for a higher prices. Bound by the previous agreement between him and John, he seeks his advice before selling the car. This shows that both parties understood clearly the terms and conditions of their contract. In addition, acceptance is also exemplified in the contractual relationship between Andrew and Bill. In this regard Andrew accepts the fact that there is a third party who has the first right to buying the car, irrespective of the price. He agrees to these conditions and goes a head to propose a higher price for the car. This shows that he had accepted the terms and conditions of the offer- Gibson v Manchester City Council (1879).  From the legal standpoint, Bill is working in line with the terms and conditions that bind both contracts.

Third, the principle of consideration is also manifested in the contracts between John and Bill and between Bill and Andrew. In the first contract, both Bill and John provide consideration if they wish to sue on the contract at any time. John promises to pay 90,000 and Bill presents the Ferrari car. Notably, there is a price of the promise of the other- Dunlop v Selfridge Ltd (1915) AC847. This consideration is also apparent in the second contract when Andrew commits 100, 000 in exchange for the car.

All parties presented in this context exhibit an intention to create a legal contractual relationship. This is exhibited by their clear offers and agreement to enter in to a contract. In the first case, the agreement between Bill and John has a clear offer that is acceptable to both parties. Further, Bill agrees to give John the first right to buy there car. Notably, the implications of the first agreement prevent Bill from selling the car to another party. In the second scenario, both parties also have a clear offer. Andrew agrees to pay the 100,000 that Bill advertised the car for. He agrees to the fact that there is a third party who has the first right to buy the car. Although he is disappointed when Bill fails to sell the car to him after consulting John, The Contract Review Act 1980 clarifies that he had agreed to all terms and conditions and therefore has no choice. Notably, the agreements have clear implications on all parties that are involved in a contract- Tanner v Tanner (1975) WLR 1346.

Consent is another principle that is manifested in the contract between Bill and Andrew. According to the Industrial Arbitration Act 1940, such a situation occurs when the arties in a contract have already reached a decision but the influence of an external factor destroys the basis upon which the decision was arrived at. In this respect, Andrew had agreed to pay the 100000 that Bill offered in the advertisement but he was not given the car because of the fact that John had first right to buy the car. Fair Trading Act 1987 and Sales of Goods Act s 9 describe such a situation as a mistake that has the capacity to nullify consent. In most cases, this occurs when an agreement is made on false assumptions. In this case therefore, it can be argued that the agreement between Bill and Andrew was made on a false assumption that John would not interfere with the agreement, regardless of the fact that the had been guaranteed the right of being the first buyer of the car.
Further, conformity with description is a principle that is manifest in this case. Usually, the seller is expected to provide a full description of the goods to the buyer before the buyer can purchase the same. This principle was based on the recognition that in some instances, the description of the seller did not fit the identity andor quality of the product. Considering the fact that Bill advertised the car to the public conformity of the product to the description was expected. The Trade Practices Act 1923, s 64 (5) ascertains that the principle is applied in cases where the identity rather than the quality of the goods does not match the description. In addition, Fair Trading Act 1987 indicates that the goods need to fit the purpose for which they are bought.

The buyer in this case relies upon the information provided by the seller to determine this fact. Therefore the seller is charged with the responsibility of providing factual information about the product to the buyer.
In order to attain this, Industrial Arbitration Act 1940 argues that the sellers need to ensure that their products are of merchantable quality. Again, this is determined by the description provided by the seller and the price accorded by the same. In such cases, the buyer also needs to be very keen to identify any defects during purchasing. This explains why Andrew had to inspect the car advertised by Bill before making a decision to buy the same.

There are times when it is really necessary that a company cut off on its expenses, when this is taking place, it mean that some people or rather some workers will have to be laid off especially if their performance is inefficiency. This paper looks into some issue that needs to be considered while laying off employees and the legal implications associated with it. It also looks on some drawbacks or expenses that affect a company when it decides to lay off employees.

Scenario 1
In this case, I would select the best performers for the last two years. I would analyze each one of them and take the best one that would be retained in the new business venture. Because they will be dealing with online activities, I would first take Carl Haimes. The reason is that even though he seems to have no special achievement, he is a very hardworking employee and this is the reason he is above average in terms of performance. In addition, he holds a BS in Information Systems. This means that this coupled with his hard work, he will be able to work efficiently at the new online distribution and marketing channel. This post requires a lot of dedication on the job and therefore he happens to be one of the best workers as he has never been absent for work over the past two years. His sample skills set and his job responsibilities are crucial for this post.

The other employee that I would select to be absorbed in this new channel is Nora Manson. She is hard working and this is the reason as to why she is also above average. She is also young and thus may offer her services to the company for a longer period of time. This new channel needs a person who has very good interpersonal skills so that he or she can work with the technical support team to ensure that the customers are served well. She has these skills as she is able to handle upset customers. Using her interpersonal skills, she will be able to negotiate business with clients who visit the website. This is evident from her special achievements when she rescued two big accounts for the company. (Slocombe, 2006)

Scenario 2
In this case, there is a need for people who can have results. The reason is that this channel is not doing very well and therefore there a need for a person who has both the skills and the knowledge to work in the department. Even though Jenny might be producing satisfactory work, this post is very challenging and therefore she may not be able to give her best in her present condition. Therefore I would still lay her off. If she is absorbed into this post, it is very demanding as it involves bringing back to life a channel of distribution has already died. An action needs to be done now. At her present condition, Jenny cannot give the company what it wants and therefore there is no way she can get the job. However, this must be done carefully as Jenny may report it as discrimination against sex. To avoid this, she should be made to understand that this is clearly provided in the companies policies. She should also be given all her benefits as she is getting out of the company. This should be done according to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and according to the Equity Act enforced by the U.S. EEOC. (The City Law School, 2009)

Scenario 3
In this case, I would reconsider laying off Carter. The reason is that even though he seems to be absent most of the time, there is a very genuine reason as to why he is absent. It is because he has an injury on his wrist. This injury is experienced while he was working in the company. In case he is laid off, we should be fully aware that he can press charges against us in the federal court. The Civil Rights Act clearly spells out that in case of a personal injury while the person is still working for an organization, the person is supposed to be compensated for the injury in full something we have not yet done on Carter. (Slocombe, 2006)
Even though Carter is having some problems now, they all originated from our company. This means that he needs to be compensated for the injury that he is experiencing. In addition, laying him off because of his current inefficiency can be termed as wrongful termination and it is clearly represented in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It would therefore be good if we retain him as laying him off can be termed as illegal and against the companys rules and regulations. However, Carter may still be laid off on one condition that he will be supported by the company for the damage cause. He would be laid off with an outplacement support. Even though this may look expensive, it is productive to the company as it will be able to hire someone who is more productive and can give results. (Lewis, D.  Sargeant, M., 2004)

Scenario 4
I would still lay off Sarah because it is clear that she does not possess the required skills and competence to keep this online channel moving. By the fact that she has worked in the company for a very long period, she should have achieve something which she hasnt. It is therefore clear that she is not fit for this post and that she should be laid off after all, the dispatch will be automated soon. However, it should be explained to her the reason why she is being laid off. It should be made clear to her that there are chances that her services will no longer be required in the company after introduction of automated machines. Due to her long service the company should compensate her all of her employee benefits as they are provided in the company rules, policies and regulations and as required by the Equal Pay Act. (Benjamin, 2007)

In conclusion, it is clear that no matter who will be laid off, the company will have to lose some money on their compensation. Because it is the one which is terminating their employment, it should fully compensate all the employees as it is spelt out in the employment agreement.

To avoid claims of discrimination, a company should put in place measures that accommodate employees with disabilities. In the simulation, hiring Oscar would have required innovative solutions to increase his mobility. Building ramps alongside staircases and refitting one of the company vehicles to carry a wheelchair will ensure that Oscars mobility improves. This is necessary as the job description entails lots of travelling to meet potential clients.

Under Title VII, administering drug abuse tests is discriminatory as it creates a bias against those who may have had a substance abuse problem. Companies should warn those employees with drug challenges to reform or risk termination of services. Having a counselor on the payroll will assist troubled employees to get their lives organized thus reducing time lost due to absent or sick employees.  The management should develop a drug policy that clearly spells out what the company expects from its employees with regard to drug use. Any employees found violating this policy would be liable to instant dismissal. This measure will deter employees from taking drugs at the workplace.

Interviewing employees on their personal life and non- skill related issues amounts to discrimination. Revealing personal details to an interview panel increases the chances of some members developing biases against the potential candidate. Some panel members may be anti gay or anti abortionist while the candidate supports such movements. This scenario is likely to prejudice the candidates chances for employment. The legal advice from the HR manager is that pre employment interviews should be discouraged as the company risks facing lawsuits over discrimination claims.

Title VII can override employment contracts where a clear case of discrimination exists. Section 703 of the Act provides that an employee can sue for discrimination provided they can prove that the management employed tactics that disadvantaged certain sections of the workforce based on a particular criterion. Jessica felt sexually harassed by other members of the creative team and officially complained to her superiors. Marc was displeased with her conduct and gave her a poor grade in the annual performance appraisal. To avoid claims of discrimination, Keith suggested that a third party conduct an independent performance appraisal and ascertain whether Jessicas performance was below par. This option will preempt any legal action that Jessica may consider taking to justify her claims of sexual harassment and discrimination.

In conclusion, companies must be careful about handling employees lest their decisions are misconstrued to be discriminatory practices.  The HR department should conduct due diligence when drafting advertisements and termination of employees must follow the laid down procedures.

Lien is a term that originates from a French origin and stands for liaison or link. Thus, the lien claims are linked to either property of individuals. The lien claims are any security interest attributed to a property which may be real or personal property.  Some of the lien claims may be on real property such as construction material where in this case is called construction lien and it can be called suppliers lien if it is referring to the material supply.

The lien claims can also be called laborers lien if it is referring to labor supply.  There are also lien claims on personal property where the person in question is in the class of artisans. In the construction industry for instance, the liens claims have come to the existence due to the desire for the laborers, contractors and sub contractors to be able to get a greater remedy to their already done duty, other than just being in a position to make law suits in relation to their contracts dissatisfaction.  These climes are dependent on the constitution.  This is the mechanics lien.

To enter into a lien contract, one has to be sure of the terms of security for any kind of contract they get into before they get embarrassed in whatever may arise out of the activity.  If you are building a home or just making some renovation on your already existing home, some contractors will actually require you to get into lien contract with them. In this case, you will either need to be very conversant with the terms of a contract or seek a lawyers assistance before signing the contract.  This is because the lien contract may demand you to sell off your already constructed home to pay for any inconveniences you caused during the construction period.  That is, if you are not able to pay for your loans in time (Davenport, Hanrahan, 2009). It is also advisable to pick on the already licensed contractors if you are to contract the services in which case therefore, there is a protective measure towards legalities that come along with the lien claims.
 
The lien claims also offer the requirement for the protection on payment. For example, for lenders who make contractor payments in direct form, one has to take charge to ensure that the money lender settles the payment only after the contractor completes his duty but no payments before.  For the contractor to complete the duty, it means that they have done the physical building work fully and have also successively gone through the necessary zoning and building inspections.

The lenders requirements are for them to make the final payment evaluations in which case they should receive a certified copy of signed completion document for the particular duty.  Precaution should be taken to ensure that inspection by the building inspectorates department has fully certified the completion of duty on site and therefore one should never sign the completion document until this is done satisfactorily.   For one to make any liens claims, they must provide a proven performance contract document. Consultations with the tax department should also be done before construction commences for tax ramifications (Abott, n.d).
Lien rights can be lost at some instances.  For example, if the client makes the wrong confirmations may be by giving a different date or events in the assumption that the law statute will provide for the rights of liens claim. Also, in the case where the land owner may lack direct contact with the client in terms of the contract, it may be considered as a breach of law although it can be defended through the law that gives an exemption of the claims but with high cost implications.   If the cost of laying the claims is higher than the benefits, then one may opt to loose the lien claim.

There are a numbers of ways in which lien can be lost firstly, if you never registered at all, then you do not deserve to make the claims.  Also, the failure to perfect your relationship with contracts or contractors may cause the loss of lien or due to the failure of taking the initiation steps toward the lien claims may result to its loss.  Also, loss in lien may occur if one does not lay the claim trails within the stipulated period like the two year time restricted for the commencement of such claims. On the other hand, contractors are allowed to select surety companies from among them that pay different rates on premiums, hence a contractors way of making savings. Some sureties may also be issuing a higher dollar limits than others.  Interested contractors may need to find out the experience and financial strength of such surety (Articlesbase.com, 2008).  In their selection of a surety, many contractors make considerations on the level with which a surety may accrue any problem in the course of the project.

The surety may be able to take over that contractors duty if there is a fault that needs to be corrected but the problem is that the contractor will be required to corporate with the surety in terms of any loans that may need to be taken towards the projects completion. This however does not give any mandate, but a privilege to the surety for a chance to do complete the project by the use of its principals equipment and plants.  Contracts assignment may allow that surety the full rights over the project that includes the principals rights exercised during contract time and the subcontractors as well as the equipment are all covered under the surety bonds.

This assists the contractor have the job completed for the client regardless of his inability to pay for the claims.  The surety bond beneficiaries are the subcontractors, the suppliers.  When the contractor contacts and makes agreement with the surety, this makes him stand a better chance in wining the trust by both the sub-contracts, the owner of the project and the suppliers.  This increases the trust that the implicated is a workable project. This is an advantage to the prime contractor. The surety has a right to examine the financial information of the indemnity and the principal before entering into contract with any (Davenport, Hanrahan, 2009).  The financial information may be collected form banks, suppliers, subcontracts, and the principals book, account record, among other reliable sources.

Incase the surety or the contractor finds any difficulties in executing the project to completion, they have a right to hold a meeting to assess on the possibility of the appropriate solution.  The surety may or not lend finances to the contractor or indemptors towards the completion of the project and this must be repaid the same on an agreed date.  There may be adjustments on the payment terminals. For instance, it may further be stated that future payments be paid through the surety rather than the principal.

The surety may further need to make a decision on the progress of the project depending on its performance towards completion.  In case there is any dispute towards the payments of the bond, the surety must be informed through a written notice.  In this case, the surety then does a research on the information concerning this contractor.  The surety may validate the work with the aim of settling the payments. He may decide to pay for the claim depending on whether the principal needs to deposit collateral that acts as a cover to the payment that the surety is likely to pay (Articlesbase.com, 2008). Generally, the bond claim are worth an investment and better than the lien claims by far. This is so because the contractor in most cases may not lose the claim.

More so, hand bonds have the following investing in bonds can be exciting especially in the case of bankruptcy where the bank has the mandate to pay the creditors under bond security at least some money unlike those investing in liquidity or shareholders.  Another advantage of this is that bonds have predictable returns that flow slowly but steadily.   If included as part of investment for stockholders, bonds help in the smoothing up of the recession time portions of the stocks fluctuations.  The bond can also be used to make a reliable source of income for those who are about to retire from jobs.  Also, bonds accrue a higher interest than normal bank interests (Abott, n.d). There is however a disadvantage in bonds especially the fact that their income rate is low and one cannot invest a lager sum of money as they would do with the cash.
 However, liens can prompt payments especially if the claims are laid on arsenal. The loss of a lien is not an endpoint but rather the key requirement and a higher degree of perfection for its recovery. Lien claims are good if the trail process is started at the stipulated time.  Liens are not so good for an investment as compared to bonds because the bond claims are more successful and rarely do you lose the claims on bonds.

Surety bond have been found to be cost effective since they have a high chances to borrow funds from banks. They are also effective when banks handle claims that are disputed. Moreover, the bonds are more trusted than other types of saving and therefore make them superior to lien claims.

Hearsay is the word used in legal circles to describe any statements made outside a court of law or outside legal proceedings concerning or relating to a court case. Hearsay is not usually admissible as evidence in a court of law in the United States of America according to any statute except in some major exceptions.

The rule against hearsay is defined so that a persons verbal assertions can not be presented as argument for or against a case unless he or she is brought before the court to testify during the judicial proceedings under oath or cross examination. For example, if a policeman arrests a man for driving under the influence of alcohol and testifies in a court of law that a particular barmaid informed him that she had sold the accused seven one liter bottles of brandy, then his evidence will not be admitted as it is hearsay (Duck, 1995). The rule against hearsay is not just limited to verbal statements it may sometimes be applicable to formal written statements, sworn testimonies from previous judicial proceedings, signs and gestures, drawings and photographs or even non-verbal conduct.

Theory of the rule against hearsay
The rule against hearsay is based on the fact that verbal assertions made by people are in most cases unreliable and partisan. Statements made by people based on memory recollections are in some cases characterized by insincerity an erosion of facts due to errors of narration and other distortions. It is therefore necessary that such statements are subjected to closer scrutiny and cross-examination so that any flaws in the information contained therein may be exposed and their applicability may be correctly assessed.

To avoid the risk of inaccurate statements influencing ruling in a case, Federal Rules stipulate that all oral assertions for or against a case must be taken under oath in front of the tribunal or jury hearing the case. Such assertions must then be scrutinized to expose any flaws. Hearsay is therefore any oral statement or evidence of any other nature made outside the court if the originator of such evidence is not brought before a judge or jury to testify, such evidence cannot be permissible for that particular case as the demeanor or credibility has not been established (Choo, 1996)

Exception to the rule against hearsay
The commonest misconception about this rule is that very many people believe that hearsay, by definition of its context, is not permissible in a court of law as evidence for or against a case. The reality is that the rule against hearsay is very simple but is full of exceptions. Despite the fact that many statements may be considered hearsay, they may actually be admissible in a court of law as evidence for or against a case.

When a person is a victim or witness to a startling event, there can be an exception to the rule against hearsay in that he or she may have made utterances under conditions of shock or excitement. Legally, these statements are referred to as excited utterances. For example, supposed a burglar breaks into a house and engages the man of the house in a fight shooting him to death and a police officer on patrol hears the wife crying for help. Upon entry into the house, the wife will most definitely be in a state of shock. Her attempts to describe the assailant may be ruled as hearsay at that instant and for any duration of time for as long as she is still shaken by the events that occurred, but if she recovers from that shock and her statements continue to be consistent, then they may be admissible before a court of law as evidence for robbery with violence (Duck, 1995). However, as time progresses between the time of occurrence of an event and subsequent excited statements, the more such statements will be looked upon as consisting valid evidence against a defendant.

The other occasion when oral utterances made outside a judicial hearing may be admitted as evidence in a court of law is if they are fully representative of the speakers present sense impressions. For example, if a person is commuting in a public transport vehicle and remarks to the driver that he or she is driving too fast and carelessly before an accident, then such a statement will be admissible as evidence as it represents the actual condition the speaker was in as the person declaring it.

c. Nature of the rule against hearsay
The evidence used to convict or acquit a person or a group of people of an offence must always be the most convincing evidence available. For example, supposing someone named Peter saw John murder James, it would be unconvincing to ask Peters mother what he saw John do. Hearsay should be excluded because the towers that safeguard the credibility and consequent admissive ness of a testimony in a court of law, namely an oath and cross-examination, are not included in its context (Kirgis, 2001). Legal practitioners should stick to the view that the truth about anything is best established when issues raised are addressed through a respondents unrehearsed answers. The truth can only be established after witnesses have been subjected to an oath and affirmation.

It is important to remember that hearsay evidence is not presented before a court or a jury, it is therefore
necessary that the judicial system devices a system where hearsay orators are tracked down and brought up before a court where after affirmation and oath taking, they can be questioned and cross-examined so that there truth in their evidence can be established to aid in the provision of justice. However, the risk associated with the consideration of hearsay evidence is that for orally stated hearsay evidence, a witness can always tailor his or her comments to meet his or her requirements or to suit the need of an interested party. In addition, oral statements almost always change in words and context any time they are narrated afresh, therefore the information contained in them changes from one time to another. For written or formal hearsay statements, there is always the danger that such may be tailored for the same reasons as above.

Hearsay evidence is not, however, always unreliable and the rule against hearsay has to be disregarded at times especially when other factors are supporting hearsay evidence to comprise a very convincing argument. As stated above, exceptions have to be made on the rule against hearsay when the nature of information contained therein is most likely to be true. Such scenarios may arise when a witness makes statements as to go contrary of his interests, when the statements are available in public documents or the hearsay had spontaneity with the occurrence of events when the felony was committed and are therefore likely to possess reliable information (Allen, 1996).

Therefore, the rule against hearsay, as long as it contains to have these exceptions, will always cause a reason for contention on the judgment passed on cases. As noted in the introductory section, the rule against hearsay is not catered for by any statute in Federal Law and therefore it is illogical, arbitrary and accordingly unnecessarily complex.

The rule against hearsay could lead to the denial of justice just because a witness who could bring forward facts concerning a crime is either dead, unavailable or cannot testify because of any other inhibitions. Secondly, it makes the justice more expensive because extra costs need to be incurred in an attempt to avail or prove facts that are not really disputed. In addition to that, it makes the judicial process unduly complicated due to its possession of a network of intricate exceptions that complicate judicial hearing procedures. This rule has the potential of depriving courts very substantial evidence that would otherwise be very valuable for the establishment of truth.

Supposing, for example a murder suspect committed the offence some years ago while mentally ill and the doctor that was treating him is already deceased, but has left records of the suspects mental state at the time alleged the offence was committed. The rule against hearsay will forbid the production of these notes as evidence in court even if they are still available in the institution where that patient was being treated and are fully validated. This could lead to the suspect being sentenced to death row for a capital offence even though he was mentally unstable at the time he is supposed to have committed the offence (Eugene, 2006). This is utterly ludicrous.

In conclusion, it would seem that I favor the admission of evidence on a hearsay basis of course not. The rule against hearsay has some rationale and is therefore justifiable when applied to certain specific circumstances. It is undisputable that evidence should be provided and admitted upon cross-examination but the manner in which relevant evidence is turned down in a court should be harmonized for the sake of justice. Flexibility and common sense should prevail and the rules governing the dispensation of justice should be simplified even for the layman to comprehend. The dismissal or admission of evidence should not be based on rules that create loopholes for disparities and protection of particular interests at the expense of justice.

Hearsay is the word used in legal circles to describe any statements made outside a court of law or outside legal proceedings concerning or relating to a court case. Hearsay is not usually admissible as evidence in a court of law in the United States of America according to any statute except in some major exceptions.

The rule against hearsay is defined so that a persons verbal assertions can not be presented as argument for or against a case unless he or she is brought before the court to testify during the judicial proceedings under oath or cross examination. For example, if a policeman arrests a man for driving under the influence of alcohol and testifies in a court of law that a particular barmaid informed him that she had sold the accused seven one liter bottles of brandy, then his evidence will not be admitted as it is hearsay (Duck, 1995). The rule against hearsay is not just limited to verbal statements it may sometimes be applicable to formal written statements, sworn testimonies from previous judicial proceedings, signs and gestures, drawings and photographs or even non-verbal conduct.

Theory of the rule against hearsay
The rule against hearsay is based on the fact that verbal assertions made by people are in most cases unreliable and partisan. Statements made by people based on memory recollections are in some cases characterized by insincerity an erosion of facts due to errors of narration and other distortions. It is therefore necessary that such statements are subjected to closer scrutiny and cross-examination so that any flaws in the information contained therein may be exposed and their applicability may be correctly assessed.

To avoid the risk of inaccurate statements influencing ruling in a case, Federal Rules stipulate that all oral assertions for or against a case must be taken under oath in front of the tribunal or jury hearing the case. Such assertions must then be scrutinized to expose any flaws. Hearsay is therefore any oral statement or evidence of any other nature made outside the court if the originator of such evidence is not brought before a judge or jury to testify, such evidence cannot be permissible for that particular case as the demeanor or credibility has not been established (Choo, 1996)

Exception to the rule against hearsay
The commonest misconception about this rule is that very many people believe that hearsay, by definition of its context, is not permissible in a court of law as evidence for or against a case. The reality is that the rule against hearsay is very simple but is full of exceptions. Despite the fact that many statements may be considered hearsay, they may actually be admissible in a court of law as evidence for or against a case.

When a person is a victim or witness to a startling event, there can be an exception to the rule against hearsay in that he or she may have made utterances under conditions of shock or excitement. Legally, these statements are referred to as excited utterances. For example, supposed a burglar breaks into a house and engages the man of the house in a fight shooting him to death and a police officer on patrol hears the wife crying for help. Upon entry into the house, the wife will most definitely be in a state of shock. Her attempts to describe the assailant may be ruled as hearsay at that instant and for any duration of time for as long as she is still shaken by the events that occurred, but if she recovers from that shock and her statements continue to be consistent, then they may be admissible before a court of law as evidence for robbery with violence (Duck, 1995). However, as time progresses between the time of occurrence of an event and subsequent excited statements, the more such statements will be looked upon as consisting valid evidence against a defendant.

The other occasion when oral utterances made outside a judicial hearing may be admitted as evidence in a court of law is if they are fully representative of the speakers present sense impressions. For example, if a person is commuting in a public transport vehicle and remarks to the driver that he or she is driving too fast and carelessly before an accident, then such a statement will be admissible as evidence as it represents the actual condition the speaker was in as the person declaring it.

c. Nature of the rule against hearsay
The evidence used to convict or acquit a person or a group of people of an offence must always be the most convincing evidence available. For example, supposing someone named Peter saw John murder James, it would be unconvincing to ask Peters mother what he saw John do. Hearsay should be excluded because the towers that safeguard the credibility and consequent admissive ness of a testimony in a court of law, namely an oath and cross-examination, are not included in its context (Kirgis, 2001). Legal practitioners should stick to the view that the truth about anything is best established when issues raised are addressed through a respondents unrehearsed answers. The truth can only be established after witnesses have been subjected to an oath and affirmation.

It is important to remember that hearsay evidence is not presented before a court or a jury, it is therefore necessary that the judicial system devices a system where hearsay orators are tracked down and brought up before a court where after affirmation and oath taking, they can be questioned and cross-examined so that there truth in their evidence can be established to aid in the provision of justice. However, the risk associated with the consideration of hearsay evidence is that for orally stated hearsay evidence, a witness can always tailor his or her comments to meet his or her requirements or to suit the need of an interested party. In addition, oral statements almost always change in words and context any time they are narrated afresh, therefore the information contained in them changes from one time to another. For written or formal hearsay statements, there is always the danger that such may be tailored for the same reasons as above.

Hearsay evidence is not, however, always unreliable and the rule against hearsay has to be disregarded at times especially when other factors are supporting hearsay evidence to comprise a very convincing argument. As stated above, exceptions have to be made on the rule against hearsay when the nature of information contained therein is most likely to be true. Such scenarios may arise when a witness makes statements as to go contrary of his interests, when the statements are available in public documents or the hearsay had spontaneity with the occurrence of events when the felony was committed and are therefore likely to possess reliable information (Allen, 1996).

Therefore, the rule against hearsay, as long as it contains to have these exceptions, will always cause a reason for contention on the judgment passed on cases. As noted in the introductory section, the rule against hearsay is not catered for by any statute in Federal Law and therefore it is illogical, arbitrary and accordingly unnecessarily complex.

The rule against hearsay could lead to the denial of justice just because a witness who could bring forward facts concerning a crime is either dead, unavailable or cannot testify because of any other inhibitions. Secondly, it makes the justice more expensive because extra costs need to be incurred in an attempt to avail or prove facts that are not really disputed. In addition to that, it makes the judicial process unduly complicated due to its possession of a network of intricate exceptions that complicate judicial hearing procedures. This rule has the potential of depriving courts very substantial evidence that would otherwise be very valuable for the establishment of truth.

Supposing, for example a murder suspect committed the offence some years ago while mentally ill and the doctor that was treating him is already deceased, but has left records of the suspects mental state at the time alleged the offence was committed. The rule against hearsay will forbid the production of these notes as evidence in court even if they are still available in the institution where that patient was being treated and are fully validated. This could lead to the suspect being sentenced to death row for a capital offence even though he was mentally unstable at the time he is supposed to have committed the offence (Eugene, 2006). This is utterly ludicrous.

In conclusion, it would seem that I favor the admission of evidence on a hearsay basis of course not. The rule against hearsay has some rationale and is therefore justifiable when applied to certain specific circumstances. It is undisputable that evidence should be provided and admitted upon cross-examination but the manner in which relevant evidence is turned down in a court should be harmonized for the sake of justice. Flexibility and common sense should prevail and the rules governing the dispensation of justice should be simplified even for the layman to comprehend. The dismissal or admission of evidence should not be based on rules that create loopholes for disparities and protection of particular interests at the expense of justice.

Over the past years, a lot of racial employment discrimination lawsuits have been filed against different companies resulting into enormous amounts of settlements and agreements. Under the Article VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964, policies have been laid down to prevent these lawsuits.

Companies must implement policies in order for them to avoid any violation under Title VII and its amendments. It is given the companies always look for and hire the most competent and qualified candidate for the job or work that they need. However, as much as the companies have the right to be selective when it comes to their possible employees, they should do so without disobeying or infringing any federal or state laws including The Age Discrimination in Employment Act, ADA or Americans with Disabilities Act, and Title VII of the Civil Right Act. Implementation of a well-organized system is important in a company to ensure that discriminatory hiring is eliminated.

It is essential for companies to hire with utmost care and have job-related inquiries during the interview process. This is a simple policy that all companies must take note of so that no violation shall be infringed. No questions about ones religion, sex, race, etc shall be included in interviews to avoid discrimination. The alarming issue of sexual harassment should be openly publicized to be prohibited in the work place at all times. Also, it is important for a company to have a manual or handbook where the companys objectives, rules and regulations can be found. It should be followed at all times and no employee shall be exempt from any of the rules and vice versa. Everything should be thoroughly explained to the future or new employees.

Advise Denise, Ethel Francis and Gareth as to whether or not they have acquired any interests in Camden Cottage.

Co-ownership happens when two or more people own the right of ownership in a particular property all at the same time. The law governing co-ownership is a set of rules that deal with the property that is simultaneously owned by more than one individual.

There are different kinds of co-ownership of property such as joint tenancy, tenancy in common and the so-called tenancy by the entirety. If two people who are not married purchased a home, they have the choice of taking the title as joint tenants or tenants in common. The effect of this co-ownership is that there arises multiple owners for only one property. In joint tenancy, the owners own all of the property and their interests cannot be subjected to any division whatsoever. There are some rules and conditions that apply to this kind. The co-owners must first make decisions jointly when it comes to any decision that will affect the property.

For instance, taking out a mortgage in the property is a decision that must be made together by the co-owners. The unique characteristic of a joint tenancy is its right to survivorship. This right means that when one of the co-owners die, the survivor will automatically take over the interest of the one who died. The property will go to the surviving tenant who does not need any evidence to acquire such right over the said property. What he needs is a mere death certificate (The Bahama Journal 2010).

A conveyance of land to two or more persons without words indicating that they are to take as tenants in common, constitutes, at law, a joint tenancy (Chest of Books 2009). The ownership by the co-owners who have the same interest in the entire property can only arise upon the satisfaction of the four conditions (four unities) are satisfied. First, every joint tenant must be entitled to the possession of the property at the same time. Second, the interest of each co-owners in the estate must be identical in such a way that every joint tenant is entitled to the entire property without any exclusive  entitlement to any part thereof. Third, every co-owner  or joint tenant must have equal or the same title to the land. Their ownership must emanate from the same instrument  evidencing such ownership. The fourth requisite is that the interest of each joint tenant must subsist at the same time.  The Law of Property Act of 1925 provided a distinction between a legal and equitable joint tenancy. The law provides that when two or more persons have a hold on the legal estate, they hold it as joint tenants, and as such, the right of survivorship applies ( Law Library   American Law and Legal  Information 2010) . The case of Stack v. Dowden (2007) provides that when the conveyance of the property to them does not contain any word or phrase indicating that they are entitled to the property in undivided shares, they hold it as joint tenants in equity and the right  of survivorship will again apply. However, when they take distinct and separate shares, or when the equitable joint tenancy has been terminated. The equitable interest will then be held by them as tenants in common.

Tenancy in common is a little bit different from that of joint tenancy. The law provides that in tenancy in common, the co-owners may own pieces of share that may either be equal or not in the property. When it comes to the aspects of ownership such as the right to sell, one of the co-owners is at liberty to decide to sell his entire share in the property and do whatever he wants with his share. The property is owned by both co-owners as a separate entity from that of the others portion. Both kinds of co-ownership have their own advantages and disadvantages but tenancy in common is the best option if the co-owners are engaged in business because this way, each of the owners have absolute dominion and control over his own share (Strandfeld 2010). Furthermore, Justice Joyce said in Re Wooley (1903) that in case there is an ambiguity in the provisions of the contract, the Court will interpret is as a tenancy in common because if there is a slightest indication that the co-owners have the intention to divide the property, the co-ownership must be bound by the provisions of the tenancy in common.

The problem with co-ownership often arises because the property is owned by people who have different way of dealing with the properties. Aside from the need for protection of  a purchaser, there is a need to make sure that the co-owners are enjoying the benefits that they are receiving as a result of having an interest in the property involved. Where one of the  co-owners pass his ownership or title to a purchaser in good faith without so much of a notice to the other co-owners , these co-owners may not be able to get the land back from the purchaser. In this case, the purchaser can overreach the limits of his rightful interest in the property. Overreaching is a process wherein the beneficial interests under a particular trust are cleared off the land and attaches to the proceeds for the sale in the hands of a trustee. In this case, the beneficial interests are turned into cash. The remedy of the co-owner is to ask for cash against his other co-owner who sold the property. In case where the co-owners have a tenancy in common,  they must make a will because in the absence of a valid will, the assets, including the share in the jointly owned property will pass to the co-owners next of kin (Net Lawman 2010).

In the case at bar, Ben and Amina share a joint tenancy in the Camden Cottage. The law provides that a conveyance of land to two or more persons without words indicating that they are to take as tenants in common, constitutes, at law, a joint tenancy (Chest of Books 2009). Ben and Amina did not stipulate what kind of co-ownership will govern and in the absence of such stipulation, joint tenancy applies. Their joint tenancy in the said property is manifested by the presence of the four requisites required by law. They have a unity in the possession, interest, title and time because they both contributed equally to the purchase price and the property. Their title is derived from a single document which they both acquire at the same time and they are both in possession of such property.

In the case of Riddle v. Harmon (1980), the court held that a joint tenancy may be terminated by the sale or conveyance of one of the joint tenants of his or her share in the joint tenancy. The court further said that it is the universal right of every tenant to effect severance and destroy the right of survivorship through a conveyance made by his or her interest in such joint tenancy to another person. One of the joint tenants may sever the bonds of the joint tenancy even without using an intermediary device. The case of Swartzbaugh v. Sampson (1936) provides that one of the co-owners can lease the property without the consent of the others. However, if he receives rent from a third party, he is obliged to account to his co-owners for the rent. The court stated here that neither one of the joint tenants or a tenant in common can do any act to the prejudice of his co-owners in their estate. If for instance one co-owner conveyed his interest in the property, this conveyance will not bind the interest of the other co-owner who did not join in the conveyance in a suit for partition of the property.

The case of Hedley v. Roberts (1977), provides that a co-owner is entitled to encumber his interest in the land provided that it does not interfere with the rights being enjoyed by the remaining co-owners.

Advise to Denise
Denise did not acquire any right in the property because the contract between her and Amina and Ben is a license agreement and the law provides that a license agreement does not transfer any interest on the licensee.

The arrangement of the parties in a license agreement is called a license. The situation of the parties is very informal as compared to that of a lease. A lease creates an interest in the land while a license does not. With a license, the owners of a property is saying that the person can occupy the said property but the owners can interrupt such occupation any time and ask the person to leave. In a license agreement, the property owner exercises a great control over his property. The name of the agreement stated in the document is a great indication of the kind of agreement entered into by the parties, but such name is not conclusive. What matters is that the terms of the transaction are full of indications as to whether or not the agreement is a lease or a license (Net Lawman 2010).

Advise to Ethel
Ethel did not acquire any interest in the property of Ben and Amina. Ben and Amina only agreed to let Ethel stay for a short while during weekends and this agreement did not confer any title nor vest any interest in Ethel even though she is Aminas sister. The agreement of Ethel and the co-owners Ben and Amina can also be construed as a license agreement because in effect, Ethel was given a license to the use and occupation of one of the bedrooms in the farm house during weekends.

According to The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is a transfer of the right to enjoy the concerned property for a specific period of time or in perpetuity. The lessor or the owner of the property gives the lessee or the one leasing the property a consideration periodically or usually at the start or end of the agreement. On the other hand, Section 52 of the Indian Easements Act of 1882 provides that a license does not allow any interest in the premises on the part of the licensee. It only gives such licensee a right to the use and occupation of the premises for a limited amount of time (Apna Paisa 2009).

Advise to Frances
Frances acquired an inchoate right in the property by virtue of her agreement with Ben. The verbal contract between Ben and Frances is a contract to sell because Ben agreed to sell his interest in the Camden Cottage to Amina. This contract to sell effectively terminated the joint tenancy that Ben and Amina had (Agent Extra.net 2003).

Severance describes the conversion of a joint tenancy into a tenancy in common. A joint tenancy will cease to be as such and will become a tenancy in common if one of the four unities is destroyed so that it will no longer be said that each of the co-owners will hold the same interest by virtue of a same act. It will not be possible to sever the unity of interest because of the fact that it defines the character of the property conferred and if the interest of the co-owners are conferred, no joint tenancy will exist. In the same way, the unity of possession cannot be severed because it is the representation and foundation of the relationship of the co-owners. What can be severed in the unity of time and title because it is the destruction of one of these two unities that results in the conversion of a joint tenancy into a tenancy in common (Hepburn 2001).

In this case, there is a severance of the joint tenancy by alienation. One of the joint tenant alienates his interest in favour of a third party. The third party then receives the interest and shares it with the remaining co-owner Amina.

A contract of sale is enforceable in equity because before the passing of the legal estate, the vendee will acquire an equitable interest in the land as a beneficiary under a constructive trust with Ben, the vendor. The creation of this interest will effect a severance of the joint tenancy in equity.

Advise to Gareth
Gareth has acquired an interest in the Camden Cottage in a sense that he will acquire the payment the Frances will be giving for the purchase of Bens part in the property.

The joint tenancy will automatically cease upon the death of a joint tenant and the title will vests on the surviving tenants free of claims of the heirs and the beneficiaries or creditors of the deceased provided that the joint tenancy was not severed during the lifetime of the deceased (Agent Extra.net 2003). In this case, the contract to sell between Ben and Amina terminated the joint tenancy and in the event of the sale, Frances is the one who will have a right to the said property. Gareth, the heir of Ben, will still be entitled to Bens share by way of compensation or payment by Frances.

The legal affair team of Schering Corporation led by the Joseph C. condor et al sued the food and drug administration for unfair granting of licenses to manufacture of generic drugs.  While the Schering Corporation carries out research on drug manufacture As well as distributes its manufactured drug products, they think that food and drug administration has applied wrongly the regulatory methods of drug manufacture and distribution particularly concerning generic drugs. According to the Schering corporation, they raise the argument on the exclusively rule(s) which are applied in the approval of generic drugs. The issue is whether there is a single exclusive rule which must apply in the determination of generic drug.  The Schering Corporation believes that bioequivalent requirements established in section 355 (j) (B) must be an exclusive regulatory procedure that determines the validity of generic drugs to be manufactured and distributed within the states (OpenJurist.org, 2010).

The Schering Corporation claims that food and drug administration has broadened the definition of Bioequivalent.  They claim that the FDA has done this without following the set procedures and the current protocols of abbreviated new drug application do not comply with the set regulatory acts.  The most overarching issue in their claim against the FDA is the change of the determination techniques of generic drug under the category of ANDA procedure which relies on the drug availability at the site of action rather than its absorption.  The Schering corporation representatives therefore seek to have bioequivalent as defined in section 355 (j) (7) (B) to be used as an exclusive means of validating generic drugs of the pioneer drugs by the FDA. This implies that the FDA would have to use the rate and extent of drug absorption as their references rather than using rate and extent of the availability of the drug at targeted site of action as the means of validating generic drugs (OpenJurist.org, 2010).

Rule
In the case of Schering Corporation and the FDA, its overtly that the law concerning the particularly matter is patenting and competition act of 1984, which is an amendment that became to be called Hatch-Waxman amendment that after a decade became the FDA regulatory act of the 21 U.S.C.A.  355(j)(2)(A)(iv) (West Supp. 1994). It acts as the guide of approving ANDA by setting the requirements that the FDA has to Observe before the approval of generic drugs. The first part of it includes rate and extent of drug absorption as one of the requirement, which should be less significant as compared with the pioneer drug.  On the second part, the act further empathizes on the rate of absorption drug difference as compared with the original drugs in list. It states that rate should be made intentional and be reflected on the drug label while it dismisses the necessity of absorption rate in the determination of its concentration effectiveness in the body as long as there is no significant difference from the pioneer drugs (OpenJurist.org, 2010)..

Analysis
The FDA regulatory rule is clear of the requirements that an organization has to ensure it satisfies in its non-systematic drugs before they are approved. The rule states that the rate and extent of absorption must be at close range of effectiveness as those of the pioneer drug. It excludes use of concentration data in the point of actions as factor of consideration in the approval process.  The FDA establishes different methods of determining bioequivalence of generic drugs (NSEDs) of which absorption is one of them.  They do not rely on just a single methodology, hence an array of techniques are used to evaluate drugs depending on their type or kind. The FDA has been under conflicts with the approval of drugs using the systems set for sometime. For instance, FDA went against Schering Corporation view in 1990 by granting Copley the go ahead to manufacture proventil   generic drug under the claim that section 355 (j) (B)  was by no way the means of determining bioequivalence. There are several sources which are referred to such statement including 21 C.F.R.  320.23, 320.24, 320.53 and 320.57 (1990). They denied the Schering Corporation the opportunity to produce similar generic drugs while at the same time granting this to the Copley. The district court had decided the case of bioequivalence determination protocol between the two parties several in the favor of the FDA.  While in the district court of the New Jersey, the judge favored the decision on the side of the FDA despite of establishing the fact that Schering Corporation FDA had firm ground of its argument.

The regulatory laws of generic  drugs has got long history since the early years of 1960s, and the FDA applies the principles of safety and effectiveness of drugs as the core determining factors of approving generic drugs. Considering the main composition of determining bioequivalence in the 1970s, the FDA included two terminologies in its generic drug regulation.  Bioequivalence and bioavailability were essentials terms which were included in the law as defining factors of generic drugs under the consideration ANDA. These are affirmed by two federal rules under section 57, number 17,950 and 17,972.  This has been mandated to the FDAs task as the implementation body of laws and regulations concerning food, drugs and cosmetics. We therefore recognized several other regulatory rules that apply to the regulation of generic drugs introduction to the market that were formulated by the congress. The permission from the congress to let the manufacture generic drugs was meant to reduce the cost of drugs while ensuring safety and maintaining quality of pioneer drugs (OpenJurist.org, 2010)..

Conclusion
While relying on the revealed information for the case of Schering and FDA, the application of the regulatory section 355(j) (7) (B) by the FDA was a measure taken limit the chances of market entry for companies which are not compliant with set standards as per the pioneer drug.  The insistence to perform tests both on bioequivalence and bioavailability was all intent to ensure that those manufacturers permitted to produced generic drugs only did so under the specified quality standards.  The   FDA therefore went against the Schering Corporation claim that bioequivalent was an exclusive rule that depended on the rate and extent of absorption, but not bioavailability which tries to incorporate the rate and concentration.  

The interpretation of bioequivalence as depending on absorption only by the Schering Corporation debases their claim on the FDA. The district courts thus  grants FDA side the favor,  because its the body bestowed with the regulatory work, and the section 355(j)(7)(B) does not restriction them  to limited means of tests. They further find out that Schering Corporation claims are not based on infliction on unfair market competition as required by the law. Thus, the corporation loses in the case due to lack of accusation relevancy. The Corporation claim on ambiguity of the bioequivalence definition could have placed them in better position of winning the case however, such an opportunity is always diminished by the courts habitual practices that demand the favor of the body with authority.

In the first instance, the implementation of a change in any system that affect employees without obtaining their entire consent or coming to a settlement on the issue, is questionable. In this case, the drivers would have to go through a reduction in their net pay due to the change in the billing and bookkeeping practices.

Unless, the change is statutorily enforceable, the system could not have been implemented without adequately compensating the drivers. The company could take the defense that continuation of work by the drivers despite the changes as aforesaid having been implemented could be considered as an implied consent. However, the imposition or application of unfair means to arm-twist (direction to CLEAN OUT THEIR TRUCK AND MOVE TO ANOTHER JOB) the drivers to accept the changes proposed to be effected, would lay bare the coercive tactics of the company.

The demand by Smith to have the surcharge change reflected in paycheck stub is not unjustified. The facts speak loud of the drivers dissent to the new system promulgated by the company. The facts also record the Owner  operator Edgar McMaster had informed Fife that the drivers continued to complain among themselves about the unfairness of the fuel surcharge change. This is established evidence to facts that Smith had substance in his demands.

Now, the circumstances leading to the discharge of Smith seem more a subtle effort to hamper the dissent brewing among drivers. Evidence has not been established of any disorderly conduct displayed by Smith prior to April 2. There is also no evidence of any criminal intent by Smith to cause any harm to Fife or Derrick. The facts recorded only suggest that Smith spoke aloud, got up from his chair and moved towards Derrick whereupon Fife ordered the discharge of Smith. Derrick had not authority to discharge Smith. Derrick spoke beyond his profile. There is no record of any physical assault caused to Derrick by Smith. Smiths moving forward could be related to either an unconscious reflex to prove a point.

Given the facts indicated in the case and the observations as aforesaid, it can be concluded that the conduct of Smith is a direct response to, per se, the unauthorized directions of Derrick. The fact would remain that though the main topic of discussion was, of course, the change in fuel surcharge, the undesirable comment by Derrick would have found similar response from any other driver irrespective of the topic of conversation.
Thus it can be safely concluded that the conduct of Smith is unrelated to the meeting of January 13.

Further, it seems evident that the claim made by Fife of earlier misconduct is absolutely false. It is evident that the sole reason of having Smith discharged is to stifle dissent among drivers or rather to set an example of the consequences in the event the matter is pursued by any other driver. It therefore concluded that conduct of the company has not been as per acceptable norms of business management.

It is very hard to make a comprehensive comparison of the trends of crime and subsequent appropriation of justice particularly between two or more nations. This is occasioned by the fact that there is no universal legal system and each nation applies different levels of severity against offenders. Moreover, the data used to make these comparisons is collected from different bodies which use varying data collection techniques making standardization difficult to achieve. The authors of this report have taken note of this fact and proceeded to solve the problem by incorporating only the crimes and punishments that are closely similar in nature.

Due to comparability problems, the authors of the report did not collect data on all types of crime or on all sentences. Instead, the authors used custody and conviction data because these data was relatively easier to collect than the former. This approach greatly assisted in avoiding the technicality of establishing the manner in which the nations in question treated similar crimes so as to acquire parallels.

There was also a problem of long time lapses between reports which made it difficult to pinpoint when the differences between the reports actually occurred. Short intervals between reports are necessary to ensure that the report is able to reflect a trend rather than report on mere data. However, since the authors of the report did not carry out independent data collection, they had to rely on data from data collection bodies in the different nations. This is a problem that the authors of the report could not address because it was brought about by lack of information regarding the periods between the lapses.

All in all, the report prepared by the authors is quite comprehensive and can be adopted by the relevant policy makers in formulating policies targeted at controlling crime and ensuring swift administration of justice.

There are many contradicting debates on the best way of combating criminology in our human society. It is the wish of every individual wish to see justice done for both the offender and the offended. Based on this reasoning, many proponents of punishment have claimed rightly that executing punishment on criminals is the only solution mainly because it gives equitable justice to the criminal offenders for the wrongs they have committed against others in the community (Tan, 2008). Nevertheless, the realization of sustainable security and economic development on the human community calls for ensuring that all members of the society live in harmony. It is mainly because of this reason that proponents of the use of rehabilitation see it as the best tool for realizing sustainable security and harmonious coexistence of the different members of the society. Such an approach seeks to make criminals more reliable both in character and respect for human rights of others (U.S. Courts, 2010).

This paper is written as an evaluation of the effectiveness of both punishment and rehabilitation in combating criminal acts in the society. The paper in particular addresses issues like the effectiveness of punishment on deterrence of crime, impact on the victim and their families, impact on the offender, and impact of such in the management of convicted offenders in prisons and under community supervision as compared to rehabilitation. The author also gives a personal opinion on the best way to realizing equitable justice and sustainable security in the community.

First is a discussion on deterrence on crime. Punishment is one of the most commonly used methods of combating criminology in our criminal justice systems (Specter, 1996). This is mainly because such are seen as giving a sense of equitable justice to the offended by punishing the offender. It is important to note here that most crimes in the society are acts of ignorance or self-driven deviance of the underlying laws (Tan, 2008)). It is because of this reason that it beats the sense of logical reasoning that upholding punishment on such criminals can be undermined. Still to note is the fact that the sole purpose of punishment in our prison systems is both to hold the offender accountable for the wrong he or she committed on the victims as well as the community in general (Larrabee, 2006). The prisons and community supervision also seeks acts to prevent the potential occurrence of such criminal acts in the society thus realizing sustainable security for other members of the community (California Courts, 2010).

Second is a discussion on the impact on victims and victims families. Rehabilitation is on purpose meant to provide convicted criminals with a safe, secure, and highly reliable correction, which seeks to ensure harmonious integration of such criminals into the large society (Tan, 2008). Punishment on the other side seeks to confine, manage, and ensure that the offenders are made to suffer for their wrongs in prison as a way of reducing any possible re-offending by such criminals upon their release (U.S. Courts, 2010). By analyzing the impact of both punishment and rehabilitation on the offender, it is clear from the cited intends of both justice practices that rehabilitation is the best as it minimizes incidences of inhuman treatment thus increasing chances of realizing psychological modeling of reliable character on the offender (Tan, 2008).

Though by punishment some offenders may change, such harsh treatments have been evidently found to increase the levels of tolerance by criminals and thus increase recidivism rates. This have the end effect increasing the gravity and frequency of crimes in the society. It is however evidently clear that many rehabilitated criminals are subject to re-involvement in criminal acts. This means that such rehabilitation act have and can still be a way of pretence by criminals to regain a chance back into community (Oregon  Blue Book, 2009). Such concerns make punishment the better option because it ensures the long term confining and correction of individuals.

The effectiveness of punishment or rehabilitation in managing offenders also can be debated in terms of their impacts in the society. The wish of every individual in the community is to witness the equitable execution of justice by holding the offender accountable to the victim. Such concerns are however subject to debate as rehabilitation can serve to ensure the sustainable security of the victim upon the release of the offender (Specter, 1996). It is however to be important to state that punishment is seen as more sufficient in ensuring equitable accountability of offender to their criminal acts (Phoenix Municipal Court, 2009). It does not only give the victim a sense of legal justice in revenge but also instill some sense of respecting other peoples rights in the offender. Punishment also acts as a lesson to other members of the society. To note hare is that it is the concern by other members in the society on the harsh treatment that has been imposed on an individual because of acts of crime can deter others from getting involved in such acts (California Courts, 2010).

Upholding rehabilitation, on the other hand, can be seen as a loop hole for committing of crimes as such could only amount to counseling and medical treatment rather than harsh treatment by prison police. Most of the rehabilitation programs are usually costly to the government and the community at large (Specter, 1996).
Last is a personal opinion. From the debate, it is clear that the method of managing criminal offenders should be based on the gravity and nature of crime committed. Drug addicts and the mentally impaired, for example, are never corrected sufficiently without the involvement of psychological rehabilitation. This is mainly because such categories of criminals are mainly seen as psychologically compromised to act from their conscious reasoning and thus upholding punishment will not yield much in restoring consciousness in their acts (Tan, 2008).

Serious felony offenders on the other side have evidently been established as a great threat to the sustainable security in the society even after rehabilitation. It is based on this reasoning that punishment is the best tool for correction of serious felony offenders as it does not only instill some sense of guiltiness on the offender but also provides for long term confinement of the offender in prison thus reducing their chances of re-offending (Larrabee, 2006). Therefore, it is evidently clear that the ultimate success of any criminal justice system can only be realized by involving a combination of both rehabilitation and punishment approach in the correction facilities.

The current justice system of the U.S. has its foundation in the Judicial Act of 1789. With this act, the U.S. Congress implemented a constitutional provision which stated that,  the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.  Over the years, the Judicial Act of 1789 has been altered on numerous occasions (Wheeler  Harrison, 1994). However, in line with the Act, the U.S. Supreme Court remains the most powerful court, with federal and other levels of courts below it to build the country s elaborate court system. The responsibility of making laws belongs to the Congress and not the courts. The chief duty of the courts is to protect the Constitution  because their rulings protect the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution  (Mecham, 2001). The independence of the U.S. judicial system is protected by the Constitution to ensure justice and fairness to all citizens without regard of their social, economic, religious, racial or political backgrounds. To protect judges from the political waves of the day, Article III of the U.S. constitution protects the office and compensation of judges. The article provides that,  judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office  (Supreme Court of the United States, n.d).  This paper sheds light on the features and characteristics of the different levels of the U.S. court system.

Superior Courts
A superior court is a trial court whose jurisdiction is general, giving it the power to handle civil and criminal suits which need not be heard, specifically, in other courts. The wide jurisdiction of Superior Courts allows the courts to handle all local trials including,  civil, criminal, family, probate, landlord-tenant, small claims and traffic. It also acts as a court of appeals for decisions of all governmental officers and agencies  (Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, n.d). The term superior courts implies that these courts rank higher than some inferior trial courts which some jurisdictions had created to handle local matters. These inferior courts included traffic courts and municipal courts which were restricted to specific jurisdictions. Superior courts are also found in other countries such as Canada.

According to the Judicial Branch of the State of Maine Courts (n.d), the Superior Court is the  only level of court where jury trials are available  (State of Maines Courts, n.d). Not all U.S. states have superior courts. California, the District of Columbia, Georgia, and Maine are among jurisdictions with superior courts. Other courts with equivalents of superior courts include Pennsylvania and Ohio which have courts of common pleas, Illinois, Michigan and Oregon with their circuit courts, and Louisiana, Texas and Hawaii which have district courts. The statewide jurisdiction of superior courts allows superior court justices to hold courts in any county within their respective states (State of Maine Courts, n.d). The length of time that superior court justices serve varies with the states. For instance, the superior court judges in Washington serve four-year long terms (Washington Courts, 2006).

Federal Courts
The U.S. Congress has the responsibility of authorizing the creation of federal courts below the Supreme Court. Further, the Congress defines the jurisdictions of these courts and determines the numbers of justices to staff each of the courts (CATEA, n.d).

Federal courts have broad jurisdictions and can handle  both civil and criminal cases, public law and private law disputes, cases involving corporations and government entities, appeals from administrative agency decisions, and law and equity matters  (Mecham, 2001). The federal court system is made up of several courts, principal among them the U.S. district courts, which are the chief trial courts in the federal system. Each state has at least one federal judicial district, bringing the total number of districts in the country to 94. A single judge, or with a jury of citizens, conducts proceedings in a trial court.

Each of the 12 regional circuits in the United States has a court of appeal. Courts of appeal handle appeals from district courts within their respective circuits. In special circumstances, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has the mandate to hear appeals involving cases heard by the Court of Federal Claims and the Court of International Trade (Mecham, 2001). As long as the district court has passed judgment on a federal case, any individual, group or corporation involved has the right to lodge an appeal with the court of appeal.

The Supreme Court
Assembled first on February 1, 1790 in the then capital city, New York, the Supreme Court occupies the very apex of the U.S. judicial system. The Supreme Court is staffed by eight associate judges and the Chief Justice of the United States. The nine justices must hear and decide all cases together (Mecham, 2001). Justices to the Supreme Court are nominated by the President , and approved by the Senate.

The jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court is extensive. For the Supreme Court to take up a case, at least four of the judges must agree to hear it. Oftentimes, the Supreme Court decides cases in instances where there have arisen differences of opinion among courts of appeals. The court also steps in to decide on questions arising from the constitution, and in cases where clarification of elements of federal law is needed (Mecham, 2001).