Alex - Plaintiff v Abigail – Defendant In the case of Alex (plaintiff) vs. Abigail (defendant), we the jury find Abigail guilty of fraud through unanimous vote. Alex presented enough evidence to support the claims of breach of contract and fraud committed by the defendant. Our decision was based on determining if there was contract formed and if the terms of said contract were performed by both parties. We found that Abigail placed an advertisement with the intent to lead readers to believe that she was selling “purebred toy breed puppies” for $100, “quoted for immediate acceptance”. Alex responded to Abigail’s advertisement and accepted her offer by submitting the required $100 payment to the P.O. Box, as stipulated in the advertisement, and inquired about when he could pick up …show more content…
The defense’s argument that Abigail’s offer did not specify a particular a purebred was not upheld by the jury. Alex thought that he was getting a Chihuahua, or at least a purebred dog. “Such a misrepresentation is one that is likely to induce a reasonable person to assent to a contract” (Twomey & Jennings, p. 273). By delivering a dog that did not reasonably fit within the slightest specifications of a purebred, Abigail blatantly disregarded the contract between she and Alex. Her ad stated that she was selling “purebred toy breed puppies”, not a mix bred (mutt) and definitely not a full size dog, which is what Alex later found out to be the dog he received. The plaintiff was in fact harmed by Abigail’s actions in the form of having paid money in good faith that she would uphold her half of the agreement. The fact that Alex accepted the puppy from Abigail and now has an attachment to the dog, does not excuse Abigail’s actions, nor does it acquit her of any wrongdoing. The plaintiff has established the four elements of
3. Procedural History: This matter comes before the court on motions of defendants for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for amended judgment. We have considered defendants' motions collectively and individually and conclude that neither a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, nor amended judgment is warranted. The evidence supports the jury's verdict.
A crucial issue that was relevant during the trial was that should the Supreme Court of Canada support the Criminal Code under section 429 and 430 or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under section 11 and 15. This brought up the question that what is the true role of the Charter. Prior to the decision, there was confusion on whether or not the accused outside of Ontario had the right to choose who to be tried by. The court believed that being tried by a jury is a benefit that the accused is entitled to and not a punishment. As seen in history, individuals have praised the jury for being a privilege and a civil liberty that common law has to offer. Civil juries have also been described as an instrument of justice. The court referred back to a quote from a well-known judge named William Blackstone during the Elizabethan era who described the jury as “the glory of English law” and “the most transcendent privilege which any subject can enjoy.” Secondly, the court referred to the Singer v. United States case which was also very similar to the R. v. Turpin. Singer was charged for 30 accounts of criminal mail fraud. The defendant claimed that he had absolute right to choose to be tried with judge alone if a trial was for his advantage. After an extensive exhaustion of many sources and legal precedents, the court found that nowhere in the history of common law does it state that defendants should have the right to choose the method of their trial in a murder trial. The final decision in the Singer v. United States case also stated that the defenders only right concerning the method of trial is to be tried by both a jury and judge. This gave The Supreme Court of Canada enough evidence to conclude their decision that appellants had no right to choose who to be tried by. After the decision, this case became a permanent legal precedent for any other
Jurors will thoroughly inspect and weigh over the evidence provided, and process any and all possible scenarios through the elements of crime. If the evidence does not support the prosecutor 's argument and the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must pronounce the defendant not guilty. If questionable or irrelevant evidence is included in the criminal proceeding, it is the duty of the prosecutor or defendant 's counsel to object and insist that the evidence be excluded by the presiding
In the film, A Civil Action, Trial Procedure was shown throughout the entire movie. There are many steps that need to be completed before a verdict and judgment can be reached. These steps are the pleadings, methods of discovery, pretrial hearings, jury selection, opening statements, introduction of evidence, cross examinations, closing arguments, instructions to the jury, and the verdict and judgment. The case in this movie was actually called Anderson v. Cryovac. The plaintiffs are the Anderson family, the Gamache family, the Kane family, the Robbins family, the Toomey family, and the Zona family. The plaintiffs’ attorneys are Jan Schlichtmann, Joe Mulligan, Anthony Roisman, Charlie Nesson, and Kevin Conway. The two co- defendants are W.R. Grace and Beatrice Foods. The two co-defendants’ attorneys are William Cheeseman, Jerome Facher, Neil Jacobs, and Michael Keating.
The Casey Anthony case was one that captured the heart of thousands and made it to the headline of national TV talk shows, newspapers, radio stations and social media networks for months. The root of the case was due to a clash between the parental responsibilities, the expectations that went with being a parent, and the life that Casey Anthony wanted to have. The case was in respect to the discovering the cause of Casey’s two-year-old daughter, Caylee Marie Anthony’s, death; however the emphasis was placed on Casey and her futile lies, which resulted in a public outcry. The purpose of this essay is to delve into the public atmosphere and inquire about why the media and social media collectively attacked the case by uncovering the content of the case, the charges that were laid, and later dismissed, the “performers” of the trial and the publics reaction. It will further discuss how it defies universal ideologies and how the media represents this. The discussion of the complexities of the case and its connotations will incorporate Stuart Hall’s Representation and the Media, Robert Hariman’s Performing the Laws, What is Ideology by Terry Eagleton, The Body of the Condemned by Michael Foucault, and a number of news articles, which will reveal disparate ideas of representation in the media, and the role of the performers of the law and their effect on the understanding of the case.
Injustice is something has become very common amongst us. People not assuming the responsibility for what they’ve done, the damage they’ve caused. In this case it occurs in the crucible. Abigail is not only the one to blame for the disasters that occurred in the crucible, but is also someone whose word can not be trusted.She has lied about everything, she went around dragging people with good reputations down without hesitation or any remorse. She blamed others for things they were free of guilt for, False accusations towards everyone were the only things that came out her mouth. Even though she was also accompanied by other liars who also took role in the murders of innocents she is the one that has to take the biggest blame for it all. She
make there decision, but in the end there was no way that the jury was going to believe a
How can a girl who condemned seventy two to a death sentence and drank a charm to kill a man’s wife, a man she has slept with on more than one occasion be the victim? It’s possible when the town she lives in is worse than her. Although Abigail Williams is typically thought of as the antagonist of Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, she is in fact a victim as much as any other tragic character in the play.
Physical Domain: Abigail Tremucha is the 4th daughter of Jessie Tremucha Jr. and Estela Tremucha. Her eye color is brown just like the rest of her family, and is the darkest of the Tremucha children. Hailing from the Philippines, Abigail is a petite young girl, weighing in at a mere 60 lbs at the height of 4’7”. With this information, she is at the 4th percentile in the weight category and at the 25th percentile in the height category for girls her age. Despite her small stature, she is still rather healthy. When the weather is nice, she would go and play outside with her sisters, doing activities such as riding her bike and rollerblading on the sidewalk and spending roughly an hour or two in
At trial, your life is in the palms of strangers who decide your fate to walk free or be sentenced and charged with a crime. Juries and judges are the main components of trials and differ at both the state and federal level. A respectable citizen selected for jury duty can determine whether the evidence presented was doubtfully valid enough to convict someone without full knowledge of the criminal justice system or the elements of a trial. In this paper, juries and their powers will be analyzed, relevant cases pertaining to jury nullification will be expanded and evaluated, the media’s part on juries discretion, and finally the instructions judges give or may not include for juries in the court.
Two options are presented to a jury in a court of law: guilty, or non-guilty. In any case, there exists a third option no legal advisor is allowed to tell a jury. Despite the evidence presented, if a jury feels it is morally incorrect to prosecute a defendant, they have the power to acquit them. In order to maintain a free justice system, it is important for a jury to have the power to nullify the law under specific circumstances, much like in the case of John Peter Zenger.
The jury plays a crucial role in the courts of trial. They are an integral part in the Australian justice system. The jury system brings ordinary people into the courts everyday to judge whether a case is guilty or innocent. The role of the jury varies, depending on the different cases. In Australia, the court is ran by an adversary system. In this system “..individual litigants play a central part, initiating court action and largely determining the issues in dispute” (Ellis 2013, p. 133). In this essay I will be discussing the role of the jury system and how some believe the jury is one of the most important institutions in ensuring that Australia has an effective legal system, while others disagree. I will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of a jury system.
May it please the court, counsel, members of the jury, this is a case of fallacious allegations, witchcraft and murder. You are here because on January of 1962, Abigail Williams professed that she had been bewitched resulting in the death and imprisonment of more than 150 innocent lives.
I believe that Abigail Williams is the most responsible for the trials. I've made my conclusion based on the many acts Abigail has committed and underlying intentions that she had. She and Mary Warren were the most prominent afflicted girls and Abigail spoke in court much more than the others which is a red flag. Abigail seemed to take on a "leadership role" among the afflicted girls, especially in the court scene with Mary Warren. She was quite old as well so it is easy to claim that Abigail manipulated the girls to listen to her. Over time, she has realized the power of "witnessing" witch craft and she used it for her own good. Abigail may have claimed that she saw witches because of the power and attention that came with confession. After
The acquitting of a defendant by a jury in disregard of the judge's instructions and contrary to the jury's findings of fact