Answer:
No, unless it happens consistently.
Answer:
the ball is in play when it is kicked and clearly moves
Explanation:
the opponents have to be 10 yards from the ball until in play and have to be in the center of the circle until the ref blows the whistle to start the game.
Answer: Yes. The motel within its rights to refuse her admittance
Explanation:
From the question, we are informed that Manpreet reserved a room at the Moonlight Motel but couldn't later travel and therefore called her sister, Ravinder, to make use of the motel room in her place.
We are further told that Ravinder was refused admittance to the room on the grounds that there was a waiting list and she was not on it.
Based on the nice scenario, the motel was within its rights to refuse her admittance. It should be noted that the hotel room wasn't booked in her name but rather booked in Manpreet's name. The thing that Manpreet could have done is to inform the motel when she realize that she couldn't come and change the terms of the contract by saying her sister will be coming. But in this scenario, the motel is within its rights to refuse her admittance.
Answer:
Pearson v. Callahan
Explanation:
This was a case that was decided by the United States which would deal with the doctrine of qualified immunity.
Hope this Helps!
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.
