This is based on who is telling the truth. The defendant denys being in the city at the time of the murder, but then a local newspaper states that he heard gunshots from inside his apartment the day of the murder (which would be impossible if he wasn't in the city at the same of the murder). There could also be a chance that the newspaper could be lying mainly because the defendant objected that the evidence was correct. In this case, the judge should take this into consideration especially when a local newpaper article announced that the defendant heard gunshots after saying that he was never in the city. So I would say, the newspaper article could be evidence to prove that the defendant is responsible for the murder.
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:
It goes to a committee for consideration.
Explanation:
After a measure passes in the House, it goes to the Senate for consideration. This includes consideration by a Senate committee or subcommittee, similar to the path of a bill in the House. A bill must pass both bodies in the same form before it can be presented to the President for signature into law.
Answer:
Explanation:
When we say a law is normative, we mean two things. On the one hand, it means the particular law was made according to the procedure laid down for its making. This is technical validity or normativity of the law, falling within the pure theory of law by Hans Kelsen. On the other hand, a law is normative if it has some moral content in it.
Answer:
no
Explanation:
The judgment of the trial court is correct that plaintiffs cannot recover against Gary and Joan Doerhoff on the theory pursued.
