Answer:
GHB Sdn Bhd and Sandhu
The prospect for Sandhu to recover the extra commission negotiated with Ahmad during golf is very remote.
1. It was made under undue influence, when Ahmad could have lacked the capacity to make a binding contract. In addition, at that time, Sandhu disclosed that the land was being sought after by many other parties as a way of piling unnecessary pressure on Ahmad.
2. There was no intention to create a legal relation because the additional commission represents a counter-offer. Since the earlier offer was fully documented, this additional offer should have also followed the same process if the company intended to be legally bound.
3. There is lack of consideration to back this additional contract. In the first place, the main contract with Sandhu was made in view of his negotiation skills. So what is Sandhu expected to offer the company in exchange for the extra commission? Nothing.
Explanation:
GHB cannot be expected to promise 0.5% extra commission on a deal, which was equivalent to RM2 million, when an already executed contract for 3% commission had been reached. One can also claim that Ahmad, who suffered from occasional dementia, could have made the promise without the intention for it to be binding on his company but as a way of encouraging Sandhu to close the deal in favor of GHB. Was the deal closed because of the extra commission? No.
Answer:
Opening Statement: The lawyers for each side will explain the case, the evidence they plan to present, and the issues for the jury to decide.
Presentation of Evidence:
Rulings by the Judge:
Instructions to the Jury:
Closing Arguments:
Deliberation:
Explanation:
Have A Great Day!!
Answer:
Where did you hear this
NGTL that is real creepy tho
Explanation:
Answer:
Explanation:
This experiment conducted by Nicole Ruedy helps the authors central idea. She looked at all of the information that the author provided and determined that the information gather was relevant and applicable to her opinions. She made additional points to further research for the author.
Answer:
Prof. Berman noted that First Step Act Sec. 403, “described as a ‘clarification of Section 924(c),’ eliminates the required “stacking” of 25-year mandatory minimums for multiple 924(c) counts at the same time… Sadly, Congress did not make Section 403 of the First Step Act retroactive, and thus defendants previously subject to these extreme stacked sentences will get no direct relief from the new Act.”
