Master Deed

Question 1

Ab Initio

Answer 1

• From the beginning.

(Lat.) means from the beginning; and

Question 2

Absolute

Answer 2

• Complete and final.
• Without encumbrances.
• Not liable to change.

means any Instrument, Rule, Decree or Record issued under the proper Rule of Law that is complete and final, without encumbrances or liable to change or cancellation; and

Question 3

Absolute Owner

Answer 3

• The person capable of disposing.
• Right to hold or dispossess…
• Fee Simple or Dominium Utile rights.
• The whole interest in land…
• Although the interest is encumbered.

means the owner or person capable of disposing, by disposition or otherwise of the fee simple, or dominium utile, of the whole interest of or in land, although the land or his interest therein is burdened, charged or encumbered; and

_________________________________________

Dominium Utile
Dominium Utile. In the civil law. Equitable or prætorian ownership; that which was founded on equity. Mackeld. Rom. Law, § 327, note. In later law. Use without property; the right of a tenant. Tayl. Civil Law, 478. In feudal law. Useful or beneficial ownership; the usufruct, or right to the use and profits of the soil, as distinguished from the dominium directum (q. v.) or ownership of the soil itself; the right of a vassal or tenant. 2 Bl.Comm. 105.
Black´sLawDictionary, 4th Revised Edition, 1968, p. 574.

Dominium directum et utile is a Latin legal term referring to the “complete and absolute dominion [in property]”; i.e. the union of the title and the exclusive use.

Dominium directum et utile is a Latin legal term referring to the “complete and absolute dominion [in property]”; i.e. the union of the title and the exclusive use.[1]
Definitions
Dominium directum (Feudal): the right of the lord (i.e., the right to direct) in the disposition of an asset (typically land).Dominium utile (Feudal): the right of use and utility of an asset, and to keep the benefits (such as the right to live on the land, and to keep the profits from agriculture).
The terms derive from Latin dominium (domain, dominion), directum (direction, in the sense of leadership), and utile (use, utility).
An asset is defined to mean itself and those things that naturally go with it. For land, that would include buildings, trees, underground resources, etc. It would not include “movable” property, such as wagons or livestock.
The holder of the dominium directum is considered the superior (i.e., the lord); the holder of the dominium utile is considered the inferior (i.e., the vassal).
Dominium utile includes the right of the holder to keep any income or profit derived from the asset.
The transfer of the dominium directum does not affect the rights of any holders of dominium utile. The holder of a dominium utile has no right of transfer (however, there were usually conditions allowed for, such as transfer to a son in the event of death).
The definition was constructed from the sources. [2][3][4][5][6]
Additional explanations
The “lord” holding dominium directum may be anyone with sovereign power over the asset, such as a monarch or other nobility, or an established Christian Church.

Question 4

Abstract

Answer 4

• Summary of pertinent facts.
• From larger instrument.
• Distilled Representation of facts from a record.

means a summary of pertinent facts of a larger Instrument (such as a Memorandum or Testimony), or a representation of facts contained within a particular Record, usually for the purpose of certification; and

Question 5

Accounting Period

Answer 5

• A 365 day period as a standard measure…
• For the preparation of accounts.

means the standard measure and period for the preparation of Accounts expressed as a Ucadian Sun Year consisting of 365 days; or expressed as Gregorian Time being 365 days; and

Question 6

Act

Answer 6

• Transmission of energy or awareness.
• Into a created form, record or thing.
• The relation of transformed awareness…
• Associated with a form or thing.
• A statute of a legislative body.

means (a) an event in time and dimension based on reason, involving the transmission of energy and awareness relating to some form or thing; and
(b) a statute of a proper legislative body that is not otherwise morally repugnant, perfidious, treasonous, blasphemous or heretical; and

Question 7

Action

Answer 7

• Recoupment.
• Claim or counterclaim.
• Setoff.
• Proceeding.
• The rights determined by a competent forum.
• Agreed jurisdiction.

means recoupment, Claim, counterclaim, set­off, suit and any other proceeding in that; Rights are determined in a competent forum and agreed Jurisdiction; and

Question 8

Accept, also Acceptance

Answer 8

• Evidence exists by express consent
• there exists an agreement.
• Or by implied consent a contract.
• Mutual offers were accepted by all parties.
• In the absence of consent, no agreement.

means evidence exists by express Consent in the case of an Agreement or implied Consent in the case of a Contract that an Offer was accepted by all parties. In the absence of any reasonable argument for Consent, an Agreement or Contract cannot be argued as being in legal or lawful effect; and

Question 9

Acceptance period

Answer 9

• Period commences upon notice given.
• Ending on 10th business day by 5:00 PM.
• Agreed between recipient and sender.

means the period commencing on the date a Notice is given or deemed to have been given and ending at 5.00pm on the 10th Business Day after that date, or that another date as agreed between the Recipient and the Sender in “writing”; and

Question 10

Acceptor

Answer 10

• The Drawee that accepts a draft.
• A Person who accepts an instrument.

means a Drawee or Person who has accepted a Draft or other instrument; and

Question 11

Account, also accounts

Answer 11

• A collection of financial books and records.
• Fiduciary relation formed in trust.
• Concerning one or more rights.
• Purpose of banking, commerce and taxes.
• The original record of an event.
• Subsequent statements or summaries.
• The Master Accounts.
• Prepared summaries of the accounts.

A) A collection of financial documents, books and records relating to a distinct fiduciary relation formed in trust between the Body Corporate and other parties concerning one or more rights, use of property for the purpose of banking, commerce, taxation or governance; and

(b) The original record of event as to its creation and validity entered into some formal register of similar types of accounts; and

(c) Any subsequent statement or summary or report from time to time referencing key information concerning its function and performance; and

(d) The summary of all Accounts and Account Relations, also known as the “Master Accounts” of the Body Corporate, Production or Project and prepared and presented in statements, summary and reports consistent with Accounting Standards; and

Question 12

Accounting standards

Answer 12

• Accounting standards under Ucadian law.
• Consistently applied standards.
• Within agreed Ucadian Jurisdiction.
• Equivalent standards outside Ucadia.

(a) The accounting standards approved under the Ucadian Law and the requirements of that law about the preparation and content of accounts; and
(b) Generally accepted and consistently applied principles and practices within the Jurisdiction of Ucadian Law; and
(c) In relation to a company incorporated outside the Jurisdiction of Ucadian Law, the equivalent accounting standards, principles and practices in the jurisdiction of incorporation; and

Question 13

Accounting period, also Fiscal Year

Answer 13

• A period of twelve months.
• ending December 31st.
• Jurisdiction of Ucadian Law.

means the period from the time of the formation of the Body Corporate to the following 31 December and then each period of 12 months ending on 31 December in each year in accord with the Jurisdiction of Ucadian Law; and

Question 14

Advance

Answer 14

• Payment of money
• before consideration or performance
• is due to be returned.
• Per terms of the agreement.
• May be recoupable or non recoupable.

means a payment of money before it is due. An Advance may be recoupable or non­recoupable; and

Question 15

Adverse claim

Answer 15

• Lawful action to nullify a claimed interest
• in property possessed or occupied
• by an owner, holder or someone in control
• of the property or asset
• Claimant must establish their rights are violated
• That the holder does not have the right to
• occupy, possess or hold the property or asset.

means that by an Action is commenced to nullify a claimant’s property interest in an Asset and that the claimant must establish that it is a violation of the rights of the claimant for another person to hold, transfer, or deal with the Asset; and

Question 16

Advocate

Answer 16

• A legal assistant appointed to help
• Who is suitably qualified and competent
• to argue law and administer the affairs
• of the donor who conveyed rights to them.

means a person suitably qualified, competent and capable in proper law, in respect of the Golden Rule of Law, Justice and Due Process; and

Question 17

Affairs

Answer 17

• Any legal action, suit, claim, proceeding
• Any act, fact, will and testament, oath, office
• Any interest, claim, obligation, duty, right
• Any effort, work, or exertion producing value
• Any matter or business - of any kind; and
• Any binding ritual performed.

Question 18

Affiliate

Answer 18

• One person in relation to another person
• A donor of rights in relation to a donee
• A delegator of rights in relation to a delegate
• A person, body or association
• etc, etc, etc,
• Directly under the derived control of a superior

means a person, or body or association that is related to another party and is considered to be directly or indirectly controlled or under the control of that party; and

Question 19

Agent

Answer 19

• One who acts for or in place of another
• One who acts under the authority of…
• the Principle as his Agent
• One who is appointed or vested in office…
• by an owner capable of disposing a right
• Recognized and acknowledged
• As a named beneficiary under
• Ucadian Law and these bylaws
• Possessing non-durable powers of Attorney
• individual authorised to make decisions
• or act with temporary powers of another
• in accord with terms and conditions
• One entrusted with the business of another.

a) Any man, woman or person duly appointed, acknowledged or recognised under these Bylaws as a named Beneficiary, including any Person possessing a non­durable Power of Attorney, or an individual authorised to make decisions or act with temporary powers of another in accord with these terms and conditions; or
(b) One who acts for, or in the place of, another (the Principal), by authority from him in accord with Ucadian Law; or one entrusted with the business of another such as a substitute; or a deputy; or one known as a factor; and

Question 20

Agentis Juris

Answer 20

• 2nd Person
• An Agent under the control of a Principle
• You, your, yourself.
• An artificial person as a legal fiction.
• A statutory person born of a body of law.

(Lat.) means one having the capacity of a 2nd Person (you, ye, yours, yourself or yourselves) as an artificial Person and Agent of the Principal; and

Question 21

Alieni Juris

Answer 21

• 3rd Person
• An incompetent at Law. ( Ucadian )
• He, She, It, They, Them, Their(s),
• Themselves
• Without the knowledge, capacity, or skill
• To properly manage their own affairs.
• A legal person as ( In Personum )
• A Ward, Infant, Lunatic…
• Under the control of a…
• Fiduciary or competent administrator.

(Lat.) means one having the capacity of a 3rd Person (he, she, it, they, them, their, theirs or themselves) as a Legal Person “In Personum” and as a Ward, or Lunatic, or Infant under the control of another; and
“Amend” means to change or modify; and

Question 22

Agreement

Name the six (6) minimum requirements.

Answer 22

• A Bi-Lateral Consensus in writing
• Between two of equal standing
• Of higher mind ( Conceptual Model )
• and lower mind ( Flesh & Instincts )
• demonstrating 6 minimum requirements…
• Consent is expressed, not implied

1. Offer
2. Valuable Consideration
3. Sufficiency
4. Terms and conditions
5. Full Disclosure
6. Acceptance

is a Bilateral Consensus in Writing between two (2) men or women of equal standing clearly demonstrating the minimum requirements of Offer, Valuable Consideration, Sufficiency, Terms, Full Disclosure and Acceptance whereby consent is expressed and not implied.

CONTRACTS

• A Contract is a Unilateral Consensus
• between two (2) unequal parties “persons”,
• that cannot be considered an Agreement.
• A contract can be the resulting product
• of legal entanglements & codependencies.

Question 23

Annul, also Annulment

Answer 23

• deprive a Thing of its operation
• either retrospectively or
• only as to the future
• upon some Ecclesiastical Authority
• and competent Capacity; and

Question 24

Application

Answer 24

• A written request to form an agreement.
• A written offer requesting consideration.
• means a written request in Good Faith
• to an Officer or Agent of either party
• to form an Agreement with another party; and

Question 25

Appropriation

Answer 25

- Act of separating and setting aside - Part of a Fund - Prescribing, designating or defining - the use, purpose or destination - of the Funds - To be used and directed by a... - Procurator, - Attorney General, - General Guardian, - Administrator or - Solicitor General means the act of appropriating or setting apart; prescribing the destination of a thing; designating the use or application of a fund by an Officer in a Fiduciary Capacity such as a Procurator, Attorney General, General Guardian, Administrator or Solicitor General &c. of the Foundation (UEF­GB) and no other [In Concord with c.f: s.41 of Administration of Estates Act 1925]; and

Question 26

Apostate, also Apostasy

Answer 26

- disaffiliation, abandonment or renunciation - between a Member and Ucadian Law; - or the actions of a Member of a - valid and legitimate Ucadia Ecclesiastical Body - or Body Politic, - to expose their actions as incompetent - or to willfully declare themselves an - Incompetent, as Insane or an Idiot or, - by renouncing their association to Ucadia; and

Question 27

Argument

Answer 27

- the Process of establishing and validating - the Proof and Truth of one or more claims - alleged to be a Fact(s); and

Question 28

Asset, also Assets

Answer 28

- a right, good, thing, property - or real property - that is either owned or controlled by Our Estate - that is accepted in commerce - as having value; and

Question 29

Assignment

Answer 29

- A formal Covenant or Decree - Or an Instrument defining the Transfer - of certain Rights - from an Owner to the Purchaser - Who accepts a commission as payment - For performance of obligations - Under the terms and condition of agreement.

Question 30

Assignor

Answer 30

- a type of Trustor - who temporarily and conditionally - Transfers and Conveys Right of Use - of some Property or Right - to another - for some valuable consideration.

Question 31

Assign, also Asignor, also Assignee

Answer 31

- those to whom Property is, will, or may be - lawfully assigned - whether by conveyance - devise - descent - transfer or - an act of law.

Question 32

Attorney-In-Fact, also Attorney General

Answer 32

- a person authorised to act for another | - in financial and legal matters; and

Question 33

Audit

Answer 33

- a study and forensic review - of the financial accounts - transaction history - and reporting; and

Question 34

Authentic

Answer 34

- something that is the same as the Original - or validated as reliable - and worthy of Trust; and

Question 35

Authority, also An Authority

Answer 35

- means an exclusive Right, - being a “Right of Use” - to do or act in a particular way, - derived solely from the acceptance and promise - to perform one or more obligations - of Office through a proper Oath and Vow

Question 36

Bank

Answer 36

- A holder of valuable posits or deposits - under fiduciary obligations - to manage the assets of another in trust - being the Body Corporate - and any person, - society, - trust, - company - or corporation - possessing the Right to engage - in the business of banking.

Question 37

Bank Account

Answer 37

- any deposit, posit, security, credit - or other account held with a Bank - and registers defining the transactions - of valuable assets or currency - between parties - in relation to the account maker as principle.

Question 38

Bearer

Answer 38

- A man, woman or person, - In possession of - A Negotiable instrument - A certificated title - or security interest - with its associated rights - to redemption, recoupment, claim or set-off - and associated obligations of performance - by the one making a valuable offer as seller - of defined performance increasing the value - of the interest conveyed by the bearer - who bought the security under trust agreement.

Question 39

Bearer Security

Answer 39

- a negotiable Certificated Security - that entitles the Holder to the Rights - defined by and under the Security - as the holders 'interest' in the property - with the right of redemption - at the maturity date of the agreement - and also the right to a recoupment claim - in the event of breach or default - Who's rights may also be transferred - By gift, sale or bargain - by way of Endorsement - or delivery to another; and REDEMPTION the action of regaining or gaining possession of something in exchange for payment, or clearing a debt. synonyms: retrieval, recovery, reclamation, repossession, return More "the redemption of their possessions" exchange, cashing in, conversion "the redemption of credit vouchers" paying off, paying back, discharge, clearing, honoring "the redemption of the mortgage" fulfillment, carrying out, discharge, performing, honoring, meeting "the redemption of his obligations" archaic the action of buying one's freedom. REDEEM late Middle English (in the sense ‘buy back’): from Old French redimer or Latin redimere, from re(d)- ‘back’ + emere ‘buy.’

Question 40

Benefice, also Benefices

Answer 40

- a gift granted by Trust - under Deed and Title - including both Rights and obligations - to certain Property

Question 41

Beneficiary

Answer 41

- is any Person - who has any present or future interest - vested or contingent - in a Trust - who benefits or receives - a useful or valuable enjoyment - or legal advantage in action - holding priority before others - in the event of breach - necessitating a recoupment, claim or set-off - during a legal action, suit or proceeding - defined by the Trust instrument as rights - A Beneficiary, by definition - is an “interested party” - in a Trust or Estate - including any owner or holder of an interest - by assignment, conveyance or other transfer

Question 42

Benefit

Answer 42

- a gift offered and elected to be accepted - and received under trust agreement - also, an object of value - or actions creating value - or a conveyed bundle of rights - or a reciprocal exchange defined as a... - commission for performance of obligations

Question 43

Bilateral Consensus

Answer 43

- the term describing - the second of three forms - of concord of Consent - between the minds of two or more Parties - concerning one or more Acts - regarding certain Property or Rights - involving the Higher Mind - and therefore also the Lower Mind - (also equivalent to Mind and Flesh) ­ - hence bilateral; and

Question 44

Bill of Lading

Answer 44

- a Document evidencing - the Receipt of Goods for shipment - issued by a Person - engaged in the business of transporting - or forwarding goods

Question 45

Body Politic and Corporate

Answer 45

- the Ucadia Ecclesia Foundation - is the united and singular collection - of Property, Rights and Uses - of a Trust created by statute, - also known as the Trust Corpus. - More commonly, - a Body Corporate is known as a Corporation - or a Person born as a legal statutory person.

Question 46

Bona Fide

Answer 46

- Good Trust - Good Faith - (Lat.) means with good faith; - An act performed honestly, openly, sincerely, - without deceit, ill will or fraud - ( See also “Good Faith” )

Question 47

Bond

Answer 47

- an instrument showing indebtedness - A form of Covenant or Decree - containing at least one penalty clause - and one defeasance condition clause - whereby the Obligor (person bound) - binds himself to pay - a certain sum of interest (coupon) - and repay any principal money (penal sum) - at a maturity date, - subject to any other binding conditions - of surety and performance

Question 48

Book Entry

Answer 48

- a Bond or similar Security for that; - no Certificate is issued, - but ownership is recorded - in a valid Register, Ledger or Roll

Question 49

Buyer

Answer 49

- a Person who makes ( engages in ) - one (1) or more purchases - from a Seller of Goods or Services

Question 50

Bylaws, also Byelaws

Answer 50

- the Bylaws of the Body Politic & Corporate - Defining the rights and obligations of - Ecclesiastical offices and commissions; and - Governing Offices and Commissions; and - Agents, Agencies and Contractors - as originally assented... - or as altered from time to time - by Special Resolution

Question 51

Cause of Action

Answer 51

- the facts and evidence - that may give a person the right - to judicial relief - within a competent forum of law.

Question 52

Cancellation

Answer 52

- giving notice - of a desire to cease activity - or performance - towards the completion of a contract.

Question 53

Certificate of deposit - Certificate of Posit

Answer 53

- Is an Instrument - containing an acknowledgement - by a Bank - that a sum of money has been received - by the Bank - and a promise by the Bank - to repay the sum of money. - A certificate of deposit is a note - of the Bank baring interest - and due on a specific date.

Question 54

Certificate of Registration

Answer 54

- Is an official confirmation - through the issuance of a certificate - that some right, claim, property - has been duly registered - with the Body Corporate.

Question 55

Certificated Security

Answer 55

- Is a Security - that is represented by a certificate - defining the holders interest in the matter - associated with a bundle of rights - for judicial relief - in the event of breach, default, - or non-performance.

Question 56

Cheque, also Check

Answer 56

- Is a Draft - as a written order to pay a specified sum - payable on demand - and drawn on a Bank Account, - or cashier’s cheque, - or tellers cheque, - or commercial network instrument - such as a “money order”

Question 57

Charge, also Land Charge

Answer 57

- means a rent, annuity or principal moneys - payable by installments or lump sum, - by the one who is charged with the debt, - to the chargee, who extended credit, - with or without interest charged, - but not by way of a deed, - charged upon land, - under the provisions of any lawful and moral statute, - for securing to the person who is owed rent, - either the moneys spent by the chargee, - or the costs, charges, expenses incurred by him - under such statutes, - or the moneys advanced by the chargee, - for repaying the moneys spent, - or the costs, charges and expenses - incurred by another person - under the authority of a lawful and moral Act.

Question 58

Charge by way of mortgage

Answer 58

means a Mortgage created by Charge; and

Question 59

Charge by way of mortgage

Answer 59

means a Chargee by way of Legal Mortgage; and

Question 60

Classification

Answer 60

- means the correct regulation - of the Body Corporate - for the purpose of Recording Information - internally and with non­Ucadian entities.

Question 61

Clean Hands

Answer 61

- means a party is forbidden - by all competent forms of Law - from seeking to derive an advantage - in such a Forum of Law - from having committed one or more wrongs - or that a party is disqualified - from bringing a matter - concerning breach of trust or honesty or duty, - if they the are also accused of a similar act; - or that a party possessing an interest in a matter - cannot then sit as an arbitrator or judge, - unless both parties waive their right of objection; and

Question 62

Clearing House

Answer 62

- means a financial institution - duly registered and recognised - by the laws of the Jurisdiction - in providing clearing and settlement services - for security and derivative transactions - of the Body Corporate; and

Question 63

Claimant

Answer 63

- means a person seeking recognition | - of rights of Property or Assets

Question 64

Clerk, also Cleric

Answer 64

- an administrative ecclesiastical assistant | - to an Apostolic Mendicant Minister

Question 65

Claim

Answer 65

- any formal demand or cause of action - for ownership, compensation or damages - where certain key elements are alleged - to be of sufficient weight to justify a Right, - either in favour or against any Asset(s) - or an obligation of an Estate, Trust or subsidiary, - of a Person or Body Corporate.

Question 66

Codicil

Answer 66

- means a written supplement, - addendum or schedule to a Will - that amends the original Document - and must conform to the same requirements - in the validation of the Will; and

Question 67

Commission

Answer 67

- means the fees claimed by an Agent - or duly authorised and appointed - representative; and

Question 68

Communication

Answer 68

- means the concept or state - of exchanging meaningful information - between entities. - It is also a message - and the essential information transferred - in the act of communication.

Question 69

Competent, also Competency

Answer 69

- means having sufficient skill, - knowledge, qualifications, ability, - reason, discernment or authority - to perform a position of trust or office. - A Competent Person by default - is assumed to possess a Sound Mind - and sufficient Capacity of Authority - to perform a particular position of trust or office - such as an Attorney General, Solicitor General - or Procurator General.

Question 70

Compos Mentis

Answer 70

- means being of Sound Mind | - and not Mentally Unwell (Insane)

Question 71

Concord

Answer 71

- means a harmonious state in general - and of the congruity of parts - with one another and with the whole; - and also a meeting of the minds.

Question 72

Conflict of Interest

Answer 72

_ means any party to an act - that possesses sufficient financial interest, - or personal interest - with another party associated with the act, - sufficient to imply the potential for Bias.

Question 73

Consensus

Answer 73

- means a term describing the Concord - of Consent between different Parties - concerning one (1) or more acts - regarding certain Property or Rights.

Question 74

Consent, also Consented

Answer 74

- means the expressed intent, - concord - and “meeting of minds” - to something proposed - and cannot be implied by silence.

Question 75

Consecrated Person

Answer 75

- means a Person | - declared and set apart as sacred.

Question 76

Conservator

Answer 76

- means a Person appointed by Court - or the General Executor and Guardian - to manage the affairs of another - in accordance with this Instrument.

Question 77

Consideration

Answer 77

- means the presentation of value - given as a pledge - and the reason or inducement - for a party to enter into an Agreement. - The existence of some clear Consideration - is a necessary element - for an Agreement to be binding.

Question 78

Consideration in Money

Answer 78

- (a) a capital sum of money or a rent; or - (b) Land being freehold or leasehold - for any term of years - whereof not less than sixty years shall be unexpired; - (c) any easement, right or privilege - over or in relation to Land, or part thereof; or - (d) the benefit of any restrictive covenant or condition; or - (e) the release of any Land, - or any part thereof, - from any easement, right or privilege, - including a right of pre­emption - or from the burden of any restrictive covenant - or condition affecting the same.

Question 79

Contract

Answer 79

- means a Unilateral Consensus - between two (2) Parties - of unequal standing - clearly demonstrating the minimum requirements - of Offer, - Valuable Consideration, - Sufficiency, - Terms, - Full Disclosure and - Acceptance - whereby consent may or may not be implied.

Question 80

Convey

Answer 80

- means to pass or transmit the title - to property from one to another; - to transfer property or the title to property - by deed or instrument under Seal. - Used popularly in sense of - "assign," - "sale," - "transfer"

Question 81

Conveyance

Answer 81

- means a transfer of legal title to land, - lease, assent, vesting declaration, vesting instrument, disclaimer, mortgage, release - and every other assurance of property of, - or an interest therein by any instrument, - except a will - and “convey” has a corresponding meaning.

Question 82

Copy Right Infringement

Answer 82

means violation of Copyright through unauthorised copying or use of a work or other subject matter under Copyright; and

Question 83

Court

Answer 83

means the Supreme Court of the Body Corporate; and any Competent Forum of the one true, Apostolic Universal Ecclesia of One Christ; and any lesser lawful, moral and Competent Christian Forum of Law; and

Question 84

Creditor ( 3 Types )

Answer 84

means a Party to whom a financial, debt, obligation or performance is due whereby the material terms of the agreement have changed concerning the party owing the obligation. There are three (3) types of Creditor being unsecured, secured and lien: (a) An unsecured creditor is a Party possessing no legal advantage over claiming part or all of the remaining assets of an Estate, Trust or Subsidiary; and (b) A secured creditor is a Party possessing by court order, formal Instrument or other official device a legal advantage in claiming priority to be paid from the remaining assets of an Estate, Trust or subsidiary above all other types of creditors except lien creditors; and (c) A lien creditor is a Party possessing by court order, formal Instrument or other official device a lien in claiming highest priority to be paid from the remaining assets of an Estate, Trust or subsidiary; and

Question 85

Curator

Answer 85

means a Trustee and/ or Guardian duly appointed by Will and Testament (Voluntatem et Testamentum) that is empowered with the Cure of Souls, and is charged with the duty and care of the affairs of an Estate, Trust or subsidiary; managing the property and legal affairs and interests of a person incumbent or beneficiary; emancipated or interdicted; and

Question 86

Currency

Answer 86

means Private Money that by authority of some legislative body or sovereign power permits such Currency to be circulated as if equivalent to Public Money; and

Question 87

Debt, also Debts

Answer 87

means either 1. a (binding promise) as a solemn obligation under agreement, or. .. 2. a (right of action) upon any delinquency for the payment of a sum of money due for Goods sold or... 3. a (payment of penalty) upon such default to remedy performance; and

Question 88

Debtor

Answer 88

means 1. a type of Trustor and Donor 2. as one who gives an unconditional written promise and certain property as surety in trust to repay a fixed sum of money known as the “debt” 3. to a Creditor in the event of any default and dishonour by the assured party; and

Question 89

Deed

Answer 89

means - a written lawful and legal Instrument - that bestows or surrenders a right or certain rights of the donor to the donee - with proof and includes this present instrument in trust and good faith - In Concord with... c.f: s.53 of the Law of Property Act 1925]; As Follows... 53 Instruments required to be in writing. (1) Subject to the provision hereinafter contained with respect to the creation of interests in land by parol — "oral testimony" (a) no interest in land can be created or disposed of except by writing signed by the person creating or conveying the same, or by his agent thereunto lawfully authorised in writing, or by will, or by operation of law; (b) a declaration of trust respecting any land or any interest therein must be manifested and proved by some writing signed by some person who is able to declare such trust or by his will; (c) a disposition of an equitable interest or trust subsisting at the time of the disposition, must be in writing signed by the person disposing of the same, or by his agent thereunto lawfully authorised in writing or by will. (2) This section does not affect the creation or operation of resulting, implied or constructive trusts. ( Parole - Definition ) an oral statement; word of mouth (now only in the phrase by parol) adjective. (of a contract, lease, etc) made orally or in writing but not under seal. expressed or given by word of mouth: parol evidence.

Question 90

Default

Answer 90

means a failure; and specifically, the omission or failure to perform a legal or contractual duty, or observe a promise made under warranty or discharge an obligation; and

Question 91

Defendant

Answer 91

means a Party charged in a Court action of claim, counterclaim, cross­Claim, or third­party Claim; and

Question 92

Deferred Payment

Answer 92

means when a party accepts some or all of their compensation later on some promise or conditions; and

Question 93

“Defamation”, also “Defamatory”, also “Defame”

Answer 93

means any false or deliberately misrepresented statement designed to harm, or injure the reputation of Ucadia or the Body Corporate or an Officer or Member of the Body Corporate; and

Question 94

Delegator

Answer 94

means a type of Trustor who temporarily and conditionally Transfers and Conveys Right of Use of some Property or Right to another without any valuable consideration; and

Question 95

Delivery

Answer 95

means with respect to an Instrument, document of title, or chattel paper, means voluntary transfer of possession; and

Question 96

Delusion

Answer 96

means a false, unshakable belief and trust in something or someone that is contrary to Fact; and inconsistent with Ucadia Law and the present Bylaws; and persistently adhered to and followed in spite of Authentic Evidence that proves such beliefs and trust to be false; and

Question 97

Heir - Inheritance

Answer 97

In modern law, the terms inheritance and heir refer exclusively to succession to property by descent from a deceased dying intestate. Takers in property succeeded to under a will are termed generally beneficiaries, and specifically devisees for real property, bequestees for personal property, or legatees

Question 98

Devisee

Answer 98

A person to whom real estate is given is called a devisee ; the receiver of personal property a legatee. Putnam's Handy Law Book for the Layman Albert Sidney Bolles. A person benefiting under a will is a legatee of money, or a devisee of land, and not an heir to either.

Question 99

Devise

Answer 99

to assign or transmit (property) by will. the act of disposing of property, especially real property, by will. a will or clause in a will disposing of property, especially real property. the property so disposed of.

Question 100

Beneficiary

Answer 100

A beneficiary (also, in trust law, cestui que use) in the broadest sense is a natural person or other legal entity who receives money or other benefits from a benefactor. For example, the beneficiary of a life insurance policy is the person who receives the payment of the amount of insurance after the death of the insured.

Question 101

Cestui Que Use ( Vie )

Answer 101

The cestui que use is the person for whose benefit the trust is created. The cestui que trust is the person entitled to an equitable, as opposed to a legal, estate. Thus, if land is granted to the use of A in trust for B, A is cestui que trust, and B trustee, or use.

Question 102

Cestui Que

Answer 102

Cestui que (/ˈsɛstwi ˈkeɪ/; also cestuy que, "cestui a que") is a shortened version of cestui a que use le feoffment fuit fait, literally, "The person for whose use the feoffment was made." It is a Law French phrase of medieval English invention, which appears in the legal phrases cestui que trust, cestui que use, or cestui que vie.

Question 103

Feoffment

Answer 103

In the Middle Ages, especially under the European feudal system, feoffment or enfeoffment was the deed by which a person was given land in exchange for a pledge of service. This mechanism was later used to avoid restrictions on the passage of title in land by a system in which a landowner would give land to one person for the use of another. The common law of estates in land grew from this concept.

Question 104

Estate In Land

Answer 104

An estate in land is an interest in real property that is or may become possessory. In the legal systems of almost every country, the ultimate true "owner" of all land is the sovereign, which for a republic is the whole people of a society[citation needed], which with sovereign, exclusive dominion over a well-defined tract of land, may be called a "state". Private parties own not the underlying land, but claims on parcels of land, which taken together define the estate for that parcel. This superior ownership is the basis for taking the land through eminent domain. However, the claims that define the estate are themselves personal property. This should be distinguished from an "estate" as used in reference to an area of land, and "estate" as used to refer to property in general. In property law, the rights and interests associated with an estate in land may be conceptually understood as a "bundle of rights" because of the potential for different parties having different interests in the same real property.

Question 105

Bundle Of Rights

Answer 105

The bundle of rights (aka "bundle of sticks") is a metaphor to explain the complexities of property ownership.[1] Law school professors of introductory property law courses frequently use this conceptualization to describe "full" property ownership as a partition of various entitlements of different stakeholders. each stick represents an individual right Any property owner possesses a set of "sticks" related directly to the land. property can simultaneously be "owned" by multiple parties the idea of property entailed more the owner's dominion over a thing, placing restrictions on others from "messing" with the owner's property. "Bundle of rights," however, implies rules specifying, proscribing, or authorizing actions on the part of the owner. For example, perfection of a mechanic's lien]] takes some, but not all, rights out of the bundle held by the owner. Extinguishing that lien returns those rights or "sticks" to the bundle held by the owner.

Question 106

Fee Simple Absolute

Answer 106

In English law, a fee simple or fee simple absolute is an estate in land, a form of freehold ownership. It is a way that real estate may be owned in common law countries, and is the highest possible ownership interest that can be held in real property. Allodial title is reserved to governments under a civil law structure. The rights of the fee simple owner are limited by government powers of taxation, compulsory purchase, police power, and escheat, and it could also be limited further by certain encumbrances or conditions in the deed, such as, for example, a condition that required the land to be used as a public park, with a reversion interest in the grantor if the condition fails; this is a fee simple conditional.

Question 107

Reversion

Answer 107

A reversion in property law is a future interest that is retained by the grantor after the conveyance of an estate of a lesser quantum that he has (such as the owner of a fee simple granting a life estate or a leasehold estate). Once the lesser estate comes to an end (the lease expires or the life estate tenant dies), the property automatically reverts (hence reversion) back to the grantor.

Question 108

Bail - Bailment - Bailor - Bailee

Answer 108

Bailment describes a legal relationship in common law where physical possession of personal property, or a chattel, is transferred from one person (the "bailor") to another person (the "bailee") who subsequently has possession of the property. It arises when a person gives property to someone else for safekeeping, and is a cause of action independent of contract or tort.

Question 109

Contract

Answer 109

A contract is a voluntary arrangement between two or more parties that is enforceable by law as a binding legal agreement. Contract is a branch of the law of obligations in jurisdictions of the civil law tradition. Contract law concerns the rights and duties that arise from agreements.[1] A contract arises when the parties agree that there is an agreement. ``` Formation of a contract generally requires an offer, acceptance, consideration, and a mutual intent to be bound. ``` Each party to a contract must have capacity to enter the agreement. Minors, intoxicated persons, and those under a mental affliction may have insufficient capacity to enter a contract. Some types of contracts may require formalities, such as a memorialization in writing.

Question 110

Meeting of Minds

Answer 110

Meeting of the minds (also referred to as mutual agreement, mutual assent or consensus ad idem) is a phrase in contract law used to describe the intentions of the parties forming the contract. In particular it refers to the situation where there is a common understanding in the formation of the contract. Formation of a contract is initiated with a proposal or offer.[1] This condition or element is often considered a requirement to the formation of a contract.

Question 111

Assent

Answer 111

agreement, act of agreeing I will give this act my assent. To agree, to give approval.

Question 112

Agree - Agreement

Answer 112

Old French agreer (“to accept or receive kindly”), from a gré (“favorably”), from Latin ad (“to”) + gratum (“pleasing”).

Question 113

Bequest

Answer 113

A bequest is property given by will.[1] Historically, bequest was used for personal property given by will and devise for real property.[2] Today, the two words are used interchangeably. The word bequeath is a verb form for the act of making a bequest. Bequest come from Old English becwethan, "to declare or express in words" — cf. "quoth".

Question 114

Will & Testament

Answer 114

A will or testament is a legal document by which a person, the testator, expresses his or her wishes as to how his or her property is to be distributed at death, and names one or more persons, the executor, to manage the estate until its final distribution. For the devolution of property not disposed of by will, see inheritance and intestacy. Though it has at times been thought that a "will" was historically limited to real property while "testament" applies only to dispositions of personal property (thus giving rise to the popular title of the document as "Last Will and Testament"), the historical records show that the terms have been used interchangeably.[1] Thus, the word "will" validly applies to both personal and real property. A will may also create a testamentary trust that is effective only after the death of the testator.

Question 115

Intestacy

Answer 115

Intestacy is the condition of the estate of a person who dies without having made a valid will or other binding declaration. Alternatively this may also apply where a will or declaration has been made, but only applies to part of the estate; the remaining estate forms the "intestate estate". Intestacy law, also referred to as the law of descent and distribution, refers to the body of law (statutory and case law) that determines who is entitled to the property from the estate under the rules of inheritance.

Question 116

Operation of Law

Answer 116

The phrase "by operation of law" is a legal term that indicates that a right or liability has been created for a party, irrespective of the intent of that party, because it is dictated by existing legal principles. For example, if a person dies without a will, his or her heirs are determined by operation of law. Similarly, if a person marries or has a child after his or her will has been executed, the law writes this pretermitted spouse or pretermitted heir into the will if no provision for this situation was specifically included. Adverse possession, in which title to land passes because non-owners have occupied it for a certain period of time, is another important right that vests by operation of law.

Question 117

Adverse Possession

Answer 117

Adverse possession is a situation when a person who does not have legal title to land (or real property) occupies the land without the permission of the legal owner. The permission of the owner may be reflected in the entering into a lease or granting a licence, typically associated with the payment of some rent. The laws of many countries allow the adverse possessor (in law also called the disseisor) to acquire title to the land after a prescribed statutory period,[1] which varies between jurisdictions, and depend on the type of land and other circumstances. The laws of most jurisdictions do not permit claims of adverse possession against public land. Squatting is a form of adverse possession. The adverse possessor is usually required to prove non-permissive use which is actual, open and notorious, exclusive, adverse, and continuous for the statutory period.[2][Note 1] If a claim to title by adverse possession is successful, title is acquired without compensation.

Question 118

Title ( Property )

Answer 118

In property law, a title is a bundle of rights in a piece of property in which a party may own either a legal interest or equitable interest. The rights in the bundle may be separated and held by different parties. It may also refer to a formal document, such as a deed, that serves as evidence of ownership. Conveyance of the document may be required in order to transfer ownership in the property to another person. Title is distinct from possession, a right that often accompanies ownership but is not necessarily sufficient to prove it. In many cases, both possession and title may be transferred independently of each other. For real property, land registration and recording provide public notice of ownership information.

Question 119

Hypothication

Answer 119

Hypothecation is the practice where (usually through a letter of hypothecation) a debtor pledges collateral to secure a debt or as a condition precedent to the debt, or a third party pledges collateral for the debtor. A common example occurs when a debtor enters into a mortgage agreement, in which the debtor's house becomes collateral until the mortgage loan is paid off. The debtor retains ownership of the collateral, but the creditor has the right to seize ownership if the debtor defaults. The main purpose of hypothecation is to mitigate the creditor's credit risk. If the debtor cannot pay, the creditor possesses the collateral and therefore can claim its ownership, sell it and thus compensate the lacking cash inflows. In a default of the obligor without previous hypothecation, the creditor cannot be sure that it can seize sufficient assets of the debtor. Because hypothecation makes it easier to get the debt and potentially decreases its price; the debtor wants to hypothecate as much debt as possible - but the isolation of 'good assets' for the collateral worsens the quality of the rest of the debtor's balance sheet and thus its credit quality.

Question 120

Lien

Answer 120

lien (/ˈliːn/ or /ˈliːən/)[Note 1] is a form of security interest granted over an item of property to secure the payment of a debt or performance of some other obligation. The owner of the property, who grants the lien, is referred to as the lienee[3] and the person who has the benefit of the lien is referred to as the lienor[4] or lien holder. The etymological root is Anglo-French lien, loyen "bond", "restraint", from Latin ligamen, from ligare "to bind".

Question 121

Encumbrance

Answer 121

Encumbrance: charge upon or claim against land arising out of private grant or a contract. An encumbrance is a right to, interest in, or legal liability on real property that does not prohibit passing title to the property but that diminishes its value.[1] Encumbrances can be classified in several ways. They may be financial (ex: liens) or non-financial (ex: easements, private restrictions). Alternatively, they may be divided into those that affect title (ex: lien, legal or equitable charge) or those that affect the use or physical condition of the encumbered property (ex: restrictions, easements, encroachments).[2] Encumbrances include security interests, liens, servitudes (e.g. easements, wayleaves, real covenants, profits a prendre), leases, restrictions, encroachments, and air and subsurface rights.

Question 122

Charging Order

Answer 122

A charging order, in English law, is an order obtained from a court or judge by a judgment creditor, by which the property of the judgment debtor in any stocks or funds or land stands charged with the payment of the amount for which judgment shall have been recovered, with interest and costs The charging order limits the creditor of a debtor-partner or a debtor-member to the debtor’s share of distributions, without conferring on the creditor any voting or management rights. Before the advent of the charging order, a creditor pursuing a partner in a partnership was able to obtain from the court a writ of execution directly against the partnership’s assets, which led to the seizure of such assets by the sheriff. This result was possible because the partnership itself was not treated as a juridical person, but simply as an aggregate of its partners. The seizure of partnership assets was usually carried out by the sheriff, who would go down to the partnership’s place of business and shut it down. That caused the non-debtor partners to suffer financial losses, sometimes on par with the debtor partner, and the process was considered to be entirely “clumsy.”

Question 123

Writ of Execution

Answer 123

A writ of execution (also known as an execution) is a court order granted to put in force a judgment of possession obtained by a plaintiff from a court.[1] When issuing a writ of execution, a court typically will order a sheriff or other similar official to take possession of property owned by a judgment debtor. Such property will often then be sold in a sheriff's sale and the proceeds remunerated to the plaintiff in partial or full satisfaction of the judgment. It is generally considered preferable for the sheriff simply to take possession of money from the defendant's bank account. If the judgment debtor owns real property, the judgment creditor can record the execution to "freeze" the title until the execution is satisfied.

Question 124

Property

Answer 124

The word property, in everyday usage, refers to an object (or objects) owned by a person — a car, a book, or a cellphone — and the relationship the person has to it. In law, the concept acquires a more nuanced rendering. Factors to consider include the nature of the object, the relationship between the person and the object, the relationship between a number of people in relation to the object, and how the object is regarded within the prevailing political system. Most broadly and concisely, property in the legal sense refers to the rights of people in or over certain objects or things.[2]

Question 125

Chattel

Answer 125

noun 1. Law.. Often, chattels. a movable article of personal property. 2. Often, chattels. any article of tangible property other than land, buildings, and other things annexed to land. 3. A SLAVE ``` /ˈtʃætəl/ noun 1. (often pl) ( property law) chattel personal, an item of movable personal property, such as furniture, domestic animals, etc chattel real, an interest in land less than a freehold, such as a lease 2. goods and chattels, personal property ```

Question 126

Appanage

Answer 126

Late Latin *appanaticum, from appanare or adpanare 'to give bread' (panis), a pars pro toto for food and other necessities, hence for a "subsistence" income, notably in kind, as from assigned land. An appanage or apanage (pronounced /ˈæpənɪdʒ/) or French: apanage (French pronunciation: ​[a.pa.naʒ]) is the grant of an estate, title, office, or other thing of value to a younger male child of a sovereign, who would otherwise have no inheritance under the system of primogeniture. It was common in much of Europe.

Question 127

Estate ( Law )

Answer 127

An estate is the net worth of a person at any point in time alive or dead. It is the sum of a person's assets – legal rights, interests and entitlements to property of any kind – less all liabilities at that time. A person's estate consists of all assets or property of any kind available for distribution to creditors. In land law, the term "estate" is a remnant of the English feudal system, which created a complex hierarchy of estates and interests in land. The allodial or fee simple interest is the most complete ownership that one can have of property in the common law system.

Question 128

Defeasible Estate

Answer 128

A defeasible estate is created when a grantor transfers land conditionally. Upon the happening of the event or condition stated by the grantor, the transfer may be void or at least subject to annulment. (An estate not subject to such conditions is called an indefeasible estate.) Historically, the common law has frowned on the use of defeasible estates as it interferes with the owners' enjoyment of their property and as such has made it difficult to create a valid future interest. Unless a defeasible estate is clearly intended, modern courts will construe the language against this type of estate. Three types of defeasible estates are the fee simple determinable, fee simple subject to an executory limitation or interest, and the fee simple subject to a condition subsequent.

Question 129

Condition Subsequent

Answer 129

A condition subsequent is an event or state of affairs that brings an end to something else. A condition subsequent is often used in a legal context as a marker bringing an end to one's legal rights or duties. A condition subsequent may be either an event or a state of affairs that must either (1) occur or (2) fail to continue to occur. A right in land may be cut off by a condition subsequent. When land rights are subject to a condition subsequent, this creates a defeasable fee called a Fee simple subject to condition subsequent. In such a fee, the future interest is called a "right of reentry" or "right of entry." There, the fee simple subject to condition subsequent does not end automatically upon the happening of the condition, but if the specified future event occurs, the grantor has a right to retake his property (as opposed to it reverting to him automatically). Again, the right of entry is not automatic, but rather must be exercised to terminate the fee simple subject to condition subsequent. To exercise right of entry, the holder must take substantial steps to recover possession and title, for example, by filing a lawsuit. One of the languages used to create a fee simple subject to condition subsequent and a right of entry is "to A, but if A sells alcohol on the land, then grantor has the right of reentry." Common uses include language such as "may", "but if", "however", or "provided that..."

Question 130

Fee simple subject to a condition subsequent

Answer 130

A fee simple subject to a condition subsequent is created when the words of a grant support the conclusion that the grantor intends to convey a fee simple absolute but has attached a condition to the grant so that if a specified future event happens the grantor will get its fee simple absolute back, provided that the grantor exercises his right of entry (or power of termination). Thus, a fee simple subject to condition subsequent does not end automatically upon the happening of the condition. The future interest is called a "right of reentry" or "right of entry," and the property only reverts to the original grantor if he exercises this right. The right of entry is not automatic, but rather must be exercised to terminate the fee simple subject to condition subsequent. To exercise right of entry, the holder must take substantial steps to recover possession and title, for example, by filing a lawsuit. Physical entry is not required, but the holder must do more than just proclaim an intent to take back. One of the languages used to create a fee simple subject to condition subsequent and a right of entry is "to A, but if A sells alcohol on the land, then grantor has the right of entry (or power of termination)." Common uses include language such as "may", "but if", "however", or "provided that..."

Question 131

Fee simple subject to an executory limitation

Answer 131

A fee simple subject to an executory limitation is an estate that ends when a specific condition is met and then transfers to a third party. The interest will not revert to the grantor. If the condition is met, the grantee loses the interest and the third party gains it automatically.[2] Example: O grants Blackacre to A and A's heir; but if A ever accepts a candy bar from C, then to B and B's heirs. Here, O is the original owner. She grants A a fee simple subject to the subsequent condition that he doesn't accept a candy bar from C. But unlike a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent, Blackacre goes to a third party (B) instead of the grantor (O) if the condition is met. Also unlike a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent, B then automatically gains the interest in Blackacre and does not only have a mere right to sue for re-entry. What would happen if the property were conveyed? Let's say A sold Blackacre to D. If A afterwards accepted an offer for a candy bar from C, Blackacre automatically goes to B. But if A died without ever accepting a candy bar from C, the condition could not possibly be met. D would then have a fee simple absolute.

Question 132

Right of Re-Entry

Answer 132

Right of entry refers to one's right to take or resume possession of land, or the right of a person to go onto another's real property without committing trespass. It also refers to a grantor's power to retake real estate from a grantee in the case of a fee simple subject to condition subsequent.

Question 133

Ius In Re ( Jus in Rem )

Answer 133

Ius in re, or jus in re, under civil law, more commonly referred to as a real right or right in rem, is a right in property, known as an interest under common law. A real right vests in a person with respect to property, inherent in his relation to it, and is good against the world (erga omnes). The primary real right is ownership (dominium) (freehold, leasehold, commonhold). Whether possession (possessio) is recognized as a real right, or merely as a source of certain powers and actions, depends on the legal system at hand. Subordinate or limited real rights generally refer to encumbrances, rights of use and security interests. The term right in rem is derived from the action given to its holder, an actio in rem. In Latin grammar the action against the thing demands a fourth case. The underlying right itself, Ius in re, has a fifth case, as the right rests on, or burdens, the thing. By mistake the common law terminology now uses the fourth case for describing the right itself. Compare jus ad rem.

Question 134

Ius Ad Re ( Jus Ad Rem )

Answer 134

Jus ad rem is a Latin term of the civil law, meaning "a right to a thing:" that is, a right exercisable by one person over a particular article of property in virtue of a contract or obligation incurred by another person in respect to it and which is enforceable only against or through such other person. It is thus distinguished from jus in re which is a complete and absolute dominion over a thing available against all persons. The disposition of contemporary civil law jurists is to use the term jus ad rem as descriptive of a right without possession, and jus in re as descriptive of a right accompanied by possession. Or, in a somewhat wider sense, the former denotes an inchoate or incomplete right to a thing; the latter, a complete and perfect right to a thing.[1][2] In canon law jus ad rem is a right to a thing. An inchoate and imperfect right, such as is gained by nomination and institution; as distinguished from jus in re, or complete and full right, such as is acquired by corporal possession.[3]

Question 135

Jus in Rem Propria

Answer 135

jus in re propria – the right of enjoyment (i.e., the right to use the property in any legal manner) which is incident to full ownership or property, and is often used to denote the full ownership or property itself.

Question 136

Jus in Re Aliena

Answer 136

jus in re aliena, or encumbrance, which includes servitudes, security interests, real burdens, land charge, rentcharge, emphyteusis, right of first refusal.

Question 137

Ius ( Jus ) ``` Latin - Ius French - Droit German - Recht English - Right Spanish - Derecho ```

Answer 137

Ius or Jus (Latin, plural iura)[2] in ancient Rome was a right to which a citizen (civis) was entitled by virtue of his citizenship (civitas). The iura were specified by laws, so ius sometimes meant law. As one went to the law courts to sue for one's rights, ius also meant justice and the place where justice was sought. Ius in ancient Roman law had two principal meanings, which are still reflected in French droit, German Recht, English right and Spanish derecho.[4] Ferdinand Mackeldy, 19th-century jurist, analyzed them into two principles: ius is the law, a set of compulsory rules (Jus est norma agendi, "law is a rule of conduct"), which he called objective or positive law, and a set of possibilities to act (Jus est facultas agendi, "law is a license to act"), which he called subjective law, or duties. A bronze tablet in the Capitoline Museums recording a law of the Senate now termed the "Lex de Imperio Vespasiani," establishing Vespasian in his imperial munus. Section VI states that "whatsoever he shall think likely to promote the welfare of the state ... he shall have full right (ius) and authority (potestas) to do." Ius was defined by the jurists Publius Juventius Celsus and Julius Paulus Prudentissimus as the aequum et bonum, "the just and the fair", or justice.[6] Jurisprudence was the art of bringing it about through application of the laws; thus ius was law in the abstract, as in the English usage of the term "the law". Iura were "the whole of laws" (iura populi Romani), not a list of all the laws, but the very principle of legality, which might be applied through this law or by the magistrates and lawyers of Rome through disputation in the law courts. Ius might be something less than the whole body of law when special fields were designated by an adjective, such as ius publicum, "public law," as opposed to private law. The actual laws (leges), or written statutes, were only the specific tools through which ius was applied. Ius was the law in its broadest sense or its ideal state, above and unaffected by the contingent decrees that the state happened to enact—hence the distinction between the English terms justice and legislation. This division persists through various regimes of civil law such as in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which distinguishes “due process of law” (singular, as in ius) from “equal protection of the laws” (plural, as in leges). Ius as the law was generally the domain of Roman aristocrats, from whose ranks the magistrates were chosen and who often defended clients in court. On a more practical basis, the populace of Rome daily encountered the primary meaning of ius. They understood that they had rights. Furthermore, these rights could be named and enumerated in formulae beginning with the word ius followed by a descriptive phrase, most often in the genitive case: "the right of ...." Black defines ius in the sense of a right as "a power, privilege, faculty, or demand inherent in one person and incident upon another."[4] This power, or potestas, was a license governing behavior between persons granted by the constitution. It determined what one citizen or group of citizens could or could not do regarding another; i.e., potestas is to be translated as authority, which the possession of iura gave to individuals. One might act socially sui iuris, on one's own authority, asserting one's own right, or on behalf of another, alieni iuris, in response to a demand to serve his right by being under his authority.

Question 138

Jurisdiction in Rem

Answer 138

In rem jurisdiction (Latin, "power about or against 'the thing'"[1]) is a legal term describing the power a court may exercise over property (either real or personal) or a "status" against a person over whom the court does not have in personam jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in rem assumes the property or status is the primary object of the action, rather than personal liabilities not necessarily associated with the property (quasi in rem jurisdiction).

Question 139

In Personam Jurisdiction

Answer 139

In personam is a Latin phrase meaning "directed toward a particular person". In a lawsuit in which the case is against a specific individual, that person must be served with a summons and complaint to give the court jurisdiction to try the case, and the judgment applies to that person and is called an "in personam judgment". In personam is distinguished from in rem, which applies to property or "all the world" instead of a specific person. This technical distinction is important to determine where to file a lawsuit and how to serve a defendant. In personam means that a judgment can be enforceable against the person wherever he/she is. On the other hand, if the lawsuit is to determine title to property (in rem) then the action must be filed where the property exists and is only enforceable there.[1]

Question 140

Jurisdiction

Answer 140

Jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a legal body to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility, e.g., Michigan tax law. In federations like the U.S., areas of jurisdiction apply to local, state, and federal levels; e.g. the court has jurisdiction to apply federal law. Colloquially it is used to refer to the geographical area to which such authority applies, e.g. the court has jurisdiction over all of Colorado. The legal term refers only to the granted authority, not to a geographical area. Jurisdiction draws its substance from public international law, conflict of laws, constitutional law, and the powers of the executive and legislative branches of government to allocate resources to best serve the needs of its native society by means of thinking. DICERE From Latin dīcere, present active infinitive of dīcō. Verb dicere = to say DICO logy 1 Edit From Proto-Italic *deikō, from Proto-Indo-European *déyḱti (“to show, point out”). The perfect forms are derivated from Proto-Indo-European *dḗyḱst. Cognates include Oscan 𐌃𐌄𐌝𐌊𐌖𐌌 (deíkum, “to show, point out”), Sanskrit दिशति (diśáti), Ancient Greek δείκνυμι (deíknumi) and Old English tǣċan (English teach). Verb Edit dīcō (present infinitive dīcere, perfect active dīxī, supine dictum); third conjugation, irregular short imperative ``` I say, utter; mention; talk, speak. Salutem dicit. He says a greeting. He says hi. 405 CE, Jerome, Vulgate Genesis.1.3 dixitque Deus fiat lux et facta est lux And God said: Be light made. And light was made. I declare, state. I affirm, assert (positively). I tell. c. 254–184 BCE, Plautus, Captivi ("The Captives"), 623, (English and Latin text) Eho dic mihi, quis illic igitur est? Hey? Tell me, who is he then? I appoint, name (to an office). I call, name. (law, followed by ad) I plead (before). I speak in reference to, refer to. Inflection ```

Question 141

Conflict of Laws

Answer 141

Conflict of laws or private international law (both terms are used interchangeably)[1] concerns relations across different legal jurisdictions between persons, and sometimes also companies, corporations and other legal entities. Courts faced with a choice of law issue have a two-stage process: the court will apply the law of the forum (lex fori) to all procedural matters (including, self-evidently, the choice of law rules); and it counts the factors that connect or link the legal issues to the laws of potentially relevant states and applies the laws that have the greatest connection, e.g. the law of nationality (lex patriae) or residence (lex domicilii)[domicilium in Latin means home or residence and see at 'European Harmonization Provisions':"The concept of habitual residence is the civil law equivalent of the common law test of lex domicilii".] will define legal status and capacity, the law of the state in which land is situated (lex situs) will be applied to determine all questions of title, the law of the place where a transaction physically takes place or of the occurrence that gave rise to the litigation (lex loci actus) will often be the controlling law selected when the matter is substantive, but the proper law has become a more common choice.[4]

Question 142

Lex Fori

Answer 142

Lex fori (Latin for the laws of a forum) is a legal term used in the conflict of laws used to refer to the laws of the jurisdiction in which a legal action is brought.[1] When a court decides that it should, by reason of the principles of conflict of law, resolve a given legal dispute by reference to the laws of another jurisdiction, the lex causae, the lex fori still govern procedural matters.[2]

Question 143

Lex Patriae

Answer 143

The term lex patriae is Latin for the law of the fatherland (in modern usage, nationality law) in the conflict of laws which is the system of public law applied to any lawsuit where there is a choice to be made between several possibly relevant laws and a different result will be achieved depending on which law is selected.

Question 144

Lex Domicilii

Answer 144

The lex domicilii is the Latin term for "law of the domicile" in the conflict of laws. Conflict is the branch of public law regulating all lawsuits involving a "foreign" law element where a difference in result will occur depending on which laws are applied. When a case comes before a court and all the main features of the case are local, the court will apply the lex fori, the prevailing municipal law, to decide the case. But if there are "foreign" elements to the case, the forum court may be obliged under the conflict of laws system to consider: whether the forum court has jurisdiction to hear the case (see the problem of forum shopping); it must then characterise the issues, i.e. allocate the factual basis of the case to its relevant legal classes; and then apply the choice of law rules to decide the lex causae, i.e. which law is to be applied to each class.

Question 145

Lex Situs - ( Lex Loci Rei Sitae )

Answer 145

Lex loci rei sitae (Latin for "law of the place where the property is situated"), or simply lex situs, is the doctrine that the law governing the transfer of title to property is dependent upon and varies with the location of the property, for the purposes of the conflict of laws. Conflict is the branch of public law regulating all lawsuits involving a "foreign" law element if a difference in result will occur, depending on which laws are applied.

Question 146

Capacity ( Law )

Answer 146

The capacity of natural and juridical persons (legal persons) in general, determines whether they may make binding amendments to their rights, duties and obligations, such as getting married or merging, entering into contracts, making gifts, or writing a valid will. Capacity is an aspect of status and both are defined by a person's personal law: for natural persons, the law of domicile or lex domicilii in common law jurisdictions, and either the law of nationality or lex patriae, or of habitual residence in civil law states; for juridical persons, the law of the place of incorporation, the lex incorporationis for companies while other forms of business entity derive their capacity either from the law of the place in which they were formed or the laws of the states in which they establish a presence for trading purposes depending on the nature of the entity and the transactions entered into. When the law limits or bars a person from engaging in specified activities, any agreements or contracts to do so are either voidable or void for incapacity. Sometimes such legal incapacity is referred to as incompetence. For comparison, see Competence (law). As an aspect of the social contract between a state and its citizens, the state adopts a role of protector to the weaker and more vulnerable members of society. In public policy terms, this is the policy of parens patriae. Similarly, the state has a direct social and economic interest in promoting trade, so it will define the forms of business enterprise that may operate within its territory, and lay down rules that will allow both the businesses and those that wish to contract with them a fair opportunity to gain value.

Question 147

Parens patriae

Answer 147

Parens patriae is Latin for "parent of the nation" (lit., "parent of the fatherland"). In law, it refers to the public policy power of the state to intervene against an abusive or negligent parent, legal guardian or informal caretaker, and to act as the parent of any child or individual who is in need of protection. For example, some children, incapacitated individuals, and disabled individuals lack parents who are able and willing to render adequate care, thus requiring state intervention.

Question 148

Judiciary

Answer 148

The judiciary (also known as the judicial system or court system) is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in the name of the state. The judiciary also provides a mechanism for the resolution of disputes. In some nations, under doctrines of separation of powers, the judiciary generally does not make law (which is the responsibility of the legislature) or enforce law (which is the responsibility of the executive), but rather interprets law and applies it to the facts of each case. In other nations, the judiciary can make law, known as Common Law, by setting precedent for other judges to follow, as opposed to Statutory Law made by the legislature. The Judiciary is often tasked with ensuring equal justice under law.

Question 149

Competence ( Law )

Answer 149

In United States law, competence concerns the mental capacity of an individual to participate in legal proceedings or transactions, and the mental condition a person must have to be responsible for his or her decisions or acts. Competence is an attribute that is decision specific. Depending on various factors which typically revolve around mental function integrity, an individual may or may not be competent to make a particular medical decision, a particular contractual agreement, to execute an effective deed to real property, or to execute a will having certain terms. Depending on the state, a guardian or conservator may be appointed by a court for a person who satisfies the state's tests for general incompetence, and the guardian or conservator exercises the incompetent's rights for the incompetent. Defendants who do not possess sufficient "competence" are usually excluded from criminal prosecution, while witnesses found not to possess requisite competence cannot testify. The English equivalent is fitness to plead. In the law of England and Wales, fitness to plead is the capacity of a defendant in criminal proceedings to comprehend the course of those proceedings. The concept of fitness to plead also applies in Scots and Irish law.[1] Its United States equivalent is competence to stand. If the issue of fitness to plead is raised, a judge is able to find a person unfit to plead. This is usually done based on information following a psychiatric evaluation. In England and Wales the legal test of fitness to plead is based on the ruling of Alderson B. in R v Pritchard. The accused will be unfit to plead if he is unable either: to comprehend the course of proceedings on the trial, so as to make a proper defence; to know that he might challenge any jurors to whom he may object; to comprehend the evidence; or to give proper instructions to his legal representatives.[2] If the issue is raised by the prosecution, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is unfit to plead.[3] If the issue is raised by the defence, it need only be proved on the balance of probabilities.[4] In Scotland the test is based on HMA v Wilson, and has two elements: to be able to instruct counsel and to understand and follow proceedings.[5]

Question 150

Legal Guardian ( Law )

Answer 150

A legal guardian is a person who has the legal authority (and the corresponding duty) to care for the personal and property interests of another person, called a ward. Guardians are typically used in three situations: guardianship for an incapacitated senior (due to old age or infirmity), guardianship for a minor, and guardianship for developmentally disabled adults.

Question 151

Power of Attorney

Answer 151

A power of attorney (POA) or letter of attorney is a written authorization to represent or act on another's behalf in private affairs, business, or some other legal matter, sometimes against the wishes of the other. The person authorizing the other to act is the principal, grantor, or donor (of the power). The one authorized to act is the agent[1] or, in some common law jurisdictions, the attorney-in-fact (attorney for short). Formerly, a power referred to an instrument under seal while a letter was an instrument under hand, but today both are signed by the grantor, and therefore there is no difference between the two.

Question 152

Attorney in Fact

Answer 152

The term attorney-in-fact is used in several countries in place of the term agent and should be distinguished from the term attorney-at-law. In the United States, an attorney-at-law is a lawyer — someone licensed to practice law in a particular jurisdiction. The Uniform Power of Attorney Act employs the term agent.[2] As an agent, an attorney-in-fact is a fiduciary for the principal, so the law requires an attorney-in-fact to be completely honest with and loyal to the principal in their dealings with each other. If the attorney-in-fact is being paid to act for the principal, the contract is usually separate from the power of attorney itself, so if that contract is in writing, it is a separate document, kept private between them, whereas the power of attorney is intended to be shown to various other people. In the context of the unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange (URIE) the attorney-in-fact is a stakeholder/trustee who takes custody of the subscriber funds placed on deposit with him, and then uses those funds to pay insurance claims. When all the claims are paid, the attorney-in-fact then returns the leftover funds to the subscribers.

Question 153

Attorney at Law

Answer 153

An attorney at law (or attorney-at-law) in the United States is a practitioner in a court of law who is legally qualified to prosecute and defend actions in such court on the retainer of clients. Alternative terms include counselor (or counsellor-at-law) and lawyer.[1] As of April 2011, there were 1,225,452 licensed attorneys in the United States.[2] A 2012 survey conducted by LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell determined 58 million consumers in the U.S. sought an attorney in the last year and that 76 percent of consumers used the Internet to search for an attorney.[3]

Question 154

Solicitor

Answer 154

A solicitor is a legal practitioner who traditionally deals with most of the legal matters in some jurisdictions. A person must have legally-defined qualifications, which vary from one jurisdiction to another, to be described as a solicitor and enabled to practise there as such. For example, in England and Wales a solicitor is admitted to practise under the provisions of the Solicitors Act 1974. With some exceptions, practising solicitors must possess a practising certificate. There are many more solicitors than barristers in England; they undertake the general aspects of giving legal advice and conducting legal proceedings.

Question 155

Barrister

Answer 155

A barrister (also known as barrister-at-law or bar-at-law) is a type of lawyer in common law jurisdictions. Barristers mostly specialise in courtroom advocacy and litigation. Their tasks include taking cases in superior courts and tribunals, drafting legal pleadings, researching the philosophy, hypothesis and history of law, and giving expert legal opinions. Often, barristers are also recognised as legal scholars. Barristers are distinguished from solicitors, who have more direct access to clients, and may do transactional-type legal work. It is mainly barristers who are appointed as judges, and they are rarely hired by clients directly. In some legal systems, including those of Scotland, South Africa, Scandinavia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and the British Crown dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, the word barrister is also regarded as an honorific title. In a few jurisdictions, barristers are usually forbidden from "conducting" litigation, and can only act on the instructions of a senior solicitor, who performs tasks such as corresponding with parties and the court, and drafting court documents. In England and Wales, barristers may seek authorisation from the Bar Standards Board to conduct litigation. This allows a barrister to practise in a 'dual capacity', fulfilling the role of both barrister and solicitor.

Question 156

Capacity of the Grantor

Answer 156

The person who creates a power of attorney, known as the grantor, can only do so when he/she has the requisite mental capacity. Suppose the grantor loses capacity to grant permission after the power of attorney has been created (for example, from Alzheimer's disease or a head injury in a car crash); then the power will probably no longer be effective. In some powers of attorney the grantor states that he/she wishes the document to remain in effect even after he/she becomes incapacitated. This type of power is commonly referred to as a durable power of attorney. If someone is already incapacitated, it is not possible for that person to execute a valid power. If a person does not have the capacity to execute a power of attorney (and does not already have a durable power in place), often the only way for another party to act on their behalf is to have a court impose a conservatorship or a guardianship.

Question 157

Oral or Written Evidence

Answer 157

Depending on the jurisdiction, a power of attorney may be oral and, whether witnessed, will hold up in court, the same as if it were in writing.[3] For some purposes, the law requires a power of attorney to be in writing. Many institutions, such as hospitals, banks and, in the United States, the Internal Revenue Service, require a power of attorney to be in writing before they will honor it, and they will usually keep a duplicate original or a copy for their records. Nursing homes often follow the same practice.

Question 158

Equal Dignity Rule

Answer 158

The equal dignity rule is a principle of law that requires an authorization for someone performing certain acts for another person to have been appointed with the same formality as required for the act the representative is going to perform. This means, for example, that if a principal authorizes someone to sell the principal's house or other real property, and the law requires a contract for the sale of real property to be in writing (which is required under the Statute of Frauds in most U.S. jurisdictions), then the authorization for the other person to sign the sales contract and deed must be in writing too. Likewise, in common-law jurisdictions other than the U.S., a power of an attorney to execute a deed (i.e. instrument under seal or executed in presence of two witnesses) must be itself executed as a deed.

Question 159

Deed ( Law )

Answer 159

A deed (anciently "an evidence") is any legal instrument in writing which passes, affirms or confirms an interest, right, or property and that is signed, attested, delivered, and in some jurisdictions, sealed. It is commonly associated with transferring title to property. The deed has a greater presumption of validity and is less rebuttable than an instrument signed by the party to the deed. A deed can be unilateral or bilateral. Deeds include conveyances, commissions, licenses, patents, diplomas, and conditionally powers of attorney if executed as deeds. The deed is the modern descendant of the medieval charter, and delivery is thought to symbolically replace the ancient ceremony of livery of seisin.[1] The traditional phrase signed, sealed and delivered refers to the practice of seals; however, attesting witnesses have replaced seals to some extent. Agreements under seal are also called contracts by deed or specialty; in the United States, a specialty is enforceable without consideration.[2] In some jurisdictions, specialties have a liability limitation period of double that of a simple contract and allow for a third party beneficiary to enforce an undertaking in the deed, thereby overcoming the doctrine of privity.[3] Specialties, as a form of contract, are bilateral and can therefore be distinguished from covenants, which, being also under seal, are unilateral promises.

Question 160

Deed Requirements

Answer 160

At common law, to be valid and enforceable, a deed must fulfill several requirements: It must state on its face that it is a deed, using wording like "This Deed..." or "executed as a deed". It must indicate that the instrument itself conveys some privilege or thing to someone. The grantor must have the legal ability to grant the thing or privilege, and the grantee must have the legal capacity to receive it. It must be executed by the grantor in presence of the prescribed number of witnesses, known as instrumentary witnesses (this is known as being in solemn form). In some jurisdictions, a seal must be affixed to it. Originally, affixing seals made persons parties to the deed and signatures optional, but seals are now outdated in most jurisdictions, so the signatures of the grantor and witnesses are primary. It must be delivered to (delivery) and accepted by the grantee (acceptance).[4] Conditions attached to the acceptance of a deed are known as covenants. A deed indented or indenture is one executed in two or more parts according to the number of parties, which were formerly separated by cutting in a curved or indented line known as the chirograph.[5] A deed poll is one executed in one part, by one party, having the edge polled or cut even, and includes simple grants and appointments.

Question 161

Covenant

Answer 161

A covenant, in its most general sense and historical sense, is a solemn promise to engage in or refrain from a specified action. Under historical English common law a covenant was distinguished from an ordinary contract by the presence of a seal. Because the presence of a seal indicated an unusual solemnity in the promises made in a covenant, the common law would enforce a covenant even in the absence of consideration.[1] In United States contract law, an implied covenant of good faith is presumed. A covenant is a type of contract in which the covenantor makes a promise to a covenantee to do (affirmative covenant) or not do some action (negative covenant). In real property law, the term real covenants is used for conditions tied to the use of land. A "covenant running with the land", also imposes duties or restrictions upon the use of that land regardless of the owner. Restrictive covenants are somewhat similar to easements and equitable servitudes, leading to some discussion about whether these concepts should be unified;[2] the Restatement (Third) of Property takes steps to merge these concepts as servitudes.[3] Real covenant law in the United States has been referred to as an "unspeakable quagmire" by one court.[4] Covenants for title are covenants which come with a deed or title to the property, in which the grantor of the title makes certain guarantees to the grantee.[5] Non-compete clauses in the United States are also called restrictive covenants.

Question 162

Real Covenant

Answer 162

In property law, land-related covenants are called "real covenants" and are a major form of covenant, typically imposing restrictions on how the land may be used (negative covenants) or requiring a certain continuing action (affirmative covenant). These may also "run with the land" (called a covenant appurtenant), meaning that any future owners of the land must abide by the terms, or may apply to a particular person (called a covenant in gross).[5] Under English law, affirmative covenants typically do not run with the land; in the United States such covenants are examined more closely, but with exceptions affirmative covenants have been permitted to run with the land.[6]

Question 163

Seal ( Intaglio )

Answer 163

A seal is a device for making an impression in wax, clay, paper, or some other medium, including an embossment on paper, and is also the impression thus made. The original purpose was to authenticate a document, a wrapper for one such as a modern envelope, or the cover of a container or package holding valuables or other objects. The seal-making device is also referred to as the seal matrix or die; the imprint it creates as the seal impression (or, more rarely, the sealing).[1] If the impression is made purely as a relief resulting from the greater pressure on the paper where the high parts of the matrix touch, the seal is known as a dry seal; in other cases ink or another liquid or liquefied medium is used, in another color than the paper. INTAGLIO Strictly speaking, engraving means carving in intaglio (with the design cut into the flat background of the stone), but relief carvings (with the design projecting out of the background as in nearly all cameos) are also covered by the term. This article uses "cameo" in its strict sense, to denote a carving exploiting layers of differently coloured stone. The activity is also called gem carving, and the artists gem-cutters. References to antique gems, and intaglios in a jewellery context, will almost always mean carved gems; when referring to monumental sculpture, counter-relief, meaning the same as "intaglio", is more likely to be used. Vessels like the Cup of the Ptolemies and heads or figures carved in the round are also known as "hardstone carvings" and similar terms.

Question 164

Equitable Servitude

Answer 164

An equitable servitude is a term used in the law of real property to describe a nonpossessory interest in land that operates much like a covenant running with the land. However, covenants and equitable servitudes should not be confused. One may tell the difference based on the remedy plaintiff seeks. Holders of a covenant seek money damages, but holders of equitable servitudes seek injunctions. In England, when a party is forbidden from certain use, the covenant is called equitable servitude. In the United States, both negative and affirmative equitable servitudes are recognized. It is a covenant that equity will enforce against the successors of the burdened land who have notice of the covenant. BURDEN A successor of the promisor is bound if the original promise is in writing, the covenanting parties intended the servitude to be enforceable by and against assignees, the successor of the promisor has actual, inquiry (record), or constructive notice of the servitude, and the covenant touches and concerns the land. BENEFIT The benefit of an equitable servitude runs with the land, and thus is enforceable by the promisee's successors if the original parties so intended, and the servitude touches and concerns the benefited property. A court will not enforce an equitable servitude under the following circumstances: The person seeking enforcement is violating a similar restriction on his own land (unclean hands). The holder of the dominant estate acquiesced in violation of the servitude by the holder of the servient estate (acquiescence). The holder of the dominant estate acted in such a way that would have a reasonable person to believe that the covenant was abandoned (estoppel). The owner of the dominant estate fails to bring suit against the violator within a reasonable time (laches). The character of the neighborhood changed sufficiently through development, changes in zoning, or through non-enforcement of the equitable servitude (called the "changed conditions" doctrine).

Question 165

Equitable Servitude Defense

Answer 165

A court will not enforce an equitable servitude under the following circumstances: The person seeking enforcement is violating a similar restriction on his own land (unclean hands). The holder of the dominant estate acquiesced in violation of the servitude by the holder of the servient estate (acquiescence). The holder of the dominant estate acted in such a way that would have a reasonable person to believe that the covenant was abandoned (estoppel). The owner of the dominant estate fails to bring suit against the violator within a reasonable time (laches). The character of the neighborhood changed sufficiently through development, changes in zoning, or through non-enforcement of the equitable servitude (called the "changed conditions" doctrine).

Question 166

Estoppel

Answer 166

Estoppel is a collective name given to a group of legal doctrines in common law legal systems whereby a person is prevented from making assertions that are contradictory to his or her prior position on certain matters before the court - the person is said to be "estopped".[1] Estoppel may operate by way of preventing someone from asserting a particular fact in court, or exercising a certain right, or from bringing a particular claim. Black's Law Dictionary defines estoppel as a "bar or impediment raised by the law, which precludes a man from alleging or from denying a certain fact or state of facts, in consequence of his previous allegation or denial or conduct or admission, or in consequence of a final adjudication of the matter in a court of law."[2] There are many different types of estoppel which can arise, but the common thread between them is that a person is restrained from asserting a particular position in law where it would be inequitable to do so. By way of illustration: If a landlord promises the tenant that he will not exercise his right to terminate a lease, and relying upon that promise the tenant spends money improving the premises, the doctrine of promissory estoppel may prevent the landlord from exercising a right to terminate, even though his promise might not otherwise have been legally binding as a contract. The landlord is precluded from asserting a specific right. If a person brings legal proceedings in one country claiming that a second person negligently injured them and the courts of that country determine that there was no negligence, then under the doctrine of issue estoppel the first person will not normally be able to argue before the courts of another country that the second person was negligent (whether in respect of the same claim or a related claim). The first person is precluded from asserting a specific claim. Estoppel is an equitable doctrine.[3] Accordingly, any person wishing to assert an estoppel must normally come to the court with "clean hands". The doctrine of estoppel (which may prevent a party from asserting a right) is often confused with the doctrine of waiver (which relates to relinquishing a right once it has arisen). It also substantially overlaps with, but is distinct from, the equitable doctrine of laches. The verb is estop, which comes from Middle English estoppen, itself borrowed from Old French estop(p)er, estouper, presumably from Vulgar Latin *stuppāre ‘to stop up with tow, caulk’, from Latin stuppa, 'broken flax', from Ancient Greek stuppe, 'broken flax'[4] The noun form estoppel is based on the Old French estoupail ‘stopper, bung’, a derivative of estouper. Where a court finds that a party has done something warranting a form of estoppel, that party is said to be estopped from making certain related arguments or claiming certain related rights. The defendant is estopped from presenting the related defence, or the plaintiff is estopped from making the related argument against the defendant. Lord Coke stated, "It is called an estoppel or conclusion, because a man's own act or acceptance stoppeth or closeth up his mouth to allege or plead the truth."[5]

Question 167

Latches ( Equity )

Answer 167

Laches (/ˈlætʃᵻz/, la-chəz, like "latches"; /ˈleɪtʃᵻz/, lay-chəz; Law French: "remissness", "dilatoriness", from Old French laschesse) refers to a lack of diligence and activity in making a legal claim, or moving forward with legal enforcement of a right, in particular with regard to equity; hence, it is an unreasonable delay that can be viewed as prejudicing the opposing [defending] party. When asserted in litigation, it is an equity defense, that is, a defense to a claim for an equitable remedy. The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has "slept on its rights," and that, as a result of this delay, circumstances have changed, witnesses or evidence may have been lost or no longer available, etc., such that it is no longer a just resolution to grant the plaintiff's claim. Laches is associated with the maxim of equity, "Equity aids the vigilant, not the sleeping ones [that is, those who sleep on their rights]." Put another way, failure to assert one’s rights in a timely manner can result in a claim being barred by laches. Laches is a legal term derived from the Old French laschesse, meaning "remissness" or "dilatoriness," and is viewed as the opposite of "vigilance."

Question 168

Waiver

Answer 168

A waiver is the voluntary relinquishment or surrender of some known right or privilege.

Question 169

Lex Causae

Answer 169

In the conflict of laws, lex causae (Latin: lex + causa, "cause [for the] law") is the law or laws chosen by the forum court from among the relevant legal systems to arrive at its judgment of an international or interjurisdictional case. The term refers to the usage of particular local laws as the basis or "cause" for the ruling, which would itself become part of referenced legal canon. Conflict of laws regulates all lawsuits involving foreign law if the outcome of a legal action will differ based on the laws that are applied. Once the forum court has ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear the case, it must then decide among the possible laws to be applied. When the parties and the causes of action are local, the court will apply the lex fori, the prevailing municipal law. If there are foreign elements to the case, the forum court should, under the conflict of laws, consider if it should apply one or more foreign laws.

Question 170

Dominium Utile

Answer 170

Dominium utile (Feudal): the right of use and utility of an asset, and to keep the benefits (such as the right to live on the land, and to keep the profits from agriculture). The terms derive from Latin dominium (domain, dominion), directum (direction, in the sense of leadership), and utile (use, utility). The holder of the dominium directum is considered the superior (i.e., the lord); the holder of the dominium utile is considered the inferior (i.e., the vassal).

Question 171

Dominium Directum

Answer 171

Dominium directum (Feudal): the right of the lord (i.e., the right to direct) in the disposition of an asset (typically land). The holder of the dominium directum is considered the superior (i.e., the lord); the holder of the dominium utile is considered the inferior (i.e., the vassal).

Question 172

Lord

Answer 172

Under the feudal system, "lord" had a wide, loose and varied meaning. An overlord was a person from whom a landholding or a manor was held by a mesne lord or vassal under various forms of feudal land tenure.

Question 173

Mesne Lord

Answer 173

A mesne lord was a lord in the feudal system who had vassals who held land from him, but who was himself the vassal of a higher lord. A mesne lord did not hold land directly of the king, that is to say he was not a tenant-in-chief. His subinfeudated estate was called a "mesne estate" or Afterlehen in the Holy Roman Empire. He was thus an intermediate or "middle" tenant, which status is reflected in the medieval French word mesne, in modern French moyen.[1]

Question 174

Tenet in Cheif

Answer 174

In medieval and early modern Europe the term tenant-in-chief (or vassal-in-chief), denoted a person who held his lands under various forms of feudal land tenure directly from the king or territorial prince to whom he did homage, as opposed to holding them from another nobleman or senior member of the clergy.[1][2] The tenure was one which denoted great honour, but also carried heavy responsibilities as the tenants-in-chief were originally responsible for providing knights and soldiers for the king's feudal army. Other names for tenant-in-chief were captal or baron,[a] although the latter term came to mean specifically one who held in-chief by the tenure per baroniam, the feudal baron.[1] The Latin term was tenens in capite;

Question 175

Feudal Land Tenure

Answer 175

Under the English feudal system several different forms of land tenure existed, each effectively a contract with differing rights and duties attached thereto. Such tenures could be either free-hold, signifying that they were hereditable or perpetual, or non-free where the tenancy terminated on the tenant's death or at an earlier specified period. The main varieties are as follows: MILITARY TENURE... BARONY - (per baroniam). Such tenure constituted the holder a feudal baron, and was the highest degree of tenure. It imposed duties of military service and required attendance at parliament. All such holders were necessarily tenants-in-chief. by knight-service. KNIGHT SERVICE - This was a tenure ranking below barony, and was likewise for military service, of a lesser extent. It could be held in capite from the king or as a mesne tenancy from a tenant-in-chief. CASTLE GUARD - This was a form of military service which involved guarding a nearby castle for a specified number of days per year. SCUTAGE - where the military service obligations had been commuted, or replaced, by money payments. NON-MILITARY TENURE SERJEANTY - Such tenure was in return for acting as a servant to the king, in a non-military capacity. Service in a ceremonial form is termed "grand serjeanty" whilst that of a more functional or menial nature is termed "petty serjeanty". by frankalmoinage, generally a tenure restricted to clerics. FEE FARM - a grant of the right to collect and retain revenues in return for a fixed rent. Usually a royal grant. COPYHOLD - where the duties and obligations were tailored to the requirements of the lord of the manor and a copy of the terms agreed was entered on the roll of the manorial court as a record. by socage. A form of tenure, involving payment in produce or in money. QUIT RENT - The payment of an annual fee in exchange for freedom from all other feudal obligations. MISC... IN PARAGIO - a form of tenure frequently appearing in Domesday Book. (Coolf tenuit in paragio de rege, manor of Welige, IoW). Free burgage, tenure within a town or city.[1] Curtesy tenure. A tenant "by the curtesy of England", being a widower of a wife by whom he has issue by her born alive, in respect of her enseized right in land, generally originating in a paternal inheritance. Roger Bigod claimed it unsuccessfully on the death of his wife Aliva.[2] TENANT~AT~WILL - Such tenant had no security of tenure whatsoever. It developed into the more secure "copyhold tenure", where the terms were set out in an entry on the manorial roll. GAVELKIND - Frequently found in mediaeval Kent, "held according to the custom of gavelkind". It withdrew a dower from a widow if she remarried. FEE SIMPLE - a tenure with no service obligations attached which could be a free-holding (i.e. hereditable) or non-free (expiring on the tenant's death).[4] On the abolition of feudal tenure in 1660, all existing tenures were converted to this tenure.

Question 176

Socage ( Feudal Tenure )

Answer 176

Socage (/ˈsɒkᵻdʒ/)[1] was one of the feudal duties and hence land tenure forms in the feudal system. A farmer, for example, held the land in exchange for a clearly defined, fixed payment to be made at specified intervals to his feudal lord, who in turn had his own feudal obligations, to the farmer and to the Crown. In theory this might involve supplying the lord with produce but most usually it meant a straightforward payment of cash, i.e., rent.

Question 177

Serjeanty ( Feudal Tenure )

Answer 177

Under feudalism in England during the mediaeval era, tenure by serjeanty was a form of tenure in return for some specified non-standard service, thus distinguishing it from knight-service. It is also used of similar forms in Continental Europe. The word comes from the French noun sergent, itself from the Latin serviens, servientis, "serving", the present participle of the verb servo,[1] "to keep, preserve, save, rescue, deliver". Serjeanty originated in the assignation of an estate in land on condition of the performance of a certain duty other than knight-service, usually the discharge of duties in the household of the king or a noble. It ranged from non-standard service in the king's army (distinguished only by equipment from that of the knight), to petty renders (for example the rendering of a quantity of basic food such as a goose) scarcely distinguishable from those of the rent-paying tenant or socager. The legal historians Pollock and Maitland (1895) described it as being a free "servantship" in the sense that the serjeant, whatever his task, was essentially a menial servant.[3] However the feudal historian Round objected that their definition does not cover military serjeanties and glosses over the honorific value of at least some of the services.[4]

Question 178

Domesday Book

Answer 178

Domesday Book = Great Survey = Invetory (/ˈduːmzdeɪ/ or US /ˈdoʊmzdeɪ Latin: Liber de Wintonia "Book of Winchester") is a manuscript record of the "Great Survey" of much of England and parts of Wales completed in 1086 by order of King William the Conqueror. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states: Then, at the midwinter [1085], was the king in Glocester with his council ... . After this had the king a large meeting, and very deep consultation with his council, about this land; how it was occupied, and by what sort of men. Then sent he his men over all England into each shire; commissioning them to find out 'How many hundreds of hides were in the shire, what land the king himself had, and what stock upon the land; or, what dues he ought to have by the year from the shire.' The survey's main purpose was to determine what taxes had been owed during the reign of King Edward the Confessor, which allowed William to reassert the rights of the Crown and assess where power lay after a wholesale redistribution of land following the Norman conquest. The assessors' reckoning of a man's holdings and their values, as recorded in Domesday Book, was dispositive and without appeal. The name "Domesday Book" (Middle English for "Doomsday Book") came into use in the 12th century.[5] As Richard FitzNeal wrote in the Dialogus de Scaccario (circa 1179):[6] for as the sentence of that strict and terrible last account cannot be evaded by any skilful subterfuge, so when this book is appealed to ... its sentence cannot be quashed or set aside with impunity. That is why we have called the book 'the Book of Judgement' ... because its decisions, like those of the Last Judgement, are unalterable.

Question 179

Ward ( Law )

Answer 179

someone placed under the protection of a legal guardian. A court may take responsibility for the legal protection of an individual, usually either a child or incapacitated person, in which case the ward is known as a ward of the court or a ward of the state. In Australia, New Zealand and the United States, the child is termed a ward of the court. In Ireland and the United Kingdom "the" is not used; the ward is thus termed a ward of court.[1] In Canada the legal term is Crown ward.[2] Children who are in the custody of government departments, also known as foster care, become wards of the respective government entity, and in the US wards of the states in which they reside. The government or state is in loco parentis to the child, which generally entails assuming all lawful authority to make medical and legal decisions on the child's behalf.[3][4]

Question 180

Free Hold ( Law )

Answer 180

In England and Wales, a freehold is the common ownership of real property, or land,[1] and all immovable structures attached to such land, as opposed to a leasehold in which the property reverts to the owner of the land after the lease period has expired.[2] Immovable property includes land and all that naturally goes with it, such as buildings, trees or underground resources, but not such things as vehicles or livestock. For an estate to be a freehold it must possess two qualities: immobility (property must be land or some interest issuing out of or annexed to land), and ownership of it must be of an indeterminate duration. If the time of ownership can be fixed and determined, it cannot be a freehold.

Question 181

Law of Property Act. 1925

Answer 181

The Law of Property Act 1925 (c 20) is a statute of the United Kingdom Parliament. It forms part of an interrelated programme of legislation introduced by Lord Chancellor Lord Birkenhead between 1922 and 1925. The programme was intended to modernise the English law of real property. The Act deals principally with the transfer of freehold or leasehold land by deed. That which was hidden from Maitland, Joshua Williams, and the other great ones, was revealed to a Welsh solicitor ( David Lloyd George, 1st Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor ) who in the budget of 1910 proposed to tax the land so as to force it on the market. The radically revolutionary character of this proposal was at once recognized in England. It was bitterly fought by all those who treasured what had remained of the old English aristocratic rule. When this budget finally passed, the basis of the old real property law and the effective power of the House of Lords was gone.[3] The legislation of 1925-26 was thus a final completion in the realm of private law of the revolution that was fought in 1910 in the forum of public law, i.e., in the field of taxation and the power of the House of Lords.[4]

Question 182

Land Value Tax

Answer 182

A land/location value tax (LVT), also called a site valuation tax, split rate tax, or site-value rating, is a levy on the unimproved value of land. It is an Ad valorem tax that, unlike property taxes, disregards the value of buildings, personal property and other improvements.[1]

Question 183

Ad Valorem Tax

Answer 183

An ad valorem tax (Latin for "according to value") is a tax whose amount is based on the value of a transaction or of property. It is typically imposed at the time of a transaction, as in the case of a sales tax or value-added tax (VAT). An ad valorem tax may also be imposed annually, as in the case of a real or personal property tax, or in connection with another significant event (e.g. inheritance tax, expatriation tax, or tariff).[1] In some countries a stamp duty is imposed as an ad valorem tax.

Question 184

Private Law

Answer 184

Private law is that part of a civil law legal system which is part of the jus commune that involves relationships between individuals, such as the law of contracts or torts[1] (as it is called in the common law), and the law of obligations (as it is called in civil legal systems). It is to be distinguished from public law, which deals with relationships between both natural and artificial persons (i.e., organizations) and the state, including regulatory statutes, penal law and other law that affects the public order. In general terms, private law involves interactions between private citizens, whereas public law involves interrelations between the state and the general population.

Question 185

Public Law

Answer 185

Public law (lat. ius publicum) is that part of law which governs relationships between individuals and the government, and those relationships between individuals which are of direct concern to society.[1] Public law comprises constitutional law, administrative law, tax law and criminal law,[1] as well as all procedural law. In public law, mandatory rules prevail. Laws concerning relationships between individuals belong to private law. The relationships public law governs are asymmetric and unequal – government bodies (central or local) can make decisions about the rights of individuals. However, as a consequence of the rule of law doctrine, authorities may only act within the law (secundum et intra legem). The government must obey the law. For example, a citizen unhappy with a decision of an administrative authority can ask a court for judicial review. Rights, too, can be divided into private rights and public rights. A paragon of a public right is the right to welfare benefits – only a natural person can claim such payments, and they are awarded through an administrative decision out of the government budget. The distinction between public law and private law dates back to Roman law. It has been picked up in the countries of civil law tradition at the beginning of the nineteenth century, but since then spread to common law countries, too. The borderline between public law and private law is not always clear in particular cases, giving rise to attempts of theoretical understanding of its basis.

Question 186

Rule of Law

Answer 186

The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials. It primarily refers to the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behaviour, including behaviour of government officials.[2] The phrase can be traced back to 16th century Britain, and in the following century the Scottish theologian Samuel Rutherford used the phrase in his argument against the divine right of kings.[3] John Locke defined freedom under the rule of law as follows: “Freedom is constrained by laws in both the state of nature and political society. Freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the law of nature. Freedom of people under government is to be under no restraint apart from standing rules to live by that are common to everyone in the society and made by the lawmaking power established in it. Persons have a right or liberty to (1) follow their own will in all things that the law has not prohibited and (2) not be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary wills of others.” Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law, including lawmakers themselves. In this sense, it stands in contrast to an autocracy, dictatorship, or oligarchy where the rulers are held above the law. Lack of the rule of law can be found in both democracies and dictatorships, for example because of neglect or ignorance of the law, and the rule of law is more apt to decay if a government has insufficient corrective mechanisms for restoring it. Government based upon the rule of law is called nomocracy.

Question 187

Nomocracy = ( Rule of Law )

Answer 187

(politics) A political system under the sovereignty of rational laws and civic rights. From nomo- +‎ -cracy. Nomo = Law Cracy = From the Ancient Greek suffix -κρατία (-kratía), from κράτος (krátos, “power, rule”). Rule = (noun) : from Middle English rule, a borrowing from Old French riule, reule, inherited from Latin regula (“straight stick, bar, ruler, pattern”), from regere (“to keep straight, direct, govern, rule”); see regent. (verb) : from Middle English rulen, a from borrowing from Old French riuler, from Latin regulāre (“to regulate, rule”), from regula (“a rule”); see regular. A ruler; device for measuring, a straightedge, a measure. Synonym = Archy From Latin -archia, from Ancient Greek -αρχία (-arkhía), from ἀρχή (arkhḗ, “rule”, “government”).

Question 188

Divine Right of Kings

Answer 188

The divine right of kings, divine right, or God's mandate is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm. It implies that only God can judge an unjust king and that any attempt to depose, dethrone or restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It is often expressed in the phrase "by the Grace of God", attached to the titles of a reigning monarch. In the pagan world, kings were often seen as either ruling with the backing of heavenly powers or perhaps even being divine beings themselves. However, the Christian notion of a divine right of kings could be traced to the biblical story found in 1 Samuel, where the prophet Samuel anoints Saul and then David as mashiach or king over Israel. And the anointing is to such an effect that the monarch became inviolable, so that even when Saul sought to kill David, David would not raise his hand against him because 'he was the Lord's anointed'. The divine right of kings, or divine-right theory of kingship, is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including (in the view of some, especially in Protestant countries) the church. A weaker or more moderate form of this political theory does hold, however, that the king is subject to the church and the pope, although completely irreproachable in other ways; but according to this doctrine in its strong form, only God can judge an unjust king. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act.

Question 189

Reverence

Answer 189

Reverence (/ˈrɛvərəns/) is "a feeling or attitude of deep respect tinged with awe; veneration".[1] The word "reverence" in the modern day is often used in relationship with religion. This is because religion often stimulates the emotion through recognition of God, the supernatural, and the ineffable. Reverence involves a humbling of the self in respectful recognition of something perceived to be greater than the self. Thus religion is commonly a place where reverence is felt. However, similar to awe, reverence is an emotion in its own right, and can be felt outside of the realm of religion.[2] Whereas awe may be characterized as an overwhelming "sensitivity to greatness," reverence is seen more as "acknowledging a subjective response to something excellent in a personal (moral or spiritual) way, but qualitatively above oneself" [3] Solomon describes awe as passive, but reverence as active, noting that the feeling of awe (i.e., becoming awestruck) implies paralysis, whereas feelings of reverence are associated more with active engagement and responsibility toward that which one reveres.[4] Nature, science, literature, philosophy, great philosophers, leaders, artists, art, music, wisdom, and beauty may each act as the stimulus and focus of reverence.

Question 190

Sacred

Answer 190

Sacred means revered due to sanctity and is generally the state of being perceived by religious individuals as associated with divinity and considered worthy of spiritual respect or devotion; or inspiring awe or reverence among believers. From an anthropological or atheistic perspective, the religious view of the sacred is an emic perspective on a culture's collection of thoughts and practices that function as a basis for the community's social structure. Objects are often considered sacred if used for spiritual purposes, such as the worship or service of gods. The property is often ascribed to objects (a "sacred artifact" that is venerated and blessed), or places ("sacred ground"). The word "sacred" descends from the Latin wikt:sacer, that is consecrated, or dedicated[1] to the gods or anything in their power, and to sacerdos and sanctum, set apart. From Proto-Indo-European *sh₂krós (“sacred”), from *seh₂k- (“to sanctify, to make a treaty”). Sacred, holy, dedicated to a divinity, consecrated, hallowed (translating Greek ἱερός).

Question 191

ἱερός • (hierós) Hero ~ Chi-Rho = Holy

Answer 191

ἱερός • (hierós) m (feminine ἱερᾱ́, neuter ἱερόν); first/second declension Connected with the gods, supernatural holy, sacred, consecrated Under divine protection holy (comparative holier, superlative holiest) Dedicated to a religious purpose or a god. I'm planning to visit the holy city of Mecca this Ramadan. Revered in a religion. Perfect or flawless. Separated or set apart from (something unto something or someone else). Set apart or dedicated for a specific purpose, or for use by a single entity or person.

Question 192

Lex loci delicti commissi

Answer 192

The lex loci delicti commissi is the Latin term for "law of the place where the delict [tort] was committed"[1] in the conflict of laws. Conflict of laws is the branch of law regulating all lawsuits involving a "foreign" law element where a difference in result will occur depending on which laws are applied.

Question 193

Lex loci celebrationis

Answer 193

Lex loci celebrationis is a Latin term for a legal principle in English common law, roughly translated as "the law of the land (lex loci) where the marriage was celebrated". It refers to the validity of the union, independent of the laws of marriage of the countries involved: where the two individuals have legal nationality or citizenship, or where they live (reside or are domiciled). The assumption under the common law is that such a marriage, when lawfully and validly celebrated under the relevant law of the land, is also lawful and valid.[citation needed]

Question 194

privilegium fori

Answer 194

The privilegium fori (Latin for "privilege of the (legal) forum") is a generic term for legal privileges to be tried in a particular court or type of court of law.[1] Typically, it is an application of the principle of trial by one's peers, either by such a jury or at least by a specific court from that social segment, such as a soldier by a court martial, a cleric by an ecclesiastical court.[1] Privilegium fori used to be one of the ecclesiastical privileges in the canon law of the Catholic Church: a member of the clergy received a special tribunal in civil and criminal causes before an ecclesiastical judge.[1][2]

Question 195

Court

Answer 195

A court is a tribunal, often as a government institution, with the authority to adjudicate legal disputes between parties and carry out the administration of justice in civil, criminal, and administrative matters in accordance with the rule of law.[1] In both common law and civil law legal systems, courts are the central means for dispute resolution, and it is generally understood that all persons have an ability to bring their claims before a court. Similarly, the rights of those accused of a crime include the right to present a defense before a court.

Question 196

Judiciary - Venue - Courthouse

Answer 196

The system of courts that interprets and applies the law is collectively known as the judiciary. The place where a court sits is known as a venue. The room where court proceedings occur is known as a courtroom, and the building as a courthouse; court facilities range from simple and very small facilities in rural communities to large buildings in cities.

Question 197

Jurisdiction

Answer 197

The practical authority given to the court is known as its jurisdiction (Latin jus dicere) – the court's power to decide certain kinds of questions or petitions put to it.

Question 198

Tribunal Court

Answer 198

a court is constituted by a minimum of three parties: the actor or plaintiff, who complains of an injury done; the reus or defendant, who is called upon to make satisfaction for it, and the judex or judicial power, which is to examine the truth of the fact, to determine the law arising upon that fact, and, if any injury appears to have been done, to ascertain and by its officers to apply a legal remedy.

Question 199

Bailiff

Answer 199

- the officer responsible for executing the decisions of a court. Bailiff was the term used by the Normans for what the Saxons had called a reeve: the officer responsible for executing the decisions of a court. The duty of the bailiff would thus include serving summonses and orders, and executing all warrants issued out of the corresponding court. The district within which the bailiff operated was called his bailiwick, even to the present day. Bailiffs were outsiders and free men, that is, they were not usually from the bailiwick they were responsible for. Throughout Norman England, the Saxon and Norman populations gradually mixed, and reeve came to be limited to shire-level courts (hence sheriff as a contraction of "shire-reeve"), while bailiff was used in relation to the lower courts. Primarily then, bailiff referred to the officer executing the decisions of manorial courts, and the hundred courts. Likewise, in Scotland a bailie was the chief officer of a barony (baron bailie), and in the Channel Islands they were the principal civil officers. With the introduction of Justices of the Peace (magistrates), magistrates' courts acquired their own bailiffs. Historically, courts were not always concerned with legal matters, and often decided administrative matters for the area within their jurisdiction. A bailiff of a manor, therefore, would often oversee the manor's lands and buildings, collect its rents, manage its accounts, and run its farms (see Walter of Henley).[1]

Question 200

bailiwick

Answer 200

A bailiwick /ˈbeɪlᵻwɪk/ is usually the area of jurisdiction of a bailiff, and once also applied to territories in which a privately appointed bailiff exercised the sheriff's functions under a royal or imperial writ. The word is now more generally used in a metaphorical sense, to indicate a sphere of authority, experience, activity, study, or interest. A bailiwick (German: “Ballei”) was also the territorial division of the Teutonic Order. Here, various “Komtur(en)” formed a Ballei province. The term survives in administrative usage in the British Crown dependencies of the Channel Islands, which are grouped for administrative purposes into two bailiwicks — Jersey (comprising the island of Jersey and uninhabited islets such as the Minquiers and Écréhous) and Guernsey (comprising the islands of Guernsey, Sark, Alderney, Brecqhou, Herm, Jethou and Lihou). A Bailiff heads each Channel Island bailiwick. The term originated in France (bailie being the Old French term for a bailiff). Under the ancien régime in France, the bailli was the king's representative in a bailliage, charged with the application of justice and control of the administration. In English, the original French bailie combined with '-wic', the Anglo-Saxon suffix (meaning a village) to produce a term meaning literally 'bailiff's village'

Question 201

reeve

Answer 201

Originally in Anglo-Saxon England the reeve was a senior official with local responsibilities under the Crown, e.g., as the chief magistrate of a town or district. Subsequently, after the Norman conquest, it was an office held by a man of lower rank, appointed as manager of a manor and overseer of the peasants. In this later role, historian H. R. Loyn observes, "he is the earliest English specialist in estate management".[1] Before the Conquest, a reeve (Old English ġerēfa; similar to the titles greve/gräfe in the Low Saxon languages of Northern Germany) was an administrative officer who generally ranked lower than the ealdorman or earl. The Old English word ġerēfa was originally a general term, but soon acquired a more technical meaning. Land was divided into a large number of hides—an area containing enough farmable land to support one household. Ten hides constituted a tithings, and the families living upon it (in theory, 10 families) were obliged to undertake an early form of neighbourhood watch, by a collective responsibility system called frankpledge. Tithings were organised into groups of 10, called hundreds due to containing 100 hides; in modern times, these ancient hundreds still mostly retain their historic boundaries, despite each generally now containing vastly more than a mere 100 families. Each hundred was supervised by a constable, and groups of hundreds were combined to form shires, with each shire being under the control of an earl. Each unit had a court, and an officer to implement decisions of that court: the reeve. Thus different types of reeves were attested, including high-reeve, town-reeve, port-reeve, shire-reeve (predecessor to the sheriff[2]), reeve of the hundred, and the reeve of a manor. The word is often rendered in Latin as prefectus (Modern English prefect), by the historian Bede, and some early Anglo-Saxon charters. West-Saxon charters prefer to reserve the term prefectus for the ealdormen (earls) themselves. After the Norman conquest, feudalism was introduced, forming a parallel administrative system to the local courts. The feudal system organised land on a manorial basis, with stewards acting as managers for the landlords. The Norman term describing the court functionary—bailiff—came to be used for reeves associated with lower level courts, and with the equivalent role in the feudal courts of landlords.

Question 202

Manor

Answer 202

A manor in English law is an estate in land to which is incident the right to hold a court termed court baron, that is to say a manorial court. The proper unit of tenure under the feudal system is the fee (or fief), on which the manor became established through the process of time, akin to the modern establishment of a "business" upon a freehold site. The manor is nevertheless often described as the basic feudal unit of tenure and is historically connected with the territorial divisions of the march, county, hundred, parish and township. The legal theory of the origin of manors refers them to a grant from the crown of a fee from the monarch's allodial lands, as stated in the following extract from Perkins's Treatise on the laws of England: "The beginning of a manor was when the king gave a thousand acres of land, or greater or lesser parcel of land, unto one of his subjects and his heirs, which tenure is knight service at the least. And the donee did perhaps build a mansion house upon parcel of the same land, and of 20 acres, parcel of that which remained, or of a greater or lesser parcel, before the statute of Quia emptores did enfeoff a stranger to hold of him and his heirs to plough 10 acres of land, parcel of that which remained in his possession, and did enfeoff another of another parcel thereof to go to war with him against the Scots etc., and so by continuance of time made a manor".

Question 203

Allodial

Answer 203

Allodial title constitutes ownership of real property (land, buildings and fixtures) that is independent of any superior landlord. Allodial title is related to the concept of land held "in allodium", or land ownership by occupancy and defense of the land. Historically, much of land was uninhabited and could therefore be held "in allodium".[1] In the modern developed world, true allodial title is only possible for nation state governments.[1] Although the word "allodial" has been used in the context of private ownership in a few states of the United States, this ownership is still restricted by governmental authority; the word "allodial" in these cases describes land with fewer but still significant governmental restrictions.[1]

Question 204

Sherif

Answer 204

Throughout Norman England, the Saxon and Norman populations gradually mixed, and reeve came to be limited to shire-level courts (hence sheriff as a contraction of "shire-reeve"), while bailiff was used in relation to the lower courts. The word "sheriff" is a contraction of the term "shire reeve". The term, from the Old English scīrgerefa, designated a royal official responsible for keeping the peace (a "reeve") throughout a shire or county on behalf of the king.[1][2] The term was preserved in England notwithstanding the Norman Conquest. The office of sheriff had its origins in the 10th century; the office reached the height of its power under the Norman kings. While the sheriffs originally had been men of great standing at court, the thirteenth century saw a process whereby the office devolved on significant men within each county, usually landowners

Question 205

Lex loci contractus

Answer 205

In the conflict of laws, the lex loci contractus is the Latin term for "law of the place where the contract is made". comes before a court and all the main features of the case are local, the court will apply the lex fori, the prevailing municipal law, to decide the case. But if there are "foreign" elements to the case, the forum court may be obliged under the conflict of laws system to consider: whether the forum court has jurisdiction to hear the case (see the problem of forum shopping); it must then characterise the issues, i.e. allocate the factual basis of the case to its relevant legal classes; and then apply the choice of law rules to decide which law is to be applied to each class. The lex loci contractus is one of the possible choice of law rules applied to cases testing the validity of a contract. For example, suppose that a person domiciled in Canada and a person habitually resident in France, make a contract by e-mail. They agree to meet in New York State to record a CD of hip hop music. The possibly relevant choice of law rules would be: the lex domicilii and law of habitual residence to determine whether the parties had the capacity to enter into the contract; the lex loci contractus which could be difficult to establish since neither party left his own jurisdiction (reliance on postal rules for offer and acceptance in the several putative leges causae might produce different results); the lex loci solutionis might be the most relevant since New York is the most closely connected to the substance of the obligations assumed; the proper law; and the lex fori which might have public policy issues if, say, one of the parties was an infant.

Question 206

Forum Shopping

Answer 206

quially, forum shopping is the practice adopted by some litigants of having their legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a favorable judgment. Some jurisdictions have, for example, become known as "plaintiff-friendly" and so have attracted litigation even when there is little or no connection between the legal issues and the jurisdiction in which they are to be litigated. When a case is filed before a court, the court decides whether it has personal and subject matter jurisdiction, and if so, whether it is the most appropriate forum or venue. Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, Latin for "inappropriate forum", a judge has a discretion to transfer a case if the court selected is not the most convenient one. If the courts in two states would accept civil jurisdiction, the plaintiff must be able to show that justice requires the trial to take place in the forum suggested by the plaintiff. The plaintiff might have selected one forum on the following grounds: The forum is not convenient to the defendant or his witnesses. There may be problems of expense of travel, health, or visa or entry permit. The court, the judge, or the law is most likely to favour the plaintiff's case. The defendant may take the following actions to seek a change of venue: The defendant may petition the forum court that it should reject the jurisdiction and petition to transfer the case to an allegedly more convenient forum; or If a case has been filed in another jurisdiction, the defendant may seek injunctive relief against the plaintiff in a second state, requiring that the plaintiff discontinue the action in the first forum and instead submit the case for hearing in this allegedly more convenient forum. In both instances, the first step is to determine whether the first instance forum is the natural forum, or whether the forum has the closest connection with the action and the parties. The court adjudicates whether there is another forum that is more appropriate under the doctrine of comity. The current forum court must respect the right of a foreign court to assume jurisdiction. A court must balance the interests of the parties, since there is injustice not only when a plaintiff is allowed to pursue the action in a forum inconvenient to the defendant, but also when a plaintiff is not allowed a timely trial. Generally, the court will not grant a petition to transfer or an injunction if the grant unjustly will deprive the plaintiff of advantages in the first instance forum. Nevertheless, a real and substantial connection between the venue and the cause(s) of action should exist to provide defendants some protection against being pursued in jurisdictions that have little or no connection with the transaction or the parties.

Question 207

Injunction

Answer 207

An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts. A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties, including possible monetary sanctions and even imprisonment. They can also be charged with contempt of court. Counterinjunctions are injunctions that stop or reverse the enforcement of another injunction. The injunction is an equitable remedy,[1] that is, a remedy that originated in the English courts of equity. Like other equitable remedies, it has traditionally been given when a wrong cannot be effectively remedied by an award of money damages. (The doctrine that reflects this is the requirement that an injunction can be given only when there is "no adequate remedy at law.") Injunctions are intended to make whole again someone whose rights have been violated.

Question 208

Contempt of Court

Answer 208

Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the offence of being disobedient to or discourteous towards a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court.[1][2] It manifests itself in willful disregard of or disrespect for the authority of a court of law, which is often behavior that is illegal because it does not obey or respect the rules of a law court.[3][4] There are broadly two categories of contempt: being rude or disrespectful to legal authorities in the courtroom, or wilfully failing to obey a court order.[5] Contempt proceedings are especially used to enforce equitable remedies, such as injunctions.[6] When a court decides that an action constitutes contempt of court, it can issue a court order that in the context of a court trial or hearing declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court's authority, called "found" or "held" in contempt; this is the judge's strongest power to impose sanctions for acts that disrupt the court's normal process.

Question 209

Right to a Fair Trial

Answer 209

Various rights associated with a fair trial are explicitly proclaimed in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as numerous other constitutions and declarations throughout the world. There is no binding international law that defines what is not a fair trial; for example, the right to a jury trial and other important procedures vary from nation to nation.[1] The right to fair trial is very helpful[clarification needed] in numerous declarations which represent customary international law, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).[2] Though the UDHR enshrines some fair trial rights, such as the presumption of innocence until the accused is proven guilty, in Articles 6, 7, 8 and 11,[3] the key provision is Article 10 which states that: "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him."[4] Some years after the UDHR was adopted,[when?] the right to a fair trial was defined in more detail in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The right to a fair trial is protected in Articles 14 and 16 of the ICCPR which is binding in international law on those states that are party to it.[5] Article 14(1) establishes the basic right to a fair trial, article 14(2) provides for the presumption of innocence, and article 14(3) sets out a list of minimum fair trial rights in criminal proceedings. Article 14(5) establishes the right of a convicted person to have a higher court review the conviction or sentence, and article 14(7) prohibits double jeopardy.[6] Article 14(1) states that: "All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children."[7]

Question 210

Offer and Acceptance

Answer 210

Offer and acceptance are elements required for the formation of a legally binding contract: the expression of an offer to contract on certain terms by one person (the "offeror") to another person (the "offeree"), and an indication by the offeree of its acceptance of those terms. The other elements traditionally required for a legally binding contract are (i) consideration and (ii) an intention to be legally bound. Offer and acceptance analysis is a traditional approach in contract law. The offer and acceptance formula, developed in the 19th century, identifies a moment of formation when the parties are of one mind. This classical approach to contract formation has been weakened by developments in the law of estoppel, misleading conduct, misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. Treitel defines an offer as "an expression of willingness to contract on certain terms, made with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed", the "offeree".[1] An offer is a statement of the terms on which the offeror is willing to be bound. It is the present contractual intent to be bound by a contract with definite and certain terms communicated to the offeree. A unilateral contract is created when someone offers to do something "in return for" the performance of the act stipulated in the offer.[4] In this regard, acceptance does not have to be communicated and can be accepted through conduct by performing the act.[5] Nonetheless, the person performing the act must do it in reliance on the offer.[6] A unilateral contract can be contrasted with a bilateral contract, where there is an exchange of promises between two parties. For example, when (A) promises to sell her car and (B) promises to buy the car.

Question 211

Intension to be Legally Bound

Answer 211

Intention to be legally bound, otherwise "intention to create legal relations",[1] is a concept used in contract law, particularly English contract law, to denote whether a court should presume that parties to an agreement wish it to be enforceable at law. A contract is a legally binding agreement. Once an offer has been accepted, there is an agreement, but not necessarily a contract. The element that converts any agreement into a true contract is "intention to create legal relations". The courts seek evidence that the parties to the agreement intended that it should be governed by, and subject to, the law of contract; so that the agreement gives rise to legal consequences. Each party thus adopts a legal obligation, and each may seek a remedy in the event of breach.

Question 212

Meeting of the Minds

Answer 212

Meeting of the minds (also referred to as mutual agreement, mutual assent or consensus ad idem) is a phrase in contract law used to describe the intentions of the parties forming the contract. In particular it refers to the situation where there is a common understanding in the formation of the contract. Formation of a contract is initiated with a proposal or offer.[1] This condition or element is often considered a requirement to the formation of a contract. n the law of contract the use of moral phraseology led to equal confusion, as I have shown in part already, but only in part. Morals deal with the actual internal state of the individual's mind, what he actually intends. From the time of the Romans down to now, this mode of dealing has affected the language of the law as to contract, and the language used has reacted upon the thought. We talk about a contract as a meeting of the minds of the parties, and thence it is inferred in various cases that there is no contract because their minds have not met; that is, because they have intended different things or because one party has not known of the assent of the other. Yet nothing is more certain than that parties may be bound by a contract to things which neither of them intended, and when one does not know of the other's assent. Suppose a contract is executed in due form and in writing to deliver a lecture, mentioning no time. One of the parties thinks that the promise will be construed to mean at once, within a week. The other thinks that it means when he is ready. The court says that it means within a reasonable time. The parties are bound by the contract as it is interpreted by the court, yet neither of them meant what the court declares that they have said. In my opinion no one will understand the true theory of contract or be able even to discuss some fundamental questions intelligently until he has understood that all contracts are formal, that the making of a contract depends not on the agreement of two minds in one intention, but on the agreement of two sets of external signs — not on the parties' having meant the same thing but on their having said the same thing.[5]

Question 213

Evidence

Answer 213

The law of evidence also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury.[1] The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction. The quantum of evidence is the amount of evidence needed; the quality of proof is how reliable such evidence should be considered. Important rules that govern admissibility concern hearsay, authentication, relevance, privilege, witnesses, opinions, expert testimony, identification and rules of physical evidence. There are various standards of evidence or standards showing how strong the evidence must be to meet the legal burden of proof in a given situation, ranging from reasonable suspicion to preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt. There are several types of evidence, depending on the form or source. Evidence governs the use of testimony (e.g., oral or written statements, such as an affidavit), exhibits (e.g., physical objects), documentary material, or demonstrative evidence, which are admissible (i.e., allowed to be considered by the trier of fact, such as jury) in a judicial or administrative proceeding (e.g., a court of law).

Question 214

Trier of Fact

Answer 214

A trier of fact, or finder of fact, is a person, or group of persons, who determines facts in a legal proceeding, usually a trial. To determine a fact is to decide, from the evidence, whether something existed or some event occurred.[1] Various aspects of a case that are not in controversy may be the "facts of the case" and are determined by the agreement of the separate parties; the trier of fact need not decide such issues.

Question 215

Fact Finding

Answer 215

Fact-finding is the job of a person or group of persons in a judicial or administrative proceeding that has or have the responsibility of determining the facts relevant to decide a controversy. The term trier of fact generally denotes the same function.[1] The process is an extremely important part of the communication process.[2]

Question 216

Verdict

Answer 216

In law, a verdict is the formal finding of fact made by a jury on matters or questions submitted to the jury by a judge.[1] In a bench trial, the judge's decision near the end of the trial is simply referred to as a finding.[2] In England and Wales, a coroner's findings are called verdicts (see Coroner#Verdict). The term "verdict", from the Latin veredictum, literally means "to say the truth" and is derived from Middle English verdit, from Anglo-Norman: a compound of ver ("true," from the Latin vērus) and dit ("speech," from the Latin dictum, the neuter past participle of dīcere, to say).

Question 217

Law of Obligations | Vinculum Iuris

Answer 217

The law of obligations is one branch of private law under the civil law legal system and so-called "mixed" legal systems. It is the body of rules that organizes and regulates the rights and duties arising between individuals. The specific rights and duties are referred to as obligations, and this area of law deals with their creation, effects, and extinction. An obligation is a legal bond (vinculum iuris) by which one or more parties (obligants) are bound to act or refrain from acting. An obligation thus imposes on the obligor a duty to perform, and simultaneously creates a corresponding right to demand performance by the obligee to whom performance is to be tendered. Obligations may be civil, which are enforceable by action in a court of law, or natural, which imply moral duties but are unenforceable unless the obligor consents.

Question 218

Delict

Answer 218

A Willful Wrong or Negligent Wrong Delict (from Latin dēlictum, past participle of dēlinquere ‘to be at fault, offend’) is a term in civil law jurisdictions for a civil wrong consisting of an intentional or negligent breach of duty of care that inflicts loss or harm and which triggers legal liability for the wrongdoer; however, its meaning varies from one jurisdiction to another. Other civil wrongs include breach of contract and breach of trust. Liability is imposed on the basis of moral responsibility, i.e. a duty of care or to act, and fault (culpa) is the main element of liability. The term is used in mixed legal systems such as Scotland, South Africa, Louisiana and the Philippines, but tort is the equivalent legal term used in common law jurisdictions.

Question 219

Tort

Answer 219

A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong[1] that unfairly causes someone else to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. The person who commits the act is called a tortfeasor. Although crimes may be torts, the cause of legal action is not necessarily a crime, as the harm may be due to negligence which does not amount to criminal negligence. The victim of the harm can recover their loss as damages in a lawsuit. In order to prevail, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, commonly referred to as the injured party, must show that the actions or lack of action was the legally recognizable cause of the harm. The equivalent of tort in civil law jurisdictions is delict. Legal injuries are not limited to physical injuries and may include emotional, economic, or reputational injuries as well as violations of privacy, property, or constitutional rights. Torts comprise such varied topics as auto accidents, false imprisonment, defamation, product liability, copyright infringement, and environmental pollution (toxic torts). While many torts are the result of negligence, tort law also recognizes intentional torts, where a person has intentionally acted in a way that harms another, and in a few cases (particularly for product liability in the United States) "strict liability" which allows recovery without the need to demonstrate negligence. Tort law is different from criminal law in that: (1) torts may result from negligent as well as intentional or criminal actions and (2) tort lawsuits have a lower burden of proof such as preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. Sometimes a plaintiff may prevail in a tort case even if the person who allegedly caused harm was acquitted in an earlier criminal trial. For example, O. J. Simpson was acquitted in criminal court of murder but later found liable for the tort of wrongful death.

Question 220

Burden of Proof

Answer 220

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the duty of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position, to that party's own position. In a legal dispute, one party is initially presumed to be correct and gets the benefit of the doubt, while the other side bears the burden of proof. When a party bearing the burden of proof meets their burden, the burden of proof switches to the other side. Burdens may be of different kinds for each party, in different phases of litigation. The burden of production is a minimal burden to produce at least enough evidence for the trier of fact to consider a disputed claim.[1]:16-17 After litigants have met the burden of production and their claim is being considered by a trier of fact, they have the burden of persuasion, that enough evidence has been presented to persuade the trier of fact that their side is correct. There are different standards of persuasiveness ranging from a preponderance of the evidence, where there is just enough evidence to tip the balance, to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as in United States criminal courts.[1]:17 The burden of proof is usually on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. It is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, a translation of which in this context is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."[2]

Question 221

Interdict

Answer 221

In Catholic canon law, an interdict /ˈɪntərdɪkt/ is an ecclesiastical censure that prohibits certain active Church individuals or groups from participating in certain rites.

Question 222

Absolute Monarchy

Answer 222

- The King 'IS' the Rules. - Subordinates cannot limit the Kings Power. - The King is above the law of commoners. Throughout much of European history, the divine right of kings was the theological justification for absolute monarchy. Many European monarchs, such as those of Russia, claimed supreme autocratic power by divine right, and that their subjects had no rights to limit their power. In Ancient Egypt, the Pharaoh wielded absolute power over the country and was considered a living god by his people. In ancient Mesopotamia, many rulers of Assyria, Babylonia and Sumer were absolute monarchs as well. In ancient and medieval India, rulers of the Maurya, Satahavana, Gupta and Chalukya Empires, as well as other major and minor empires, were considered absolute monarchs. In the Khmer Empire, the kings were called "Devaraja" and "Chakravartin" (King of the world), and exercised absolute power over the empire and people. In Kingdom of Siam, the kings were established "Somburanaya-sittiraj" (King is the rules). Absolute monarchy, or despotic monarchy,[1][2] is a form of monarchy in which one ruler has supreme authority and where that authority is not restricted by any written laws, legislature, or customs.[3] These are often, but not always, hereditary monarchies. In contrast, in constitutional monarchies, the head of state's authority derives from and is legally bounded or restricted by a constitution or legislature.

Question 223

Constitution

Answer 223

A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.[1] These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is. When these principles are written down into a single document or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to embody a written constitution; if they are written down in a single comprehensive document, it is said to embody a codified constitution. Some constitutions (such as the constitution of the United Kingdom) are uncodified, but written in numerous fundamental Acts of a legislature, court cases or treaties.[2]

Question 224

Limited by Guarantee

Answer 224

Unlike a company limited by shares, a guarantee company has no share capital or shareholders. Instead it has members who undertake to contribute a nominal amount towards any shortfall in the company's assets to settle its debts in the event of its being wound up.

Question 225

Limited Liability company

Answer 225

Protection of personal assets. One of the most important legal benefits is the safeguarding of personal assets against the claims of creditors and lawsuits. Sole proprietors and general partners in a partnership are personally and jointly responsible for all the liabilities of a business such as loans, accounts payable, and legal judgments. In a corporation, however, stockholders, directors and officers typically are not liable for the company's debts and obligations. They are limited in liability to the amount they have invested in the corporation. For example, if a shareholder purchased $100 in stock, no more than $100 can be lost. If a shareholder of a corporation is personally involved in a lawsuit or bankruptcy, these assets may be protected. A creditor of a shareholder of a corporation or LLC cannot seize the assets of the company. However, the creditor can seize ownership shares in the corporation, as they are considered a personal asset.

Question 226

Flow Through Entity

Answer 226

A flow-through entity (FTE) is a legal entity where income "flows through" to investors or owners; that is, the income of the entity is treated as the income of the investors or owners. Flow-through entities are also known as pass-through entities or fiscally-transparent entities. Depending on the local tax regulations, this structure can avoid dividend tax and double taxation because only owners or investors are taxed on the revenue. Technically, for tax purposes, flow-through entities are considered "non-entities" because they are not taxed; rather, taxation "flows-through" to another tax return. Common types of FTEs are general partnerships, limited partnerships and limited liability partnerships. In the United States, additional types of FTE include S corporations, income trusts and limited liability companies.

Question 227

S Corporation

Answer 227

An S corporation, for United States federal income tax purposes, is a closely held corporation (or, in some cases, a limited liability company or a partnership) that makes a valid election to be taxed under Subchapter S of Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code. In general, S corporations do not pay any federal income taxes. Instead, the corporation's income or losses are divided among and passed through to its shareholders. The shareholders must then report the income or loss on their own individual income tax returns. The term "S corporation" means a "small business corporation" which has made an election under § 1362(a) to be taxed as an S corporation.[2] A corporation is "eligible" if it: Has no more than 100 shareholders, Has shareholders who are all individuals (exceptions are made for various tax exempt organizations, estates, and trusts) Has no nonresident aliens as shareholders, and Has only one class of stock.[3][4] A limited liability company (LLC) is eligible to be taxed as an S corporation under the check-the-box regulations at § 301.7701-2. The LLC first elects to be taxed as a corporation, at which point it becomes a corporation for tax purposes; then it makes the S corporation election under section 1362(a).

Question 228

Joint-Stock-Company

Answer 228

A joint-stock company is a business entity in which different stocks can be bought and owned by shareholders. Each shareholder owns company stock in proportion, evidenced by their shares (certificates of ownership).[1] That allows for the unequal ownership of a business with some shareholders owning more of a company than others. Shareholders are able to transfer their shares to others without any effects to the continued existence of the company.[2] In modern-day corporate law, the existence of a joint-stock company is often synonymous with incorporation (possession of legal personality separate from shareholders) and limited liability (shareholders are liable for the company's debts only to the value of the money they invested in the company). Therefore, joint-stock companies are commonly known as corporations or limited companies.

Question 229

Legal Personality

Answer 229

To have legal personality means to be capable of holding legal rights and obligations[1][2] within a certain legal system, such as entering into contracts, suing, and being sued.[3] Legal personality is a prerequisite to legal capacity, the ability of any legal person to amend (enter into, transfer, etc.) rights and obligations. In international law, consequently, legal personality is a prerequisite for an international organization to be able to sign international treaties in its own name. A holder of legal personality is called as a person (Latin: persona). Persons are of two kinds: natural persons (also called physical persons) and juridical persons (also called juridic, juristic, artificial, legal, or fictitious persons, Latin: persona ficta) – entities such as corporations, which are treated in law as if they are persons.[1][4][5] While human beings acquire legal personhood when they are born, juridical persons do so when they are incorporated in accordance with law. Artificial personality, juridical personality, or juristic personality is the characteristic of a non-living entity regarded by law to have the status of personhood. A juridical or artificial person (Latin: persona ficta; also juristic person) has a legal name and has certain rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and liabilities in law, similar to those of a natural person. The concept of a juridical person is a fundamental legal fiction. It is pertinent to the philosophy of law, as it is essential to laws affecting a corporation (corporations law).

Question 230

Corporate Personhood

Answer 230

Corporate personhood is the legal notion that a corporation, separately from its associated human beings (like owners, managers, or employees), has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons (physical humans).[1] For example, corporations have the right to enter into contracts with other parties and to sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. In a U.S. historical context, the phrase 'Corporate Personhood' refers to the ongoing legal debate over the extent to which rights traditionally associated with natural persons should also be afforded to corporations

Question 231

Natural Person

Answer 231

In jurisprudence, a natural person is a person (in legal meaning. i.e., one who has its own legal personality) that is an individual human being, as opposed to a legal person, which may be a private (i.e., business entity or non-governmental organization) or public (i.e., government) organization. Historically, a human being was not necessarily a natural person in some jurisdictions where a slave was a thing (subject of a property right) rather than a person. In many cases, fundamental human rights are implicitly granted only to natural persons. For example, the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states a person cannot be denied the right to vote based on their biological sex, or Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees equality rights, apply to natural persons only. Another example of the distinction between natural and legal persons is that a natural person can hold public office, but a corporation cannot. A corporation or non-governmental organization can, however, file a lawsuit or own property as a legal person.

Question 232

Personality Rights

Answer 232

The right of publicity, often called personality rights, is the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity. It is generally considered a property right as opposed to a personal right, and as such, the validity of the right of publicity can survive the death of the individual (to varying degrees depending on the jurisdiction).

Question 233

Natural and Legal Rights

Answer 233

Natural and legal rights are two types of rights. Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system (i.e., rights that can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws). Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). The concept of natural law is closely related to the concept of natural rights. During the Age of Enlightenment, the concept of natural laws was used to challenge the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government – and thus legal rights – in the form of classical republicanism. Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by others to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments. Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss. The 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an important legal instrument enshrining one conception of natural rights into international soft law. Natural rights were traditionally viewed as exclusively negative rights,[2] whereas human rights also comprise positive rights.[3] Even on a natural rights conception of human rights, the two terms may not be synonymous.

Question 234

Negative and Positive Rights

Answer 234

Negative and positive rights (not to be confused with negative and positive liberties) are rights that respectively oblige either action (positive rights) or inaction (negative rights). These obligations may be of either a legal or moral character. The notion of positive and negative rights may also be applied to liberty rights. To take an example involving two parties in a court of law: Adrian has a negative right to x against Clay if and only if Clay is prohibited from acting upon Adrian in some way regarding x. In contrast, Adrian has a positive right to x against Clay if and only if Clay is obliged to act upon Adrian in some way regarding x. A case in point, if Adrian has a negative right to life against Clay, then Clay is required to refrain from killing Adrian; while if Adrian has a positive right to life against Clay, then Clay is required to act as necessary to preserve the life of Adrian. Rights considered negative rights may include civil and political rights such as freedom of speech, life, private property, freedom from violent crime, freedom of religion, habeas corpus, a fair trial, freedom from slavery. Rights considered positive rights, as initially proposed in 1979 by the Czech jurist Karel Vasak, may include other civil and political rights such as police protection of person and property and the right to counsel, as well as economic, social and cultural rights such as food, housing, public education, employment, national security, military, health care, social security, internet access, and a minimum standard of living. In the "three generations" account of human rights, negative rights are often associated with the first generation of rights, while positive rights are associated with the second and third generations.

Question 235

Liberty Right vrs Claim Right

Answer 235

A person's liberty right to x consists in his freedom to do or have x, while a person's claim right to x consists in an obligation on others to allow or enable him to do or have x. For example, to assert a liberty right to free speech is to assert that you have permission to speak freely; that is, that you are not doing anything wrong by speaking freely. To illustrate, a world with only liberty rights, without any claim rights, would by definition be a world wherein everything was permitted and no act or omission was prohibited; a world wherein none could rightly claim that they had been wronged or neglected. Conversely, a world with only claim rights and no liberty rights would be a world wherein nothing was merely permitted, but all acts were either obligatory or prohibited. The assertion that people have a claim right to liberty – i.e. that people are obliged only to refrain from preventing each other from doing things which are permissible, their liberty rights limited only by the obligation to respect others' liberty – is the central thesis of liberal theories of justice.

Question 236

1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights

Answer 236

Human rights are moral principles or norms,[1] which describe certain standards of human behaviour, and are regularly protected as legal rights in municipal and international law.[2] They are commonly understood as inalienable[3] fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being,"[4] and which are "inherent in all human beings"[5] regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status.[3] They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being universal,[1] and they are egalitarian in the sense of being the same for everyone.[3] They require empathy and the rule of law[6] and impose an obligation on persons to respect the human rights of others.[1][3] They should not be taken away except as a result of due process based on specific circumstances;[3] for example, human rights may include freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution.[7] The true forerunner of human rights discourse was the concept of natural rights which appeared as part of the medieval natural law tradition that became prominent during the European Enlightenment with such philosophers as John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, and which featured prominently in the political discourse of the American Revolution and the French Revolution.[6] From this foundation, the modern human rights arguments emerged over the latter half of the twentieth century,[12] possibly as a reaction to slavery, torture, genocide, and war crimes,[6] as a realization of inherent human vulnerability and as being a precondition for the possibility of a just society.[5]

Question 237

Natural Law

Answer 237

Natural law (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a philosophy that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature endowed by nature, God, or a transcendent source, and can be understood universally through human reason. Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior from nature's or God's creation of reality and mankind. The law of nature, as determined by nature, is universal.[1] Natural law first appeared in ancient Greek philosophy,[2] was alluded to in the Bible, and was subsequently developed in the Middle Ages by Catholic philosophers such as Albert the Great, and Thomas Aquinas. Although natural law is often confused with common law, the two are distinct. Even though natural law theories have exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[3] the latter is not based on inherent rights, but is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally recognized by virtue of already having judicial recognition or articulation

Question 238

Ius naturale

Answer 238

Ius naturale is Latin for "natural law", the laws common to all beings. Roman jurists wondered why the ius gentium (the laws which applied to foreigners and citizens alike) was in general accepted by all people living in the Empire. Their conclusion was that these laws made sense to a reasonable person and thus were followed. All laws which would make sense to a normal person were called ius naturale. Slavery, for example, was part of the empire-wide ius gentium because slavery was known and accepted as a normal social institution in all parts of the known world. Nevertheless, as forcing people to work for others was a human-produced condition, it was not considered natural and, hence, was part of the ius gentium but not the ius naturale. The ius naturale of the Roman jurists is not the same as implied by the modern sense of natural law as something derived from pure reason. As Sir Henry Sumner Maine puts it, "it was never thought of as founded on quite untested principles. The notion was that it underlay existing law and must be looked for through it".[1] Romans gave to Natural law a great importance in their daily lives . They mentioned once "ius naturale est quo natura omnia animalia docuit" which means the right that nature gave to all living things.[citation n

Question 239

Ius Gentium

Answer 239

The ius gentium or jus gentium (Latin, "law of nations") is a concept of international law within the ancient Roman legal system and Western law traditions based on or influenced by it. The ius gentium is not a body of statute law or a legal code,[1] but rather customary law thought to be held in common by all gentes ("peoples" or "nations") in "reasoned compliance with standards of international conduct."[2] Following the Christianization of the Roman Empire, canon law also contributed to the European ius gentium.[3] By the 16th century, the shared concept of the ius gentium disintegrated as individual European nations developed distinct bodies of law, the authority of the Pope declined, and colonialism created subject nations outside the West.[4]

Question 240

Twelve Tables

Answer 240

According to Roman tradition, the Law of the Twelve Tables (Latin: Leges Duodecim Tabularum or Duodecim Tabulae) was the legislation that stood at the foundation of Roman law. The Tables consolidated earlier traditions into an enduring set of laws.[1][2] The Twelve Tables are sufficiently comprehensive that their substance has been described as a 'code',[3] although modern scholars consider this characterisation exaggerated.[2] The Tables were a sequence of definitions of various private rights and procedures. They generally took for granted such things as the institutions of the family and various rituals for formal transactions. The provisions were often highly specific and diverse, and lack an intelligible system or order.[4] The Twelve Tables of Roman society were said by the Romans to have come about as a result of the long social struggle between patricians and plebeians. After the expulsion of the last king of Rome, Tarquinius Superbus, the Republic was governed by a hierarchy of magistrates. Initially, only patricians were eligible to become magistrates and this, among other plebeian complaints, was a source of discontent for plebeians. In the context of this unequal status, plebeians would take action to secure concessions for themselves using the threat of secession. They would threaten to leave the city with the consequence that it would grind to a halt, as the plebeians were Rome's labor force

Question 241

Civil Law

Answer 241

The purpose of codification is to provide all citizens with manners and written collection of the laws which apply to them and which judges must follow. Civil law, civilian law, or Roman law is a legal system originating in Europe, intellectualized within the framework of late Roman law, and whose most prevalent feature is that its core principles are codified into a referable system which serves as the primary source of law. This can be contrasted with common law systems whose intellectual framework comes from judge-made decisional law which gives precedential authority to prior court decisions on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions (doctrine of judicial precedent, or stare decisis).[1][2] Historically, a civil law is the group of legal ideas and systems ultimately derived from the Codex Justinianus, but heavily overlaid by Napoleonic, Germanic, canonical, feudal, and local practices,[3] as well as doctrinal strains such as natural law, codification, and legal positivism. Conceptually, civil law proceeds from abstractions, formulates general principles, and distinguishes substantive rules from procedural rules.[4] It holds case law to be secondary and subordinate to statutory law. When discussing civil law, one should keep in mind the conceptual difference between a statute and a codal article. The marked feature of civilian systems is that they use codes with brief text that tend to avoid factually specific scenarios.[5] Code articles deal in generalities and thus stand at odds with statutory schemes which are often very long and very detailed.

Question 242

Canon Law

Answer 242

Canon law is the body of laws and regulations made by ecclesiastical authority (Church leadership), for the government of a Christian organization or church and its members. It is the internal ecclesiastical law, or operational policy, governing the Catholic Church (both the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches), the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, and the individual national churches within the Anglican Communion.[1] The way that such church law is legislated, interpreted and at times adjudicated varies widely among these three bodies of churches. In all three traditions, a canon was originally a rule adopted by a church council; these canons formed the foundation of canon law. Greek kanon / Ancient Greek: κανών,[2] Arabic Qanun / قانون, Hebrew kaneh / קנה, "straight"; a rule, code, standard, or measure; the root meaning in all these languages is "reed" (cf. the Romance-language ancestors of the English word "cane").

Question 243

Halakha

Answer 243

Halakha (/hɑːˈlɔːxə/;[1] Hebrew: הֲלָכָה‎, Sephardic: [halaˈχa]; also transliterated as halacha, halakhah, halachah or halocho) (Ashkenazic: [haˈloχo]) is the collective body of Jewish religious laws derived from the Written and Oral Torah. It includes the 613 mitzvot ("commandments"), subsequent Talmudic and rabbinic law and the customs and traditions compiled in the Shulchan Aruch (literally "Prepared Table", but more commonly known as the "Code of Jewish Law"). Judaism classically draws no distinction in its laws between religious and non-religious life; Jewish religious tradition does not distinguish clearly between religious, national, racial, or ethnic identities.[2] Halakha guides not only religious practices and beliefs, but numerous aspects of day-to-day life. Halakha is often translated as "Jewish Law," although a more literal translation might be "the way to behave" or "the way of walking." The word derives from the root that means "to behave" (also "to go" or "to walk"). Historically, in the diaspora, halakha served many Jewish communities as an enforceable avenue of law – both civil and religious, since there is no differentiation in classical Judaism. Since the Age of Enlightenment, emancipation, and haskalah, many have come to view the halakha as less binding in day-to-day life, as it relies on rabbinic interpretation, as opposed to the pure, written words recorded in the Jewish bible. Under contemporary Israeli law, however, certain areas of Israeli family and personal status law are under the authority of the rabbinic courts and are therefore treated according to halakha. Some differences in halakha itself are found among Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, Sephardi, Yemenite, and other Jews who historically lived in isolated communities, such as in Ethiopia, reflecting the historic and geographic diversity of various Jewish communities within the Diaspora. The word halakha is derived from the Hebrew root halakh – "to walk" or "to go".[3] Taken literally, therefore, "halakha" translates as "the way to walk" rather than "law". The words halakha refers to the corpus of rabbinic legal texts, or to the overall system of religious law.

Question 244

Imperium

Answer 244

Imperium is a Latin word which, in a broad sense, translates roughly as 'power to command'. In ancient Rome, different kinds of power or authority were distinguished by different terms. Imperium referred to the ability of an individual to command the military. It is not to be confused with auctoritas or potestas, different and generally inferior types of power in the Roman Republic and Empire. Primarily used to refer to the power that is wielded, in greater or lesser degree, by an individual to whom it is delegated, the term could also be used with a geographical connotation, designating the territorial limits of that imperium. Individuals given such power were referred to as curule magistrates or promagistrates. These included the curule aedile, the praetor, the censor, the consul, the magister equitum, and the dictator.

Question 245

Auctoritas

Answer 245

In ancient Rome, Auctoritas referred to the general level of prestige a person had in Roman society, and, as a consequence, his clout, influence, and ability to rally support around his will. Auctoritas was not merely political, however; it had a numinous content and symbolized the mysterious "power of command" of heroic Roman figures. According to French linguist Emile Benveniste, auctor (which also gives us English "author") is derived from Latin augeō ("to augment"). The auctor is "is qui auget", the one who augments the act or the juridical situation of another.[1] Auctor in the sense of "author", comes from auctor as founder or, one might say, "planter-cultivator". Similarly, auctoritas refers to rightful ownership, based on one's having "produced" or homesteaded the article of property in question - more in the sense of "sponsored" or "acquired" than "manufactured". This auctoritas would, for example, persist through an usucapio of ill-gotten or abandoned property.

Question 246

Mancipatio

Answer 246

In Roman law, mancipatio (f. Latin manus "hand" and capere "to take hold of") was a solemn verbal contract by which the ownership of certain types of goods, called res mancipi, was transferred. Mancipatio was also the legal procedure for drawing up wills, emancipating children from their parents, and adoption.[1] Res mancipi were goods important in an early agrarian society, like land, rights over land, horses, cattle and slaves. The right of ownership (dominium) for such goods was reserved to Roman citizens (Quirites) and therefore called a "quiritian" or a "quiritary" right. The procedure of acquisition of property by scales and bronze (per aes et libram) is described as follows by Gaius: "Mancipatio is effected in the presence of not less than five witnesses, who must be Roman citizens and of the age of puberty, and also in the presence of another person of the same condition, who holds a pair of brazen scales and hence is called Libripens. The purchaser, taking hold of the thing, says: HUNC EGO HOMINEM EX IURE QUIRITIUM MEUM ESSE AIO ISQUE MIHI EMPTUS ESTO HOC AERE AENEAQUE LIBRA (I affirm that this slave is mine according to quiritary right, and he is purchased by me with this piece of bronze and scales). He then strikes the scales with the piece of bronze, and gives it to the seller as a symbol of the price" (Gaius, Institutes, I.119[2][3]). Mancipatio existed even before the Twelve Tables. It fell into disuse during the Empire and was finally abolished by the code of Justinian.

Question 247

Constitution

Answer 247

A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.[1] These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is. When these principles are written down into a single document or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to embody a written constitution; if they are written down in a single comprehensive document, it is said to embody a codified constitution. Some constitutions (such as the constitution of the United Kingdom) are uncodified, but written in numerous fundamental Acts of a legislature, court cases or treaties.[2] Constitutions concern different levels of organizations, from sovereign states to companies and unincorporated associations. A treaty which establishes an international organization is also its constitution, in that it would define how that organization is constituted. Within states, a constitution defines the principles upon which the state is based, the procedure in which laws are made and by whom. Some constitutions, especially codified constitutions, also act as limiters of state power, by establishing lines which a state's rulers cannot cross, such as fundamental rights. The term constitution comes through French from the Latin word constitutio, used for regulations and orders, such as the imperial enactments (constitutiones principis: edicta, mandata, decreta, rescripta).[9] Later, the term was widely used in canon law for an important determination, especially a decree issued by the Pope, now referred to as an apostolic constitution.

Question 248

Treaty

Answer 248

A treaty is an official, express written agreement that states use to legally bind themselves.[3] A treaty is the official document which expresses that agreement in words; and it is also the objective outcome of a ceremonial occasion which acknowledges the parties and their defined relationships. A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules are the same.[1] A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture,[15] meaning

Question 249

Jus Cogens - Peremptory Norm

Answer 249

A peremptory norm (also called jus cogens or ius cogens /ˌdʒʌs ˈkoʊdʒɛnz/ or /ˌjʌs/;[1] Latin for "compelling law") is a fundamental principle of international law that is accepted by the international community of states as a norm from which no derogation is permitted. There is no universal agreement regarding precisely which norms are jus cogens nor how a norm reaches that status, but it is generally accepted that jus cogens includes the prohibition of genocide, maritime piracy, slaving in general (to include slavery as well as the slave trade), torture, refoulement and wars of aggression and territorial aggrandizement.[2] Recent scholarship has also proposed the idea of regional jus cogens.[3] The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia stated in Prosecutor v. Furundžija that there is a jus cogens for the prohibition against torture.[11] It also stated that every state is entitled "to investigate, prosecute and punish or extradite individuals accused of torture, who are present in a territory under its jurisdiction."[11] Therefore, there is universal jurisdiction over torture. The rationale for this is that "the torturer has become, like the pirate and the slave trader before him, hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind."[14]

Question 250

Universal Jurisdiction

Answer 250

Universal jurisdiction allows states or international organizations to claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where the alleged crime was committed, and regardless of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting entity. Crimes prosecuted under universal jurisdiction are considered crimes against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage. The concept of universal jurisdiction is therefore closely linked to the idea that some international norms are erga omnes, or owed to the entire world community, as well as the concept of jus cogens – that certain international law obligations are binding on all states. [1]

Question 251

Erga Omnes

Answer 251

Erga omnes is a Latin phrase which means "towards all" or "towards everyone". In legal terminology, erga omnes rights or obligations are owed toward all. For instance a property right is an erga omnes entitlement, and therefore enforceable against anybody infringing that right. An erga omnes right (a statutory right) can here be distinguished from a right based on contract, unenforceable except against the contracting party. In international law it has been used as a legal term describing obligations owed by states towards the community of states as a whole. An erga omnes obligation exists because of the universal and undeniable interest in the perpetuation of critical rights (and the prevention of their breach). Consequently, any state has the right to complain of a breach. Examples of erga omnes norms include piracy and genocide. The concept was recognized in the International Court of Justice's decision in the Barcelona Traction case [(Belgium v Spain) (Second Phase) ICJ Rep 1970 3 at paragraph 33]:

Question 252

Jurisdictional Arbitrage

Answer 252

Jurisdictional arbitrage is the practice of taking advantage of the discrepancies between competing legal jurisdictions. It takes its name from arbitrage, the practice in finance of purchasing a good at a lower price in one market and selling it at a higher price in another. Just as in financial arbitrage, the attractiveness of jurisdiction arbitrage depends largely on its transaction costs, here the costs of switching legal service providers from one government to another.[1] The lower the exit costs for leaving the jurisdiction (unrestricted emigration, cheap travel, liquidity of assets) the more desirable and feasible it is. Conversely, high entry costs into the more favourable jurisdiction are an inhibitor on jurisdictional arbitrage; certain tax havens such as Andorra grant permanent residency rights to immigrants only if they meet certain criteria. Jurisdictional arbitrage is a significant concept in modern free market anarcho-capitalism, not to be confused with anarchism per se.

Question 253

Derogation

Answer 253

Derogation is the partial suppression of a law,[1] as opposed to abrogation—total abolition of a law by explicit repeal—and obrogation—the partial or total modification or repeal of a law by the imposition of a later and contrary one. The term is used in canon law,[1] civil law, and common law. It is sometimes used, loosely, to mean abrogation, as in the legal maxim: Lex posterior derogat priori, i.e. a subsequent law imparts the abolition of a previous one. Derogation differs from dispensation in that it applies to the law, where dispensation applies to specific people affected by the law.

Question 254

Obrogation ( Revocation )

Answer 254

In the canon law of the Catholic Church, obrogation is the enacting of a contrary law that is a revocation of a previous law.[1] It may also be the partial cancellation or amendment of a law, decree, or legal regulation by the imposition of a newer one. 1983-Canon 53 If decrees are contrary one to another, where specific matters are expressed, the specific prevails over the general; if both are equally specific or equally general, the one later in time[4] obrogates (Latin: obrogat[5] from obrogare[6]) the earlier insofar as it is contrary to it.[4]

Question 255

Abrogation ( Repeal )

Answer 255

There are two basic types of repeal, a repeal with a re-enactment (or replacement) of the repealed law, or a repeal without any replacement. Removal of secondary legislation is normally referred to as revocation rather than repeal in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Under the common law of England and Wales, the effect of repealing a statute was "to obliterate it completely from the records of Parliament as though it had never been passed."[1] This, however, is now subject to savings provisions within the Interpretation Act 1978. In parliamentary procedure, the motion to rescind, repeal, or annul is used to cancel or countermand an action or order previously adopted by the assembly.

Question 256

Implied Repeal

Answer 256

The doctrine of implied repeal is a concept in constitutional theory which states that where an Act of Parliament or an Act of Congress (or of some other legislature in a common law system) conflicts with an earlier one, the later Act takes precedence and the conflicting parts of the earlier Act are repealed (i.e., no longer law). This doctrine is expressed in the Latin phrase "leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant".[1] Implied repeal is to be contrasted with the express repeal of legislation by the legislative body.

Question 257

Dispensation ( Exemption from obligation )

Answer 257

In the jurisprudence of canon law of the Catholic Church, a dispensation is the exemption from the immediate obligation of law in certain cases.[1] Its object is to modify the hardship often arising from the rigorous application of general laws to particular cases, and its essence is to preserve the law by suspending its operation in such cases.[2]

Question 258

Privilege

Answer 258

Privilege in the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church is the legal concept whereby someone is exempt from the ordinary operation of the law over time for some specific purpose. Papal privileges resembled dispensations, since both involved exceptions to the ordinary operations of the law. But whereas "dispensations exempt[ed] some person or group from legal obligations binding on the rest of the population or class to which they belong,"[1] “[p]rivileges bestowed a positive favour not generally enjoyed by most people." "Thus licences to teach or to practise law or medicine, for example,"[2] were "legal privileges, since they confer[red] upon recipients the right to perform certain functions for pay, which the rest of the population [was] not [permitted to exercise.]"[3] Privileges differed from dispensations in that dispensations were for one time, while a privilege was lasting.[4] Yet, such licenses might also involve what should properly be termed dispensation, if they waived the canon law requirement that an individual hold a particular qualification to practice law or medicine, as, for example, a degree.

Question 259

Indult

Answer 259

An indult in Catholic canon law is a permission, or privilege, granted by the competent church authority – the Holy See or the diocesan bishop, as the case may be – for an exception from a particular norm of church law in an individual case,[1] for example, members of the consecrated life seeking to be dispensed from their religious vows, or of priests and deacons who voluntarily seek to return to the lay state (usually to marry).

Question 260

Consecrated Life

Answer 260

Consecrated life, in the canon law of the Catholic Church, is a stable form of Christian living by those faithful who are called to follow Jesus Christ in a more exacting way recognized by the Church. It "is characterized by the public profession of the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience, in a stable state of life recognized by the Church".[1] The Code of Canon Law defines it as "a stable form of living by which the faithful, following Christ more closely under the action of the Holy Spirit, are totally dedicated to God who is loved most of all, so that, having been dedicated by a new and special title to his honour, to the building up of the Church, and to the salvation of the world, they strive for the perfection of charity in the service of the kingdom of God and, having been made an outstanding sign in the Church, foretell the heavenly glory."[2] What makes the consecrated life a more exacting way of Christian living is the public religious vows or other sacred bonds whereby the consecrated persons commit themselves, for the love of God, to observe as binding the evangelical counsels of chastity, poverty and obedience from the Gospel, or at least, in the case of consecrated virgins and widows/widowers, a vow of total chastity. The Benedictine vow as laid down in the Rule of Saint Benedict, ch. 58:17, is analogous to the more usual vow of religious institutes. Consecrated persons are not part of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, unless they are also ordained bishops, priests or deacons.[3] The Catechism of the Catholic Church comments: "From the very beginning of the Church there were men and women who set out to follow Christ with greater liberty, and to imitate him more closely, by practising the evangelical counsels. They led lives dedicated to God, each in his own way. Many of them, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, became hermits or founded religious families. Thus the Church, by virtue of her authority, gladly accepted and approved them."[4] Consecrated life may be lived either in institutes or individually. While those living it are either clergy (if ordained) or lay people, the state of consecrated life is neither clerical nor lay by nature.[5]

Question 261

Escheat

Answer 261

Escheat is a common law doctrine that transfers the property of a person who died without heirs to the crown or state. It serves to ensure that property is not left in "limbo" without recognized ownership. It originally applied to a number of situations where a legal interest in land was destroyed by operation of law, so that the ownership of the land reverted to the immediately superior feudal lord. The reversion of property to the state, or (in feudal law) to a lord, on the owner's dying without legal heirs. an item of property affected by this. verb verb: escheat; 3rd person present: escheats; past tense: escheated; past participle: escheated; gerund or present participle: escheating 1. (of land) revert to a lord or the state by escheat. hand over (land) as an escheat. ``` The power of a state to acquire title to property for which there is no owner. The most common reason that an escheat takes place is that an individual dies intestate, meaning without a valid will indicating who is to inherit his or her property, and without relatives who are legally entitled to inherit in the absence of a will. A state legislature has the authority to enact an escheat statute. In feudal England, escheat was a privilege exclusively given to the king. The policy of inheritance was to preserve the wealth of noble families by permitting one individual to inherit an entire estate. There was no writing of wills that would leave property to several heirs because that would have the effect of breaking up the estate. In addition, the law established a hierarchy of heirs who stood in line to inherit the estate. If there was no living person of a designated class to inherit, the king took the property by escheat. ```

Question 262

By Operation of Law

Answer 262

The phrase "by operation of law" is a legal term that indicates that a right or liability has been created for a party, irrespective of the intent of that party, because it is dictated by existing legal principles. For example, if a person dies without a will, his or her heirs are determined by operation of law. Events that occur by operation of law do so because courts have determined over time that the rights thus created or transferred represent what the intent of the party would have been, had they thought about the situation in advance; or because the results fulfilled the settled expectations of parties with respect to their property; or because legal instruments of title provide for these transfers to occur automatically on certain named contingencies. Rights that arise by operation of law often arise by design of certain contingencies set forth in a legal instrument. If a life estate is created in a tract of land, and the person by whose life the estate is measured dies, title to the property reverts to the original grantor – or, possibly, to the grantor's legal heirs – by operation of law. Nothing needs to be put in writing to affirm that this will happen.

Question 263

Usucapio

Answer 263

Usucapio was a concept in Roman law that dealt with the acquisition of ownership of something through possession. It was subsequently developed as a principle of civil law systems, usucaption. It is similar to the common law concept of adverse possession, or acquiring land prescriptively. usucapio was the only private method of the ius civile.[1] Ownership of a thing in Roman law was usually protected forever, until a limit of thirty years was introduced in 426 AD on actions by Theodosius – in other words, preventing the owner of a thing getting it back or seeking damages after thirty years.[2] Usacapio was a form of acquisitive prescription – the passage of time entitled the holder to particular rights of acquisition.[2] This right is a new right, one without reference to any existing rights.[3] Usucapio assisted two cases: where a thing had been transferred improperly (for example, transferring a res mancipi by traditio), or where the transferor of a thing did not hold proper title (for example, sale by a non-owner).[2] There were five requirements for the acquisition of ownership by usucapio. Firstly, the claimant must have had uninterrupted possession for the required period of time. The claimant must have gained the thing with iusta causa and in good faith (bona fides). The thing claimed must be capable of ownership, and must have been at no time been stolen or taken by force.

Question 264

Res Mancipi

Answer 264

The property of lands and houses on Italic soil, beasts of burden, slaves, and rustic and praedial servitudes are all res mancipi. Gaius goes on to say that res mancipi may only be conveyed formally, that is either by the mancipatio ceremony, on in iure cessio.

Question 265

Deed

Answer 265

A deed (anciently "an evidence") is any legal instrument in writing which passes, affirms or confirms an interest, right, or property and that is signed, attested, delivered, and in some jurisdictions, sealed. It is commonly associated with transferring (conveyancing) title to property. The deed has a greater presumption of validity and is less rebuttable than an instrument signed by the party to the deed. A deed can be unilateral or bilateral. Deeds include conveyances, commissions, licenses, patents, diplomas, and conditionally powers of attorney if executed as deeds. The deed is the modern descendant of the medieval charter, and delivery is thought to symbolically replace the ancient ceremony of livery of seisin.[1]

Question 266

Seal

Answer 266

A seal is a device for making an impression in wax, clay, paper, or some other medium, including an embossment on paper, and is also the impression thus made. The original purpose was to authenticate a document. Intaglio (with the design cut into the flat background of the stone ) Cameo (/ˈkæmioʊ/) is a method of carving an object such as an engraved gem, item of jewellery or vessel. It nearly always features a raised (positive) relief image; contrast with intaglio, which has a negative image. Most seals have always given a single impression on an essentially flat surface, but in medieval Europe two-sided seals with two matrices were often used by institutions or rulers (such as towns, bishops and kings) to make two-sided or fully three-dimensional impressions in wax, with a "tag", a piece of ribbon or strip of parchment, running through them. These "pendent" seal impressions dangled below the documents they authenticated, to which the attachment tag was sewn or otherwise attached (single-sided seals were treated in the same way). Some jurisdictions consider rubber stamps[2] or specified signature-accompanying words such as "seal" or "L.S." (abbreviation of locus sigilli, "place of the seal") to be the legal equivalent of, i.e., an equally effective substitute for, a seal.

Question 267

Conveyancing

Answer 267

In law, conveyancing is the transfer of legal title of real property from one person to another, or the granting of an encumbrance such as a mortgage or a lien.[1] A typical conveyancing transaction has two major phases: the exchange of contracts (when equitable interests are created) and completion (also called settlement, when legal title passes and equitable rights merge with the legal title). The sale of land is governed by the laws and practices of the jurisdiction in which the land is located. It is a legal requirement in all jurisdictions that contracts for the sale of land be in writing. An exchange of contracts involves two copies of a contract of sale being signed, one copy of which is retained by each party. When the parties are together, both would usually sign both copies, one copy of which being retained by each party, sometimes with a formal handing over of a copy from one party to the other. However, it is usually sufficient that only the copy retained by each party be signed by the other party only — hence contracts are "exchanged". This rule enables contracts to be "exchanged" by mail. Both copies of the contract of sale become binding only after each party is in possession of a copy of the contract signed by the other party—ie., the exchange is said to be "complete". An exchange by electronic means is generally insufficient for an exchange, unless the laws of the jurisdiction expressly validate such signatures. It is the responsibility of the buyer of real property to ensure that he or she obtains a good and marketable title to the land—ie., that the seller is the owner, has the right to sell the property, and there is no factor which would impede a mortgage or re-sale. Some jurisdictions have legislated some protections for the buyer, besides the ability for the buyer to do searches relating to the property. A system of conveyancing is usually designed to ensure that the buyer secures title to the land together with all the rights that run with the land, and is notified of any restrictions in advance of purchase. Many jurisdictions have adopted a system of land registration to facilitate conveyancing and encourage reliance on public records and assure purchasers of land that they are taking good title.[2]

Question 268

Encumbrance

Answer 268

An encumbrance is a right to, interest in, or legal liability on real property that does not prohibit passing title to the property but that diminishes its value.[1] Encumbrances can be classified in several ways. They may be financial (ex: liens) or non-financial (ex: easements, private restrictions). Alternatively, they may be divided into those that affect title (ex: lien, legal or equitable charge) or those that affect the use or physical condition of the encumbered property (ex: restrictions, easements, encroachments).[2] Encumbrances include security interests, liens, servitudes (e.g. easements, wayleaves, real covenants, profits a prendre), leases, restrictions, encroachments, and air and subsurface rights. Also, those considered as potentially making the title defeasible are encumbrances, e.g. charging orders, building orders and structure alteration. Encumbrance: charge upon or claim against land arising out of private grant or a contract.

Question 269

Lien

Answer 269

A lien (/ˈliːn/ or /ˈliːən/)[Note 1] is a form of security interest granted over an item of property to secure the payment of a debt or performance of some other obligation. The owner of the property, who grants the lien, is referred to as the lienee[3] and the person who has the benefit of the lien is referred to as the lienor[4] or lien holder. The etymological root is Anglo-French lien, loyen "bond", "restraint", from Latin ligamen, from ligare "to bind". In the United States, the term lien generally refers to a wide range of encumbrances and would include other forms of mortgage or charge. In the US, a lien characteristically refers to non-possessory security interests (see generally: Security interest—categories). In other common-law countries, the term lien refers to a very specific type of security interest, being a passive right to retain (but not sell) property until the debt or other obligation is discharged. In contrast to the usage of the term in the US, in other countries it refers to a purely possessory form of security interest; indeed, when possession of the property is lost, the lien is released.[5] However, common-law countries also recognize a slightly anomalous form of security interest called an "equitable lien" which arises in certain rare instances.

Question 270

Security Interest

Answer 270

A security interest is a type of property interest created by agreement or by operation of law over assets to secure the performance of an obligation, usually the payment of a debt.[1] It gives the beneficiary of the security interest certain preferential rights in the disposition of secured assets. Such rights vary according to the type of security interest, but in most cases, a holder of the security interest is entitled to seize, and usually sell, the property to discharge the debt that the security interest secures. A secured creditor takes a security interest to enforce its rights against collateral in case the debtor defaults on the obligation. If the debtor goes bankrupt, a secured creditor takes precedence over unsecured creditors in the distribution.

Question 271

Collateral

Answer 271

In lending agreements, collateral is a borrower's pledge of specific property to a lender, to secure repayment of a loan.[1][2] The collateral serves as a lender's protection against a borrower's default—that is, it can be used to offset the loan if the borrower fails to pay the principal and interest satisfactorily under the terms of the lending agreement.

Question 272

Pledge

Answer 272

A pledge is a bailment that conveys possessory title to property owned by a debtor (the pledgor) to a creditor (the pledgee) to secure repayment for some debt or obligation and to the mutual benefit of both parties.[1][2] The term is also used to denote the property which constitutes the security. A pledge is type of security interest. Pledge is the pignus of Roman law, from which most of the modern European-based law on the subject is derived, but is generally a feature of even the most basic legal systems. It differs from hypothecation and from the more usual mortgage in that the pledge is in the possession of the pledgee. It is similar, however, in that all three can apply to personal and real property. A pledge of personal property is known as a pawn and that of real property is called an antichresis.

Question 273

Bailment

Answer 273

Bailment is distinguished from a contract of sale or a gift of property, as it only involves the transfer of possession and not its ownership. To create a bailment, the bailee must both intend to possess, and actually physically possess, the bailable chattel. Bailment describes a legal relationship in common law where physical possession of personal property, or a chattel, is transferred from one person (the "bailor") to another person (the "bailee") who subsequently has possession of the property. It arises when a person gives property to someone else for safekeeping, and is a cause of action independent of contract or tort.

Question 274

Tort

Answer 274

A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong[1] that unfairly causes someone else to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. The person who commits the act is called a tortfeasor. Although crimes may be torts, the cause of legal action is not necessarily a crime, as the harm may be due to negligence which does not amount to criminal negligence. The victim of the harm can recover their loss as damages in a lawsuit. In order to prevail, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, commonly referred to as the injured party, must show that the actions or lack of action was the legally recognizable cause of the harm. The equivalent of tort in civil law jurisdictions is delict.

Question 275

Depict

Answer 275

Delict (from Latin dēlictum, past participle of dēlinquere ‘to be at fault, offend’) is a term in civil law jurisdictions for a civil wrong consisting of an intentional or negligent breach of duty of care that inflicts loss or harm and which triggers legal liability for the wrongdoer; however, its meaning varies from one jurisdiction to another. Other civil wrongs include breach of contract and breach of trust. Liability is imposed on the basis of moral responsibility, i.e. a duty of care or to act, and fault (culpa) is the main element of liability. The term is used in mixed legal systems such as Scotland, South Africa, Louisiana and the Philippines, but tort is the equivalent legal term used in common law jurisdictions. The exact meaning of delict varies between legal systems but it is always centred on the Roman law idea of wrongful conduct.

Question 276

Breach of Trust - Civil Wrong

Answer 276

A civil wrong or wrong is a cause of action under the law of the governing body. Tort,[1] breach of contract[2] and breach of trust[3][4] are types of civil wrong. Something that amounts to a civil wrong is said to be wrongful. A wrong involves the violation of a right because wrong and right are complementary terms.[5] A statement that an act complained of is legally wrongful as regards the party complaining implicitly includes a statement that the act complained of prejudicially affects the party complaining in some legal right.[6]

Question 277

Cause of Action

Answer 277

In the law, a cause of action is a set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue to obtain money, property, or the enforcement of a right against another party.[1] The term also refers to the legal theory upon which a plaintiff brings suit (such as breach of contract, battery, or false imprisonment). The legal document which carries a claim is often called a Statement of Claim in English law, or a Complaint in U.S. federal practice and in many U.S. states. It can be any communication notifying the party to whom it is addressed of an alleged fault which resulted in damages, often expressed in amount of money the receiving party should pay/reimburse. To pursue a cause of action, a plaintiff pleads or alleges facts in a complaint, the pleading that initiates a lawsuit. A cause of action generally encompasses both the legal theory (the legal wrong the plaintiff claims to have suffered) and the remedy (the relief a court is asked to grant). Often the facts or circumstances that entitle a person to seek judicial relief may create multiple causes of action. Although it is fairly straightforward to file a Statement of Claim in most jurisdictions, if it is not done properly, then the filing party may lose his case due to simple technicalities.

Question 278

Pleading

Answer 278

In law as practiced in countries that follow the English models, a pleading is a formal written statement of a party's claims or defenses to another party's claims in a civil action. The parties' pleadings in a case define the issues to be adjudicated in the action. The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) govern pleading in England and Wales. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern pleading in United States federal courts. Each state in the United States has its own statutes and rules that govern pleading in the courts of that state.

Question 279

Complaint

Answer 279

In legal terminology, a complaint is any formal legal document that sets out the facts and legal reasons (see: cause of action) that the filing party or parties (the plaintiff(s)) believes are sufficient to support a claim against the party or parties against whom the claim is brought (the defendant(s)) that entitles the plaintiff(s) to a remedy (either money damages or injunctive relief).

Question 280

Sanction

Answer 280

Sanctions, in law and legal definition, are penalties or other means of enforcement used to provide incentives for obedience with the law, or with rules and regulations.[1] Criminal sanctions can take the form of serious punishment, such as corporal or capital punishment, incarceration, or severe fines. Within the civil law context, sanctions are usually monetary fines, levied against a party to a lawsuit or his/her attorney, for violating rules of procedure, or for abusing the judicial process. The most severe sanction in a civil lawsuit is the involuntary dismissal, with prejudice, of a complaining party's cause of action, or of the responding party's answer. This has the effect of deciding the entire action against the sanctioned party without recourse, except to the degree that an appeal or trial de novo may be allowed because of reversible error.

Question 281

Prejudice

Answer 281

Prejudice is a legal term with different meanings when used in criminal, civil or common law. Often the use of prejudice in legal context differs from the more common use of the word and thus has specific technical meanings implied by its use. Two of the more common applications of the word are as part of the terms "with prejudice" and "without prejudice". In general, an action taken with prejudice is essentially final; in particular, "dismissal with prejudice" would forbid a party from refiling the case, and might occur either because of misconduct on the part of the party who filed the claim or criminal complaint or could be the result of an out of court agreement or settlement. Dismissal without prejudice (in Latin, "salvis iuribus") would leave the party an option to refile, and is often a response to procedural or technical problems with the filing that the party could correct when filing again.

Question 282

Reversible Error ( Appeal )

Answer 282

In United States law, a reversible error is an error of sufficient gravity to warrant reversal of a judgment on appeal. It is an error by the trier of law (judge), or the trier of fact (the jury, or the judge if it is a bench trial), or malfeasance by one of the trying attorneys, which results in an unfair trial. It is to be distinguished from harmless errors which do not rise to a level which brings the validity of the judgment into question and thus do not lead to a reversal upon appeal.

Question 283

Malfeasance

Answer 283

Misfeasance, nonfeasance, and malfeasance are types of failure to discharge public obligations existing by common law, custom, or statute. When a contract creates a duty that does not exist at common law, there are three things the parties can do wrong: - Nonfeasance is the failure to act where action is required — willfully or in neglect. - Misfeasance is the willful inappropriate action or intentional incorrect action or advice. - Malfeasance is the willful and intentional action that injures a party. The rule of law laid down is that an action in contract (ex contractu) will lie for any of the three. However, an action in tort (ex delicto) will lie only in misfeasance or malfeasance. The doctrine was formerly applied to certain callings carried on publicly.[1] At present the terms misfeasance and nonfeasance are most often used with reference to the conduct of municipal authorities with reference to the discharge of their statutory obligations; and it is an established rule that an action lies in favour of persons injured by misfeasance, i.e. by negligence in discharge of the duty; but that in the case of nonfeasance the remedy is not by action but by indictment or mandamus or by the particular procedure prescribed by the statutes.

Question 284

Rights - natural - legal - positive - negative

Answer 284

Natural and legal rights are two types of rights. Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system (i.e., rights that can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws). The concept of natural law is closely related to the concept of natural rights. Natural law first appeared in ancient Greek philosophy,[1] and was referred to by Roman philosopher Cicero. It was subsequently alluded to in the Bible, and was then developed in the Middle Ages by Catholic philosophers such as Albert the Great, and Thomas Aquinas. During the Age of Enlightenment, the concept of natural laws was used to challenge the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government – and thus legal rights – in the form of classical republicanism. Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by others to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments. The idea of human rights is also closely related to that of natural rights: some acknowledge no difference between the two, regarding them as synonymous, while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights.[2] Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss. The 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an important legal instrument enshrining one conception of natural rights into international soft law. Natural rights were traditionally viewed as exclusively negative rights,[3] whereas human rights also comprise positive rights.[4] Even on a natural rights conception of human rights, the two terms may not be synonymous.

Question 285

Self Evident

Answer 285

In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof,[citation needed] and/or by ordinary human reason. Some epistemologists deny that any proposition can be self-evident. For most others, the belief that oneself is conscious is offered as an example of self-evidence. However, one's belief that someone else is conscious is not epistemically self-evident. The following proposition is often said to be self-evident: A finite whole is greater than, or equal to, any of its parts Also self evident is the statement that two plus two is equal to 4. A logical argument for a self-evident conclusion would demonstrate only an ignorance of the purpose of persuasively arguing for the conclusion based on one or more premises that differ from it (see ignoratio elenchi and begging the question).

Question 286

Negative & Positive Rights

Answer 286

Negative and positive rights (not to be confused with negative and positive liberties) are rights that respectively oblige either action (positive rights) or inaction (negative rights). These obligations may be of either a legal or moral character. The notion of positive and negative rights may also be applied to liberty rights. To take an example involving two parties in a court of law: Adrian has a negative right to x against Clay if and only if Clay is prohibited from acting upon Adrian in some way regarding x. In contrast, Adrian has a positive right to x against Clay if and only if Clay is obliged to act upon Adrian in some way regarding x. A case in point, if Adrian has a negative right to life against Clay, then Clay is required to refrain from killing Adrian; while if Adrian has a positive right to life against Clay, then Clay is required to act as necessary to preserve the life of Adrian. Rights considered negative rights may include civil and political rights such as freedom of speech, life, private property, freedom from violent crime, freedom of religion, habeas corpus, a fair trial, freedom from slavery. Rights considered positive rights, as initially proposed in 1979 by the Czech jurist Karel Vasak, may include other civil and political rights such as police protection of person and property and the right to counsel, as well as economic, social and cultural rights such as food, housing, public education, employment, national security, military, health care, social security, internet access, and a minimum standard of living. In the "three generations" account of human rights, negative rights are often associated with the first generation of rights, while positive rights are associated with the second and third generations.

Question 287

Natural Law

Answer 287

Natural law (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a philosophy asserting that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature endowed by nature; traditionally God or a transcendent source, and can be understood universally through human reason. As determined by nature, the law of nature is implied to be universal,[1] existing independently of the positive law of a given political order, society or nation-state.

Question 288

Duty of Care

Answer 288

In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law which the defendant has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed by operation of law between individuals with no current direct relationship (familial or contractual or otherwise), but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law (meaning case law). Duty of care may be considered a formalisation of the social contract, the implicit responsibilities held by individuals towards others within society. It is not a requirement that a duty of care be defined by law, though it will often develop through the jurisprudence of common law.

Question 289

Negligence

Answer 289

Negligence (Lat. negligium, from neglegerium, to neglect, literally "not to pick up something") is a failure to exercise the appropriate and or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances.[1] The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances.

Question 290

Ex Delicto

Answer 290

Ex delicto, Latin for "from a wrong" or "from a transgression," is a legal term that indicates a consequence of a tort, though the phrase can also refer to the consequence of a crime. This is often opposed to ex contractu.

Question 291

Ex Contractu

Answer 291

Ex contractu, Latin for "from a contract," is a legal term that indicates a consequence of a contract. Ex contractu is often to denote the source of a legal action (often as opposed to ex delicto). It is often said that damages ex contractu will lie for nonfeasance, misfeasance and malfeasance; whereas damages ex delicto will only lie for misfeasance and malfeasance.

Question 292

Appeal

Answer 292

In law, an appeal is the process in which cases are reviewed, where parties request a formal change to an official decision. Appeals function both as a process for error correction as well as a process of clarifying and interpreting law.

Question 293

Indictment

Answer 293

An indictment (/ɪnˈdaɪtmənt/ in-DYT-mənt), in the common law system, is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. In jurisdictions that use the concept of felonies, the most serious criminal offence is a felony; jurisdictions that do not use the concept of felonies often use that of an indictable offence—an offence that requires an indictment. Historically, in most common law jurisdictions, an indictment was handed up by a grand jury, which returned a "true bill" if it found cause to make the charge, or "no bill" if it did not find cause.

Question 294

Grand Jury

Answer 294

Grand jury is a legal body empowered to conduct official proceedings and investigate potential criminal conduct, and determine whether criminal charges should be brought. A grand jury may compel the production of documents and compel sworn testimony of witnesses to appear before it. Grand jury is separate from the courts, which do not preside over its functioning.[1]

Question 295

Preliminary Hearing

Answer 295

Within some criminal justice systems, a preliminary hearing, preliminary examination, evidentiary hearing or probable cause hearing is a proceeding, after a criminal complaint has been filed by the prosecutor, to determine whether there is enough evidence to require a trial. In the United States, the judge must find that such evidence provides probable cause to believe that the crime was committed by the defendant.

Question 296

Probable Cause

Answer 296

In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which police authorities have reason to obtain a warrant for the arrest of a suspected criminal. The standard also applies to personal or property searches.[1] Probable cause, in conjunction with a preponderance of the evidence, also refers to the standard by which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed. The term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

Question 297

Burden of Proof

Answer 297

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the duty of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party. In a legal dispute, one party is initially presumed to be correct and gets the benefit of the doubt, while the other side bears the burden of proof. When a party bearing the burden of proof meets their burden, the burden of proof switches to the other side.

Question 298

Trier of Fact

Answer 298

A trier of fact, or finder of fact, is a person, or group of persons, who determines facts in a legal proceeding, usually a trial. To determine a fact is to decide, from the evidence, whether something existed or some event occurred.[1] Various aspects of a case that are not in controversy may be the "facts of the case" and are determined by the agreement of the separate parties; the trier of fact need not decide such issues. In a jury trial, a jury is the trier of fact. The jury finds the facts and applies them to the relevant statute or law it is instructed by the judge to use in order to reach its verdict. Thus, in a jury trial, the findings of fact are made by the jury while the judge makes legal rulings as to what evidence will be heard by the jury and what legal framework governs the case.

Question 299

Jury ( Trier of Fact )

Answer 299

A jury is a sworn body of people convened to render an impartial verdict (a finding of fact on a question) officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Modern juries tend to be found in courts to ascertain the guilt, or lack thereof, in a crime. In Anglophone jurisdictions, the verdict may be guilty or not guilty (not proven; a verdict of acquittal, based on the state's failure to prove guilt rather than any proof of innocence, is also available in Scotland). The old institution of grand juries still exists in some places, particularly the United States, to investigate whether enough evidence of a crime exists to bring someone to trial.

Question 300

Remedy

Answer 300

A legal remedy, also judicial relief or a judicial remedy, is the means with which a court of law, usually in the exercise of civil law jurisdiction, enforces a right, imposes a penalty, or makes another court order to impose its will. In common law jurisdictions and mixed civil-common law jurisdictions, the law of remedies distinguishes between a legal remedy (e.g. a specific amount of monetary damages) and an equitable remedy (e.g. injunctive relief or specific performance). Another type of remedy available in these systems is declaratory relief, where a court determines the rights of the parties to an action without awarding damages or ordering equitable relief.

Question 301

Equitable Remedy

Answer 301

Equitable remedies are judicial remedies developed by courts of equity from about the time of Henry VII to provide more flexible responses to changing social conditions than was possible in precedent-based common law. Equitable remedies were granted by the Court of Chancery in England, and remain available today in most common law jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions, legal and equitable remedies have been merged and a single court can issue either, or both, remedies. Despite widespread judicial merger, the distinction between equitable and legal remedies remains relevant in a number of significant instances. Notably, the United States Constitution's Seventh Amendment preserves the right to a jury, trial rights in civil cases over $20 to cases "at common law". [ Seventh Amendment ] In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. The $20.00 threshold remains applicable despite the inflation that has occurred since the 18th century. An ingenious addition to prevent inflation from excluding future social classes of the poor from obtaining remedy by jury trial. The 7th amendment codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases, and inhibits courts from overturning a jury's findings of fact. Equitable remedies are distinguished from "legal" remedies (which are available to a successful claimant as of right) by the discretion of the court to grant them. In common law jurisdictions, there are a variety of equitable remedies , but the principal remedies are: ``` injunction specific performance account of profits rescission rectification equitable estoppel certain proprietary remedies, such as constructive trusts[6] subrogation in very specific circumstances, an equitable lien[7] equitable compensation Appointment or removal of fiduciary Interpleader ```

Question 302

Injunction

Answer 302

An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts. A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties, including possible monetary sanctions and even imprisonment. They can also be charged with contempt of court. Counterinjunctions are injunctions that stop or reverse the enforcement of another injunction.

Question 303

Latches ( Equity )

Answer 303

Laches (/ˈlætʃᵻz/, LA-chəz, like "latches"; /ˈleɪtʃᵻz/, LAY-chəz; Law French: "remissness", "dilatoriness", from Old French laschesse) refers to a lack of diligence and activity in making a legal claim, or moving forward with legal enforcement of a right, in particular with regard to equity; hence, it is an unreasonable delay that can be viewed as prejudicing the opposing [defending] party. When asserted in litigation, it is an equity defense, that is, a defense to a claim for an equitable remedy. The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has "slept on its rights," and that, as a result of this delay, circumstances have changed, witnesses or evidence may have been lost or no longer available, etc., such that it is no longer a just resolution to grant the plaintiff's claim. Laches is associated with the maxim of equity, "Equity aids the vigilant, not the sleeping ones [that is, those who sleep on their rights]." Put another way, failure to assert one’s rights in a timely manner can result in a claim being barred by laches.

Question 304

Clean Hands

Answer 304

Clean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine or the dirty hands doctrine,[1] is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy because the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands".[2] The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands". "A dirty dog will not have justice by the court".

Question 305

Specific Performance

Answer 305

Specific performance is an order of a court which requires a party to perform a specific act, usually what is stated in a contract. It is an alternative to awarding damages and is classed as an equitable remedy commonly used in the form of injunctive relief concerning confidential information or real property.

Question 306

Court of Equity

Answer 306

A court of equity, equity court or chancery court is a court that is authorized to apply principles of equity, as opposed to law, to cases brought before it. These courts began with petitions to the Lord Chancellor of England. Equity courts "handled lawsuits and petitions requesting remedies other than damages, such as writs, injunctions, and specific performance". Most were eventually "merged with courts of law".[1] Some states in the early republic of the United States followed the English tradition of maintaining separate courts for law and equity. Others, however, vested their courts with both types of jurisdiction, as Congress did with respect to the federal courts.[2] United States bankruptcy courts are the one example of US federal courts which operate as courts of equity.[1] Some common law jurisdictions—such as the U.S. states of Delaware, Mississippi, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Tennessee—preserve the distinctions between law and equity and between courts of law and courts of equity.

Question 307

Equity Law

Answer 307

In jurisdictions following the English common law system, equity refers to the body of law which was developed in the English Court of Chancery and which is now administered concurrently with the common law. Jurisdictions which have inherited the common law system differ in their current treatment of equity. Over the course of the 20th century some common law systems began to place less emphasis on the historical or institutional origin of substantive legal rules. In England, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, Equity remains a distinct body of law. Modern equity includes, amongst other things:[3] The law relating to express, resulting and constructive trusts; Fiduciary law; Equitable estoppel (including promissory and proprietary estoppel); Relief against penalties and relief against forfeiture;[4] The doctrines of contribution, subrogation and marshalling; and Equitable set-off. The latter part of the 20th century saw increased debate over the utility of treating equity as a separate body of law. These debates were labelled the "fusion wars".[5] A particular flashpoint in this debate centred around the concept of unjust enrichment and whether areas of law traditionally regarded as equitable could be rationalised as part of a single body of law known as the law of unjust enrichment.[6]

Question 308

Unjust enrichment

Answer 308

In law, unjust enrichment is a situation in which one person is enriched at the expense of another in circumstances that the law sees as unjust.[1] Where an individual is unjustly enriched, the law imposes an obligation upon the recipient to make restitution, subject to defences such as change of position. Liability for an unjust (or unjustified) enrichment arises irrespective of wrongdoing on the part of the recipient. The concept of unjust enrichment can be traced to Roman law and the maxim that "no one should be benefited at another's expense": nemo locupletari potest aliena iactura or nemo locupletari debet cum aliena iactura. Cases of unjust (or unjustified) enrichment can be examined in the following way: Was the defendant enriched? Was the enrichment at the expense of the claimant? Was the enrichment unjust ? Does the defendant have a defense? What remedies are available to the claimant?

Question 309

Fiduciary

Answer 309

A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties (person or group of persons). Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money or other asset for another person. One party, for example a corporate trust company or the trust department of a bank, acts in a fiduciary capacity to the other one, who for example has entrusted funds to the fiduciary for safekeeping or investment. A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence. — Lord Millett, Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew[4]

Question 310

Sui generis

Answer 310

Sui, genitive of suus "oneself," from PIE *swe- "oneself" In Philosophy- The expression is often used in analytic philosophy to indicate an idea, an entity, or a reality which cannot be reduced to a lower concept or included in a higher concept. In Law - In law, it is a term of art used to identify a legal classification that exists independently of other categorizations because of its singularity or due to the specific creation of an entitlement or obligation.[3] For example, a court's contempt powers arise sui generis and not from statute or rule.[4] The New York Court of Appeals has used the term in describing cooperative apartment corporations, mostly because this form of housing is considered real property for some purposes and personal property for other purposes.[5] When citing cases and other authorities, lawyers and judges may refer to "a sui generis case", or "a sui generis authority", meaning it is a special one confined to its own facts, and therefore may not be of broader application. In Statutory In statutory interpretation, it refers to the problem of giving meaning to groups of words where one of the words is ambiguous or inherently unclear.

Question 311

Mandate

Answer 311

"judicial or legal order," c. 1500, from Middle French mandat (15c.) and directly from Latin mandatum "commission, command, order," noun use of neuter past participle of mandare "to order, commit to one's charge," literally "to give into one's hand," probably from manus "hand" (from PIE root *man- (2) "hand") + dare "to give" (from PIE root *do- "to give"). Political sense of "approval supposedly conferred by voters to the policies or slogans advocated by winners of an election" is from 1796. League of Nations sense is from 1919. 1620s, "to command," from mandate (n.). Meaning "to delegate authority, permit to act on behalf of a group" is from 1958; used earlier in the context of the League of Nations, "to authorize a power to control a certain territory for some specified purpose" (1919). Related: Mandated; mandating.

Question 312

Mandamus

Answer 312

1530s, "writ from a superior court to an inferior one, specifying that something be done," (late 14c. in Anglo-French), from Latin, literally "we order," first person plural present indicative of mandare "to order" (see mandate (n.) Mandamus ("We command") is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a superior court,[1] to any government subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing), and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to reject or authorize applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications. Mandamus may be a command to do an administrative action or not to take a particular action, and it is supplemented by legal rights. In the American legal system it must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something and abstains from doing it.

Question 313

Mandatary

Answer 313

"person to whom a mandate has been given," 1610s, from Latin mandatarius "one to whom a charge or commission has been given," from mandatus, past participle of mandare (see mandate (n.)).

Question 314

Mandatory

Answer 314

1570s, "of the nature of a mandate," from Late Latin mandatorius "pertaining to a mandator," from Latin mandatus, past participle of mandare (see mandate (n.)). Sense of "obligatory because commanded" is from 1818.

Question 315

Man ( Root )

Answer 315

Proto-Indo-European root meaning "hand." Greeks mane "hand," Latin manus "hand, strength, power over; armed force; handwriting," It is the hypothetical source of Hittite maniiahh- "to distribute, entrusted;" ( Source of Messiah? ) It forms all or part of: amanuensis; command; commando; commend; countermand; demand; Edmund; emancipate; legerdemain; maintain; manacle; manage; manciple; mandamus; mandate; manege; maneuver; manicure; manifest; manipulation; manner; manque; mansuetude; manual; manubrium; manufacture; manumission; manumit; manure; manuscript; mastiff; Maundy Thursday; mortmain; Raymond; recommend; remand; Sigismund. mandare "to order, commit to one's charge," literally "to give into one's hand;" Old Norse mund "hand," Old English mund "hand, protection, guardian," German Vormund "guardian;" Old Irish muin "protection, patronage."

Question 316

Abeyance

Answer 316

a state of temporary disuse or suspension. "matters were held in abeyance pending further inquiries" synonyms: in suspension, in a state of suspension, in a state of dormancy, in a state of uncertainty, in remission; More pending, suspended, deferred, postponed, put off, put to one side, unresolved, up in the air; informalin cold storage, on ice, on the back burner "expansion plans for the middle school are in abeyance" LAW the position of being without, or waiting for, an owner or claimant. late 16th century (in the legal sense): from Old French abeance ‘aspiration to a title,’ from abeer ‘aspire after,’ from a- ‘toward’ + beer ‘to gape.’

Question 317

Settlor

Answer 317

In law a settlor is a person who settles property on trust law for the benefit of beneficiaries. In some legal systems, a settlor is also referred to as a trustor, or occasionally, a grantor or donor.[1] Where the trust is a testamentary trust, the settlor is usually referred to as the testator. The settlor may also be the trustee of the trust (where he declares that he holds his own property on trusts) or a third party may be the trustee (where he transfers the property to the trustee on trusts) A settlor may create a trust by manifesting an intention to create it. In most countries no formalities are required to create an inter vivos trust over personal property, but there are often formalities associated with trusts over real property,[3] or testamentary trusts.[4]

Question 318

Testamentary Trust

Answer 318

A will or testament is a legal document by which a person, the testator, expresses their wishes as to how their property is to be distributed at death, and names one or more persons, the executor, to manage the estate until its final distribution. For the devolution of property not disposed of by will, see inheritance and intestacy.

Question 319

Testator

Answer 319

A testator is a person who has written and executed a last will and testament that is in effect at the time of his/her death.[1] It is any "person who makes a will."[2]

Question 320

Testamentary Capacity

Answer 320

In the common law tradition, testamentary capacity is the legal term of art used to describe a person's legal and mental ability to make or alter a valid will. This concept has also been called sound mind and memory or disposing mind and memory.

Question 321

Executor

Answer 321

An executor is someone who is responsible for executing, or following through on, an assigned task or duty. An executor is a legal term referring to a person named by the maker of a will or nominated by the testator to carry out the instructions of the will. Typically, the executor is the person responsible for offering the will for probate, although it is not required that he fulfill this. The executor's duties also include disbursing property to the beneficiaries as designated in the will, obtaining information of potential heirs, collecting and arranging for payment of debts of the estate and approving or disapproving creditors' claims. An executor will make sure estate taxes are calculated, necessary forms are filed, and tax payments are made.[1] They will also assist the attorney with the estate. Additionally, the executor acts as a legal conveyor who designates where the donations will be sent using the information left in bequests, whether they be sent to charity or other organizations. In most circumstances, the executor is the representative of the estate for all purposes, and has the ability to sue or be sued on behalf of the estate. The executor holds legal title to the estate property, but may not use the title or property for his/her own benefit, unless permitted by the terms of the will. A person who deals with a deceased person's property without proper authority is known as an executor de son tort. Such a person's actions may subsequently be ratified by the lawful executors or administrators if the actions do not contradict the substantive provisions of the deceased's will or the rights of heirs at law. When there is no will, a person is said to have died intestate—"without testimony." As a result, there is no tangible "testimony" to follow, and hence there can be no executor. If there is no will or the executors named in a will do not wish to act, an administrator of the deceased's estate may instead be appointed. The generic term for executors or administrators is personal representative. In England and Wales, when a person dies intestate in a nursing home, and has no family members who can be traced, those responsible for their care automatically become their executors. Under Scottish law, a personal representative of any kind is referred to as an executor, using executor nominate to refer to an executor and executor dative to an administrator.

Question 322

Intestacy

Answer 322

Intestacy is the condition of the estate of a person who dies without having made a valid will or other binding declaration. Alternatively this may also apply where a will or declaration has been made, but only applies to part of the estate; the remaining estate forms the "intestate estate". Intestacy law, also referred to as the law of descent and distribution, refers to the body of law (statutory and case law) that determines who is entitled to the property from the estate under the rules of inheritance.

Question 323

Inheritance

Answer 323

Inheritance is the practice of passing on property, titles, debts, rights, and obligations upon the death of an individual.

Question 324

Heir

Answer 324

In law, an heir is a person who is entitled to receive a share of the deceased's (the person who died) property, subject to the rules of inheritance in the jurisdiction of which the deceased was a citizen or where the deceased (decedent) died or owned property at the time of death. A person does not become an heir before the death of the deceased, since the exact identity of the persons entitled to inherit is determined only then. Members of ruling noble or royal houses expected to become heirs are called heirs apparent if first in line and incapable of being displaced from fffnheriting by another claim; otherwise, they are heirs presumptive. There is a further concept of joint inheritance, pending renunciation by all but one, which is called coparceny.

Question 325

Administrator

Answer 325

person appointed or who petitions to administer an estate in an intestate succession. The antiquated English term of administratrix was used to refer to a female administrator but is generally no longer in standard legal usage.

Question 326

Beneficiary

Answer 326

anyone receiving a gift or benefitting from a trust

Question 327

Bequest

Answer 327

testamentary gift of personal property, traditionally other than money.

Question 328

Personal Property

Answer 328

Personal property is generally considered property that is movable,[1] as opposed to real property or real estate. In common law systems, personal property may also be called chattels or personalty. In civil law systems, personal property is often called movable property or movables – any property that can be moved from one location to another. Personal property is movable and can be understood in comparison to immovable property or real property, such as land and buildings. Movable property on land, for example, larger livestock, was not automatically sold with the land, it was "personal" to the owner and moved with the owner. The word cattle is the Old Norman variant of Old French chatel, chattel (derived from Latin capitalis, “of the head”), which was once synonymous with general movable personal property.[2] Slaves were also considered personal property.

Question 329

Immovable Property

Answer 329

Immovable property is an immovable object, an item of property that cannot be moved without destroying or altering it – property that is fixed to the earth, such as land or a house. Immovable property includes premises, property rights (for example, inheritable building right), houses, land and associated goods, and chattels if they are located on, or below, or have a fixed address. It is delimited by geographic coordinates or by reference to local landmarks, depending on the jurisdiction. In much of the world's civil law systems (based as they are on Romano-Germanic law, which is also known as Civil law or Continental law), immovable property is the equivalent of "real property"; it is land or any permanent feature or structure above or below the surface. To describe it in more detail, immovable property includes land, buildings, hereditary allowances, rights to way, lights, ferries, fisheries or any other benefit which arises out of land, and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth. It does not include standing timber, growing crops, nor grass. It includes the right to collect rent, life interest in the income of the immovable property, a right of way, a fishery, or a lease of land.

Question 330

Real Property

Answer 330

In English common law, real property, real estate, realty, or immovable property is land which is the property of some person and all structures (also called improvements or fixtures) integrated with or affixed to the land, including crops, buildings, machinery, wells, dams, ponds, mines, canals, and roads, among other things. The term is historic, arising from the now-discontinued form of action, which distinguished between real property disputes and personal property disputes. Personal property was, and continues to be, all property that is not real property

Question 331

Forms of Action

Answer 331

The forms of action were the different procedures by which a legal claim could be made for much of history of the English common law. Depending on the court, a plaintiff would purchase a writ in Chancery (or file a bill) which would set in motion a series of events eventually leading to a trial in one of the medieval common law courts. Each writ entailed a different set of procedures and remedies which together amounted to the "form of action". The forms of action were abolished during the 19th century, but they have left an indelible mark on the law. In the early Middle Ages, the focus was on the procedure that was employed to bring one's claim to the royal courts of King's Bench or Common Pleas: it was the form of one's action, not its substance, which occupied legal discussion. This restrictive approach is one of the reasons which attracted litigants to petition the King directly, which eventually led to the development of a separate court known as the Court of Chancery, from which the body of law known as Equity derives

Question 332

Claim - Cause if Legal Action

Answer 332

In the law, a cause of action is a set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue to obtain money, property, or the enforcement of a right against another party.[1] The term also refers to the legal theory upon which a plaintiff brings suit (such as breach of contract, battery, or false imprisonment). The legal document which carries a claim is often called a Statement of Claim in English law, or a Complaint in U.S. federal practice and in many U.S. states. It can be any communication notifying the party to whom it is addressed of an alleged fault which resulted in damages, often expressed in amount of money the receiving party should pay/reimburse. To pursue a cause of action, a plaintiff pleads or alleges facts in a complaint, the pleading that initiates a lawsuit. A cause of action generally encompasses both the legal theory (the legal wrong the plaintiff claims to have suffered) and the remedy (the relief a court is asked to grant). Often the facts or circumstances that entitle a person to seek judicial relief may create multiple causes of action. Although it is fairly straightforward to file a Statement of Claim in most jurisdictions, if it is not done properly, then the filing party may lose his case due to simple technicalities.

Question 333

Elements of a Claim

Answer 333

The points a plaintiff must prove to win a given type of case are called the "elements" of that cause of action. For example, for a claim of negligence, the elements are: the (existence of a) duty, breach (of that duty), proximate cause (by that breach), and damages. If a complaint does not allege facts sufficient to support every element of a claim, the court, upon motion by the opposing party, may dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Under United States law, an element of a crime (or element of an offense) is one of a set of facts that must all be proven to convict a defendant of a crime. Before a court finds a defendant guilty of a criminal offense, the prosecution must present evidence that, even when opposed by any evidence the defense may choose to present, is credible and sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed each element of the particular crime charged. The component parts that make up any particular crime vary depending on the crime.

Question 334

Demurrer - Objection

Answer 334

A demurrer is a pleading in a lawsuit that objects to or challenges a pleading filed by an opposing party. The word demur means "to object"; a demurrer is the document that makes the objection. Lawyers informally define a demurrer as a defendant saying, "So what?" to the pleading.[1] Typically, the defendant in a case will demur to the complaint, but it is also possible for the plaintiff to demur to an answer. The demurrer challenges the legal sufficiency of a cause of action in a complaint or of an affirmative defense in an answer. If a cause of action in a complaint does not state a cognizable claim (for example, the claim is nonsense) or if it does not state all the required elements, then the challenged cause of action or possibly the entire complaint can be essentially thrown out (informally speaking) at the demurrer stage as not legally sufficient. A demurrer is typically filed near the beginning of a case, in response to the plaintiff filing a complaint or the defendant answering the complaint.

Question 335

Bench Trial - Judge as trier of law and fact.

Answer 335

A bench trial is a trial by judge, as opposed to a trial by jury.[1] The term applies most appropriately to any administrative hearing in relation to a summary offense to distinguish the type of trial. Many legal systems (Roman, Islamic) use bench trials for most or all cases or for certain types of cases. While a jury renders a verdict, a judge in a bench trial does the same by making a finding.[2] judges are professional triers of fact. In a bench trial, the judge makes both findings of fact and rulings of law.[2] The findings of a judge of first instance are not normally disturbed by an appellate court.[3]

Question 336

Summary Offense

Answer 336

A summary offence is a crime in some common law jurisdictions that can be proceeded against summarily, without the right to a jury trial and/or indictment (required for an indictable offence). In the United States, "there are certain minor or petty offenses that may be proceeded against summarily, and without a jury".[9][10] Any crime punishable by more than six months imprisonment must have some means for a jury trial.[11] Federal law is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 19. Some states, such as California, provide that all common law crimes and misdemeanors require a jury trial.[12][13] Some states provide that in all offenses the defendant may demand a jury trial. (Note that the right to trial by jury is the exclusive right of the defendant, if the defendant chooses to select a bench trial (trial by judge) the prosecution cannot object.)

Question 337

Indictable Offense

Answer 337

An indictment (/ɪnˈdaɪtmənt/ in-DYT-mənt), in the common law system, is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. In jurisdictions that use the concept of felonies, the most serious criminal offence is a felony; jurisdictions that do not use the concept of felonies often use that of an indictable offence—an offence that requires an indictment. Historically, in most common law jurisdictions, an indictment was handed up by a grand jury, which returned a "true bill" if it found cause to make the charge, or "no bill" if it did not find cause.

Question 338

Grand Jury

Answer 338

Grand jury is a legal body empowered to conduct official proceedings and investigate potential criminal conduct, and determine whether criminal charges should be brought. A grand jury may compel the production of documents and compel sworn testimony of witnesses to appear before it. Grand jury is separate from the courts, which do not preside over its functioning.[1] United States and Liberia are the only countries that retain grand juries,[2][3] even though some other common law jurisdictions formerly employed them, and most others employ some other form of preliminary hearing. Grand juries perform both accusatory and investigatory functions. Investigatory functions of grand juries include obtaining and reviewing documents and other evidence, and hearing sworn testimonies of witnesses who appear before it. Grand jury's accusatory function is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that one or more persons committed a certain offence within the venue of district court. Grand jury in the United States is usually composed of 16 to 23 citizens, though in Virginia, it is composed of fewer numbers for regular or special grand juries. In Ireland, they also functioned as local government authorities. In Japan, Law of July 12, 1948 created the Kensatsu Shinsakai (Prosecutorial Review Commission or PRC system), inspired by the American system[citation needed]. Grand jury is so named because traditionally it has greater number of jurors than trial jury, called a petit jury (from the French word petit meaning "small").[4]

Question 339

Petite Jury - Petty Jury

Answer 339

In common law, a petit jury (or trial jury, sometimes petty jury) hears the evidence in a trial as presented by both the plaintiff (petitioner) and the defendant (respondent). After hearing the evidence and often jury instructions from the judge, the group retires for deliberation, to consider a verdict. The majority required for a verdict varies. In some cases it must be unanimous, while in other jurisdictions it may be a majority or supermajority. A jury that is unable to come to a verdict is referred to as a hung jury. The size of the jury varies; in criminal cases involving serious felonies there are usually 12 jurors, although Scotland uses 15. A number of countries that are not in the English common law tradition have quasi-juries on which lay judges or jurors and professional judges deliberate together regarding criminal cases. However, the common law trial jury is the most common type of jury system.[1][2]

Question 340

Precedent Law - Binding Authority

Answer 340

Common law (also known as judicial precedent or judge-made law or case law) is the body of law developed by judges, courts, and similar tribunals.[1][2][3][4][5] The defining characteristic of “common law” is that it arises as precedent. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts, and synthesizes the principles of those past cases as applicable to the current facts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is usually bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (a principle known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a "matter of first impression"), and legislative statutes are either silent or ambiguous on the question, judges have the authority and duty to resolve the issue (one party or the other has to win, and on disagreements of law, judges make that decision).[6] The court states an opinion that gives reasons for the decision, and those reasons agglomerate with past decisions as precedent to bind future judges and litigants. Common law, as the body of law made by judges,[7][8] stands in contrast to and on equal footing with statutes which are adopted through the legislative process, and regulations which are promulgated by the executive branch (the interactions are explained later in this article). Stare decisis, the principle that cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so that similar facts will yield similar results, lies at the heart of all common law systems.[9]

Question 341

Matter of First Immpression

Answer 341

A matter of first impression (known as primae impressionis in Latin) is a legal case in which there is no binding authority on the matter presented. Such a case can set forth a completely original issue of law for decision by the courts. A first impression case may be a first impression in only a particular jurisdiction. In that situation, courts will look to holdings of other jurisdictions for persuasive authority.

Question 342

Statutory Law

Answer 342

Statutory law or statute law is written law set down by a body of legislature or by a singular legislator (in the case of an absolute monarchy).[1] This is as opposed to oral or customary law; or regulatory law promulgated by the executive or common law of the judiciary. Statutes may originate with national, state legislatures or local municipalities.

Question 343

Absolute Monarchy

Answer 343

Absolute monarchy, or despotic monarchy,[1][2] is a form of monarchy in which one ruler has supreme authority and where that authority is not restricted by any written laws, legislature, or customs.[3] These are often, but not always, hereditary monarchies. In contrast, in constitutional monarchies, the head of state's authority derives from and is legally bounded or restricted by a constitution or legislature.[4]

Question 344

Constitutional Monarchy

Answer 344

A constitutional monarchy is a form of monarchy in which the sovereign exercises their authorities in accordance with a written or unwritten constitution.[1] Constitutional monarchy differs from absolute monarchy (in which a monarch holds absolute power), in that constitutional monarchs are bound to exercise their powers and authorities within the limits prescribed within an established legal framework.

Question 345

Sovereign

Answer 345

A sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority sovereignty its jurisdiction. Sovereign may also refer to: Head of state Monarch, the sovereign of a monarchy Fount of honour for honours and decorations Sovereign, Saskatchewan, community in Canada Sovereign, West Virginia, community in the United States Sovereign Bank, banking institution in the United States Sovereign (English coin), minted from 1489 to 1604

Question 346

Head of State

Answer 346

A head of state (or chief of state) is the public persona that officially represents the national unity and legitimacy of a sovereign state.[1] Depending on the country's form of government and separation of powers, the head of state may be a purely ceremonial figurehead with limited or no executive power or concurrently the head of government. In countries with parliamentary governments, the head of state is typically a ceremonial figurehead that does not actually guide day-to-day government activities and may not be empowered to exercise any kind of secular political authority (e.g., Queen Margrethe II of Denmark).[2] In countries where the head of state is also the head of government, the head of state serves as both a public figurehead and the actual highest-ranking political leader who oversees the executive branch (e.g., the President of the United States).[1]

Question 347

Parliment

Answer 347

In modern politics and history, a parliament is a legislative, elected body of government. Generally, a modern parliament has three functions: representing the electorate, making laws, and overseeing the government via hearings and inquiries. Although some restrict the use of the word parliament to parliamentary systems, it is also commonly used to describe the legislature in presidential systems (e.g. the French parliament), even where it is not in the official name. Historically, parliaments included various kinds of deliberative, consultative, and judicial assemblies, e.g. mediaeval parlements. The term is derived from Anglo-Norman parlement, from the verb parler 'talk'. The meaning evolved over time: originally any discussion, conversation, or negotiation (attested around 1100), through various kinds of deliberative or judicial groups, often summoned by the monarch. By 1400, it had come to mean in Britain specifically the British

Question 348

Ekklesia - ἐκκλησία

Answer 348

Ancient Athens was the cradle of democracy.[12] The Athenian assembly (ἐκκλησία, ekklesia) was the most important institution, and every citizen could take part in the discussions. However, Athenian democracy was not representative, but rather direct, and therefore the ekklesia was different from the parliamentary system.

Question 349

Roman Republic

Answer 349

The Roman Republic had legislative assemblies, who had the final say regarding the election of magistrates, the enactment of new statutes, the carrying out of capital punishment, the declaration of war and peace, and the creation (or dissolution) of alliances.[13] The Roman Senate controlled money, administration, and the details of foreign policy.[14] The legislative assemblies of the Roman Republic were political institutions in the ancient Roman Republic. According to the contemporary historian Polybius, it was the people (and thus the assemblies) who had the final say regarding the election of magistrates, the enactment of Roman laws, the carrying out of capital punishment, the declaration of war and peace, and the creation (or dissolution) of alliances. Under the Constitution of the Roman Republic, the people (and thus the assemblies) held the ultimate source of sovereignty.

Question 350

Duet Mon Droit

Answer 350

Dieu et mon droit (French pronunciation: ​[djø e mɔ̃ dʁwa]), meaning God and my right[1][2] or literally fr:Dieu et mon droit (My divine right) is the motto of the Monarch of the United Kingdom[2] outside Scotland. It appears on a scroll beneath the shield of the version of the coat of arms of the United Kingdom used outside Scotland.[1] The motto is said to have first been used by Richard I (1157–1199) as a battle cry and presumed to be a reference to the divine right of the Monarch to govern.[3] It was adopted as the royal motto of England by King Henry V (1386–1422)[2][3][4] with the phrase "and my right" referring to his claim to the French crown.[4]

Question 351

Dynastic Order

Answer 351

A dynastic order, monarchical order, or house order, is an order under royal patronage, bestowed by the head of a currently or formerly sovereign royal family as legitimate fons honorum.[1][2] These are often considered part of the cultural patrimony[disambiguation needed] of the royal family.[3] They are orders of chivalry, and orders of merit just as those distributed by sovereign states, but dynastic orders were often founded or maintained to reward service to a monarch, or the monarch's subsequent dynasty.[1] An example of this difference is seen between the Royal Victorian Order, in which appointments are made as a personal gift of the sovereign, thus is a dynastic order, and the Order of the British Empire, in which appointments are made by the sovereign on the basis of recommendations by the Prime Minister, and thus a national order.[4] The equivalent is called state order for orders conferred by sovereign states but not bestowed by royal dynasties.

Question 352

Executive Power

Answer 352

The executive is the organ exercising authority in and holding responsibility for the governance of a state. The executive executes and enforces law. In political systems based on the principle of separation of powers, authority is distributed among several branches (executive, legislative, judicial) — an attempt to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a small group of people. In such a system, the executive does not pass laws (the role of the legislature) or interpret them (the role of the judiciary). Instead, the executive enforces the law as written by the legislature and interpreted by the judiciary. The executive can be the source of certain types of law, such as a decree or executive order. Executive bureaucracies are commonly the source of regulations.

Question 353

Separation of Powers

Answer 353

The separation of powers, often imprecisely and metonymically used interchangeably with the trias politica principle,[1] is a model for the governance of a state (or who controls the state). Under this model, the state is divided into branches, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that the powers of one branch are not in conflict with the powers associated with the other branches. The typical division is into three branches: a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary, which is the trias politica model. It can be contrasted with the fusion of powers in some parliamentary systems where the executive and legislature (and sometimes parts of the judiciary) are unified. Separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. The intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.

Question 354

Judiciary

Answer 354

The judiciary (also known as the judicial system or court system) is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in the name of the state. The judiciary also provides a mechanism for the resolution of disputes. In some nations, under doctrines of separation of powers, the judiciary generally does not make law (which is the responsibility of the legislature) or enforce law (which is the responsibility of the executive), but rather interprets law and applies it to the facts of each case. In other nations, the judiciary can make law, known as Common Law, by setting precedent for other judges to follow, as opposed to Statutory Law made by the legislature. The Judiciary is often tasked with ensuring equal justice under law.

Question 355

Judicial Dispute Resolution

Answer 355

The legal system provides resolutions for many different types of disputes. Some disputants will not reach agreement through a collaborative process. Some disputes need the coercive power of the state to enforce a resolution. Perhaps more importantly, many people want a professional advocate when they become involved in a dispute, particularly if the dispute involves perceived legal rights, legal wrongdoing, or threat of legal action against them. The most common form of judicial dispute resolution is litigation. Litigation is initiated when one party files suit against another. In the United States, litigation is facilitated by the government within federal, state, and municipal courts. The proceedings are very formal and are governed by rules, such as rules of evidence and procedure, which are established by the legislature. Outcomes are decided by an impartial judge and/or jury, based on the factual questions of the case and the application law. The verdict of the court is binding, not advisory; however, both parties have the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court. Judicial dispute resolution is typically adversarial in nature, for example, involving antagonistic parties or opposing interests seeking an outcome most favorable to their position.

Question 356

Codified Law

Answer 356

The term codified law refers to statutes that have been organized ("codified") by subject matter; in this narrower sense, some but not all statutes are considered "codified." The entire body of codified statute is referred to as a "code," such as the United States Code, the Ohio Revised Code or the Code of Canon Law. The substantive provisions of the Act could be codified (arranged by subject matter) in one or more titles of the United States Code while the provisions of the law that have not reached their "effective date" (remaining uncodified) would be available by reference to the United States Statutes at Large. Another meaning of "codified law" is a statute that takes the common law in a certain area of the law and puts it in statute or code form

Question 357

1983 Code of Canon Law

Answer 357

The 1983 Code of Canon Law (abbreviated 1983 CIC from its Latin title Codex Iuris Canonici), also called the Johanno-Pauline Code,[1] is the "fundamental body of ecclesiastical laws for the Latin Church".[2] It is the second and current comprehensive codification of canonical legislation for the Latin Church sui juris of the Catholic Church. It was promulgated on 25 January 1983 by John Paul II[3] and took legal effect on the First Sunday of Advent (27 November)[4] 1983. It replaced the 1917 Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Benedict XV on 27 May 1917. On 25 January 1983,[7] with the Apostolic Constitution Sacrae disciplinae leges[8] John Paul II promulgated the current Code of Canon Law for all members of the Catholic Church who belonged to the Latin Church. It entered into force the first Sunday of the following Advent,[3] which was 27 November 1983.[4] In the Apostolic Constitution, the Pope described the new Code as "the last document of Vatican II". This apostolic constitution instituted the 1983 Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church.[9] John Paul II would later promulgate a code of canon law for the 22 sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches—the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches—by means of the Ap. Const. Sacri Canones of 18 October 1990.[10]

Question 358

Supreme Pontif

Answer 358

the Supreme Pontiff—who possesses the totality of legislative, executive, and judicial power in his person.

Question 359

Interpretation - Canon Law

Answer 359

In relation to the canon law of the Catholic Church, canonists give rules for the exact interpretation and acceptation of words, in order that decrees may be correctly understood and the extent of their obligation determined.

Question 360

Force - Law

Answer 360

In law, force means unlawful violence, or lawful compulsion. "Forced entry" is an expression falling under the category of unlawful violence; "in force" or "forced sale" would be examples of expressions in the category of lawful compulsion. When something is said to have been done "by force", it usually implies that it was done by actual or threatened violence ("might"), not necessarily by legal authority ("right"). For example, a person forced against their will to commit an unlawful act, which they would not have committed if not threatened, would not be considered criminally culpable for those actions[citation needed]. "Force of arms" is a special case that can be an example of unlawful violence or lawful compulsion dependent on who is exercising the violence (or threat thereof) and their legal right and/or responsibility to do so.

Question 361

Compel

Answer 361

From Middle English compellen, a borrowing from Middle French compellir, from Latin compellere, itself from com- (“together”) + pellere (“to drive”). Displaced native Middle English fordriven ("to drive out, to lead to, to compel, to force").

Question 362

Force of Arms

Answer 362

"Force of arms" is a special case that can be an example of unlawful violence or lawful compulsion dependent on who is exercising the violence (or threat thereof) and their legal right and/or responsibility to do so.

Question 363

Violence

Answer 363

Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation", although the group acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional understanding of the word.[2] This definition involves intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces. However, generally, anything that is excited in an injurious or damaging way may be described as violent even if not meant to be violence (by a person and against a person).

Question 364

Per Se

Answer 364

through itself - Also "by itself" or "in itself". Without referring to anything else, intrinsically, taken without qualifications etc. A common example is negligence per se. See also malum in se.

Question 365

Interpretation

Answer 365

In relation to the canon law of the Catholic Church, canonists give rules for the exact interpretation and acceptation of words, in order that decrees may be correctly understood and the extent of their obligation determined. The words of a law must be understood according to their usual signification, unless it is certain that the legislator intended them to be taken in another sense. When the words are not ambiguous, they must not be twisted into some far-fetched meaning. If the intention of the legislator is known, the interpretation must be according to that, rather than according to the words of a law, even though they seem to have another sense, because the words are then said not to be nude, but clothed with the will of the lawgiver. When a law is conceived in general terms, it is presumed that no exception was intended; that is, where the law makes no exception, interpreters are not allowed to distinguish. In all interpretations, however, that meaning of the words is to be preferred which favours equity rather than strict justice. An argument can be drawn from the contrary sense of the words, provided that nothing follows which is absurd, inappropriate, or contradicted by another law. The provisions of a previous statute are not presumed to be changed beyond the express meaning of the words of a new law.

Question 366

Justice

Answer 366

Justice is the legal or philosophical theory by which fairness is administered.[3][4][5] The concept of justice differs in every culture. An early theory of justice was set out by the Ancient Greek philosopher Plato in his work The Republic. Advocates of divine command theory argue that justice issues from God. In the 17th century, theorists like John Locke argued for the theory of natural law. Thinkers in the social contract tradition argued that justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone concerned. In the 19th century, utilitarian thinkers including John Stuart Mill argued that justice is what has the best consequences. Theories of distributive justice concern what is distributed, between whom they are to be distributed, and what is the proper distribution. Egalitarians argued that justice can only exist within the coordinates of equality. John Rawls used a social contract argument to show that justice, and especially distributive justice, is a form of fairness. Property rights theorists (like Robert Nozick) take a deontological view of distributive justice and argue that property rights-based justice maximizes the overall wealth of an economic system. Theories of retributive justice are concerned with punishment for wrongdoing. Restorative justice (also sometimes called "reparative justice") is an approach to justice that focuses on restoring what is good, and necessarily focuses on the needs of victims and offenders

Question 367

Court of the Kings Bench

Answer 367

The Court of King's Bench (or Court of Queen's Bench during the reign of a female monarch), formally known as The Court of the King Before the King Himself, was an English court of common law in the English legal system. Created in the late 12th to early 13th century from the curia regis, initially following the monarch on his travels, the King's Bench finally joined the Court of Common Pleas and Exchequer of Pleas in Westminster Hall in 1318, making its last travels in 1421.

Question 368

Court of Common Pleas

Answer 368

The Court of Common Pleas, or Common Bench, was a common law court in the English legal system that covered "common pleas"; actions between subject and subject, which did not concern the king. Created in the late 12th to early 13th century after splitting from the Exchequer of Pleas, the Common Pleas served as one of the central English courts for around 600 years. Authorised by Magna Carta to sit in a fixed location, the Common Pleas sat in Westminster Hall[1] for its entire existence, joined by the Exchequer of Pleas and Court of King's Bench.[1]

Question 369

Exchequer of Pleas

Answer 369

The Exchequer of Pleas or Court of Exchequer was a court that dealt with matters of equity, a set of legal principles based on natural law and common law in England and Wales. Originally part of the curia regis, or King's Council, the Exchequer of Pleas split from the curia during the 1190s, to sit as an independent, central court. The Court of Chancery's reputation for tardiness and expense resulted in much of its business transferring to the Exchequer. The Exchequer and Chancery, with similar jurisdictions, drew closer together over the years, until an argument was made during the 19th century that having two seemingly identical courts was unnecessary. As a result, the Exchequer lost its equity jurisdiction. With the Judicature Acts, the Exchequer was formally dissolved as a judicial body by an Order in Council of 16 December 1880. The Exchequer's jurisdiction, at various times, was common law, equity, or both. Initially a court of both common law and equity, it lost much of its common law jurisdiction after the formation of the Court of Common Pleas, and from then on concerned itself with equitable matters and those common law matters it had discretion to try, such as actions brought against Exchequer officials and actions brought by the monarch against non-paying debtors

Question 370

Natural Law

Answer 370

Natural law (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a philosophy asserting that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature endowed by nature; traditionally God or a transcendent source, and can be understood universally through human reason. As determined by nature, the law of nature is implied to be universal,[1] existing independently of the positive law of a given political order, society or nation-state.

Question 371

Curia Regis

Answer 371

Curia regis is a Latin term meaning "royal council" or "king's court." It was the name given to councils of advisors and administrators who served early French kings as well as to those serving Norman and later kings of England.

Question 372

The Witenaġemot

Answer 372

The Witenaġemot (Old English witena ġemōt Old English pronunciation: [ˈwitena jeˈmoːt] modern English /ˈwɪtənəɡəˈmoʊt/ "meeting of wise men"), also known as the Witan (more properly the title of its members) was a political institution in Anglo-Saxon England which operated from before the 7th century until the 11th century. The Witenagemot was an assembly of the ruling class whose primary function was to advise the king and whose membership was composed of the most important noblemen in England, both ecclesiastic and secular. The institution is thought to represent an aristocratic development of the ancient Germanic general assemblies, or folkmoots. In England, by the 7th century, these ancient folkmoots had developed into convocations of the land's most powerful and important people, including ealdormen, thegns, and senior clergy, to discuss matters of both national and local significance.

Question 373

Thing

Answer 373

From Middle English thing, from Old English þing, from Proto-Germanic *þingą; compare West Frisian ding, Low German Ding, Dutch ding, German Ding, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian ting. The word originally meant "assembly", then came to mean a specific issue discussed at such an assembly, and ultimately came to mean most broadly "an object". Compare the Latin rēs, also meaning legal matter. Modern use to refer to a Germanic assembly is likely influenced by cognates (from the same Proto-Germanic root) like Old Norse þing (“thing”), Swedish ting, and Old High German ding with this meaning. A thing /ˈθɪŋ/ was the governing assembly of a northern Germanic society, made up of the free people of the community presided over by lawspeakers. The word appears in Old Norse, Old English, and modern Icelandic as þing (where þ is pronounced like "th" /θ/), in Middle English (as in modern English), Old Saxon, Old Dutch, and Old Frisian as thing, in Old High German, Middle High German, Pennsylvania Dutch, Middle Dutch, modern Dutch, and Afrikaans as ding and modern German as Ding, and in modern Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, Faroese, Gutnish, and Norn as ting, all from a reconstructed Proto-Germanic neuter *þingą; the word is the same as the more common English word thing, both having at their heart the basic meaning of "an assemblage, a coming together of parts"—in the one case, an "assembly" or "meeting", in the other, an "entity", "object", or "thing". The meeting-place of a thing was called a "thingstead" (Old English þingstede) or "thingstow" (Old English þingstōw). The Anglo-Saxon folkmoot /ˈfoʊkˌmuːt/ (Old English folcgemōt, "folk meeting"; Middle English folkesmōt; modern Norwegian folkemøte) was analogous, the forerunner to the witenagemōt and a precursor of the modern Parliament of the United Kingdom. Today the term lives on in the English term hustings, in the official names of national legislatures and political and judicial institutions of Nordic countries and, in the Manx form tyn, as a term for the three legislative bodies on the Isle of Man.

Question 374

Husting

Answer 374

A husting originally referred to a native Germanic governing assembly, the thing. By metonymy, the term may now refer to any event, such as debates or speeches, during an election campaign where one or more of the representative candidates are present. The term is used synonymously with stump in the United States. A political stump speech is a standard speech used by a politician running for office. Typically a candidate who schedules many appearances prepares a short standardized stump speech that is repeated verbatim to each audience, before opening to questions.[1]

Question 375

Res ( Latin )

Answer 375

rēs f (genitive reī); fifth declension thing, matter, issue, affair, stuff Cato the Elder Rem tene, verba sequentur Grasp the matter, the words will follow Dixit duas res ei rubori fuisse. He said that two things had abashed him. state, republic, commonwealth Attributed to Ennius by Augustinus in De Civitate Dei; Book II, Chapter XXI Moribus antiquis res stat Romana virisque. The Roman state remains by means of its ancient customs and heroes.

Question 376

Ealdorman

Answer 376

An ealdorman (from Old English ealdorman, lit. "elder man"; plural: "ealdormen") was a high-ranking royal official and prior magistrate of an Anglo-Saxon shire or group of shires from about the ninth century to the time of King Cnut. The term "ealdorman" was rendered in Latin as dux in early West Saxon charters, and as præfectus (which is also the equivalent of gerefa, modern reeve, from which sheriff or shire reeve is derived)

Question 377

Reeve

Answer 377

Originally in Anglo-Saxon England the reeve was a senior official with local responsibilities under the Crown, e.g., as the chief magistrate of a town or district. Subsequently, after the Norman conquest, it was an office held by a man of lower rank, appointed as manager of a manor and overseer of the peasants. In this later role, historian H. R. Loyn observes, "he is the earliest English specialist in estate management". After the Norman conquest, feudalism was introduced, forming a parallel administrative system to the local courts. The feudal system organised land on a manorial basis, with stewards acting as managers for the landlords. The Norman term describing the court functionary—bailiff—came to be used for reeves associated with lower level courts, and with the equivalent role in the feudal courts of landlords.

Question 378

Bailiff

Answer 378

A bailiff (from Middle English baillif, Old French baillis, bail "custody, charge, office"; cf. bail, based on the adjectival form, baiulivus, of Latin bajulus, carrier, manager) is a manager, overseer or custodian; a legal officer to whom some degree of authority or jurisdiction is given. Bailiffs are of various kinds and their offices and duties vary greatly.[1] Another official sometimes referred to as a bailiff was the vogt: see Vogt and Vogt (Switzerland). In the Holy Roman Empire a similar function was performed by the Amtmann.

Question 379

Vogt

Answer 379

A Vogt (German: [ foːkt], from the Old High German, also Voigt or Fauth; plural Vögte; Dutch (land) voogd; Danish foged; Norwegian fogd; Swedish fogde; Polish: wójt; Finnish vouti; Romanian voit; ultimately from Latin [ad]vocatus) in the Holy Roman Empire was a title of a reeve or advocate, an overlord (mostly of nobility) exerting guardianship or military protection as well as secular justice (Blutgericht) over a certain territory. The territory or area of responsibility of a Vogt is called a Vogtei (from [ad]vocatia). The term also denotes a mayor of a village.

Question 380

High Justice

Answer 380

Right of Capital Punishment - Right of the sword Right to mint coins High justice, also known as ius gladii ("right of the sword") or in German as Blutgerichtsbarkeit, Blutgericht (lit. "blood justice", "blood-court";[1] sometimes also Halsgericht, lit. "neck-justice", or peinliches Gericht[2]) is the highest penal authority, including capital punishment, as held by a sovereign—the sword of justice and hand of justice are regalia that symbolize it. In the early Holy Roman Empire, high justice was reserved to the king. From the 13th century, it was transferred to the king's vassals along with their fiefs. The first codification of capital punishment was the Halsgerichtsordnung passed by Maximilian I in 1499, followed in 1507 by the Constitutio Criminalis Bambergensis. Both codes formed the basis of the Constitutio Criminalis Carolina (CCC), passed in 1532 under Charles V. In the Habsburg Monarchy, all regional codes were superseded by the Constitutio Criminalis Theresiana in 1768. The Blutbanner ("blood banner") or Blutfahne ("blood flag") was a solid red flag. It was presented to feudal lords as a symbol of their power of high jurisdiction (Blutgerichtsbarkeit) together with the heraldic banner of the fief. Some feudal houses adopted a red field symbolic of the blood banner into their coat of arms, the so-called Regalienfeld. The Talschaft (forest canton) of Schwyz used the blood banner as a war flag from ca. 1240, and was later incorporated into the flag of Schwyz and the flag of Switzerland. Often it is proudly displayed, in the form of relevant status symbols. Thus permanent gallows are often erected in prominent public places; the very word for them in French, potence, is derived from the Latin "potentia" meaning "power". High justice is held by all states and the highest vassals in the European type of feudal society, but may also be acquired by other authorities as part of a high degree of legal autonomy, such as certain cities; which in time often obtained other high privileges originally reserved for high nobility and sometimes high clergy. Other such privileges could include a seat in a diet or a similar feudal representative assembly, before the third estate as such even aspired to such "parliamentary" representation, or the right to mint coins. These privileges indicating its so-called liberty was an "equal" enclave in the territorial jurisdiction of the neighboring feudal (temporal or ecclesiastical) Lord, sometimes even extending rather like a polis in Antiquity

Question 381

Lord of the Manor

Answer 381

In Anglo-Irish history, the lordship of a manor is a lordship emanating from the feudal system of manorialism. In modern England and Wales, it is recognised as a form of property,[1] one of three elements of a manor that may exist separately or be combined, and may be held in moieties: the title (deriving from the Roman concept of dignitas); the manorial, comprising the manor and/or its land; and the seignory, rights granted to the titular holder of the manor. A title similar to such a lordship is known in French as Seigneur du Manoir, Welsh as Breyr, Gutsherr in German, Godsherre in Norwegian and Swedish, Ambachtsheer in Dutch and Signore or Vassallo in Italian. In Italy, especially in the kingdom of Sicily before 1812, the feudal title signore was often used; like its English equivalent, it came into wide use under the Normans as seigneur

Question 382

Moiety Title

Answer 382

Moiety title is a legal term describing a portion other than a whole of ownership of property. The word derives from Old French moitié, "half" (the word has the same meaning in modern French), from Latin medietas ("middle"), from medius.[1] In English law, the term is used in parsing aspects of ownership and liability in all forms of property.[2] In the Australian system of land title, the term is typically applied to maisonettes or attached cottages whereby the owner owns a share of the total land on the title and leases a certain portion of the land back for themselves from the other owner(s). Some finance institutions do not offer loans for properties on moiety titles as security.[3] Moiety is a Middle English word for one of two equal parts under the feudal system.[4] Thus on the death of a feudal baron with only two daughters as heiresses, a moiety of his fiefdom would generally pass to each daughter, to be held by her husband. This would involve the division of the barony, generally consisting of several manors, into two groups of manors, which division would presumably be effected by negotiation between the two parties concerned. Such was the case in the barony of Newmarch, the caput or chief manor of which was at North Cadbury, Somerset, when James de Newmarch died in 1216.[5] Such a division into moieties was unnecessary when a noble died with surviving male issue (including grandsons or great-grandsons via the male-only line), with instead the applicable default principle being that of primogeniture.

Question 383

Caput

Answer 383

Caput, a Latin word meaning literally "head" and by metonymy "top",[1] has been borrowed in a variety of English words, including capital, captain, and decapitate. The surname Caputo, common in the Campania region of Italy, comes from the appellation used by some Roman military generals. A variant form has surfaced more recently in the title Capo (or Caporegime), the head of La Cosa Nostra. The French language converted 'caput' into chief, chef, and chapitre, later borrowed in English as chapter. The central settlement in an Anglo-Saxon multiple estate was called a caput,[2] (short for caput baroniae, see below). The word is also used for the centre of administration of a hundred. Caput was also the name of the council or ruling body of the University of Cambridge prior to the constitution of 1856 and remains the presiding body of the Senate of the University of Dublin Caput baronium is the seat of a barony in Scotland. Caput baroniae is the seat of an English feudal barony. (Baronia, nominative case of a feminine Latin noun, is correctly baroniae in the genitive.)

Question 384

Dignitas

Answer 384

Dignitas is a Latin word referring to a unique, intangible, and culturally subjective social concept in the ancient Roman mindset. The word does not have a direct translation in English. Some interpretations include "dignity", which is a derivation from "dignitas", and "prestige" or "charisma". With respect to ancient Rome, dignitas was regarded as the sum of the personal clout and influence that a male citizen acquired throughout his life. When weighing the dignitas of a particular individual, factors such as personal reputation, moral standing, and ethical worth had to be considered, along with the man's entitlement to respect and proper treatment.

Question 385

Auctoritas ( Authority )

Answer 385

In ancient Rome, Auctoritas referred to the general level of prestige a person had in Roman society, and, as a consequence, his clout, influence, and ability to rally support around his will. Auctoritas was not merely political, however; it had a numinous content and symbolized the mysterious "power of command" of heroic Roman figures. The word authority (derived from the Latin word auctoritas) can be used to mean the right to exercise power given by the State (in the form of government, judges, police officers, etc.), or by academic knowledge of an area (someone that can be an authority on a subject). When the word authority is used in the name of an organization, this name usually refers to the governing body upon which such authority is vested; for example, the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority or the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. It is also the right to do something.

Question 386

Legitimacy ( Political )

Answer 386

In political science, legitimacy is the right and acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a régime. Whereas "authority" denotes a specific position in an established government, the term "legitimacy" denotes a system of government — wherein "government" denotes "sphere of influence". An authority viewed as legitimate often has the right and justification to exercise power. Political legitimacy is considered a basic condition for governing, without which a government will suffer legislative deadlock(s) and collapse. In political systems where this is not the case, unpopular régimes survive because they are considered legitimate by a small, influential élite.

Question 387

Power

Answer 387

In social science and politics, power is the ability to influence or outright control the behavior of people. The term "authority" is often used for power perceived as legitimate by the social structure. Power can be seen as evil or unjust, but the exercise of power is accepted as endemic to humans as social beings. The use of power need not involve force or the threat of force (coercion). At one extreme, it closely resembles what an English-speaking person might term "influence", although some authors distinguish "influence" as a means by which power is used.[2] One such example is soft power, as compared to hard power.

Question 388

Social Influence

Answer 388

Social influence occurs when a person's emotions, opinions, or behaviors are affected by others.[1] Social influence takes many forms and can be seen in conformity, socialization, peer pressure, obedience, leadership, persuasion, sales, and marketing. In 1958, Harvard psychologist Herbert Kelman identified three broad varieties of social influence.[2] Compliance is when people appear to agree with others but actually keep their dissenting opinions private. Identification is when people are influenced by someone who is liked and respected, such as a famous celebrity. Internalization is when people accept a belief or behavior and agree both publicly and privately.

Question 389

Hard Power

Answer 389

Hard power is the use of military and economic means to influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies. This form of political power is often aggressive (coercion), and is most effective when imposed by one political body upon another of lesser military and/or economic power.[1] Hard power contrasts with soft power, which comes from diplomacy, culture and history.[1]

Question 390

Soft Power

Answer 390

Soft power is a concept developed by Joseph Nye of Harvard University to describe the ability to attract and co-opt rather than by coercion (hard power), using force or giving money as a means of persuasion. Soft power is the ability to shape the preferences of others through appeal and attraction. A defining feature of soft power is that it is noncoercive; the currency of soft power is culture, political values, and foreign policies. Recently, the term has also been used in changing and influencing social and public opinion through relatively less transparent channels and lobbying through powerful political and non-political organizations. In 2012, Nye explained that with soft power, "the best propaganda is not propaganda", further explaining that during the Information Age, "credibility is the scarcest resource."[1]

Question 391

Propaganda

Answer 391

Propaganda is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view".[1] Propaganda is often associated with the psychological mechanisms of influencing and altering the attitude of a population toward a specific cause, position or political agenda in an effort to form a consensus to a standard set of belief patterns.[2] Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (perhaps lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded messages or "loaded language" to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented.[2] Propaganda is often associated with material prepared by governments, but activist groups and companies can also produce propaganda

Question 392

Èlite

Answer 392

In political and sociological theory, the elite (French élite, from Latin eligere) are a small group of powerful people that control a disproportionate amount of wealth, privilege or political power in a society. American sociologist C. Wright Mills wrote in his 1957 book The Power Elite of the "elite" as: "those political, economic, and military circles, which as an intricate set of overlapping small but dominant groups share decisions having at least national consequences. Insofar as national events are decided, the power elite are those who decide them".[1] Mills states that the power elite members recognize other members' mutual exalted position in society.[2] "As a rule, '[t]hey accept one another, understand one another, marry one another, tend to work and to think, if not together at least alike'."[3][4] "It is a well-regulated existence where education plays a critical role. Youthful upper-class members attend prominent preparatory schools, which not only open doors to such elite universities as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton but also to the universities' highly exclusive clubs. These memberships in turn pave the way to the prominent social clubs located in all major cities and serving as sites for important business contacts".[5][6]

Question 393

Privilege

Answer 393

Privilege is a social theory that special rights or advantages are available only to a particular person or group of people. The term is commonly used in the context of social inequality, particularly in regard to age, disability, ethnic or racial category, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion and/or social class.[1] Two common examples may include having access to a higher education and housing.[1] Privilege can also be emotional or psychological, regarding comfort and personal self-confidence, or having a sense of belonging or worth in society.[2] It began as an academic concept, but has since become popular outside of academia.[3] Substantial analysis of privilege and specific social groups have been published and have included a variety of perspectives. Some commentators have addressed limitations in the term, such as its inability to distinguish between concepts of "spared injustice" and "unjust enrichment", and its tendency to conflate disparate groups.[4]

Question 394

Bail ( Trial Court )

Answer 394

Bail is money or some form of property that is deposited or pledged to a court, in order to secure the release from custody or jail of a suspect who has been arrested, with the understanding that the suspect will return for their trial and required court appearances. Bail is a mechanism to release suspects from imprisonment pre-trial, while ensuring their return for trial. If the suspect does not return to court, the bail is forfeited, and the suspect may possibly be brought up on charges of the crime of failure to appear.

Question 395

Feoffment

Answer 395

In the Middle Ages, especially under the European feudal system, feoffment or enfeoffment was the deed by which a person was given land in exchange for a pledge of service. This mechanism was later used to avoid restrictions on the passage of title in land by a system in which a landowner would give land to one person for the use of another. The common law of estates in land grew from this concept.

Question 396

Settlor ( Wiki )

Answer 396

The entity that establishes a trust. The settlor also goes by several other names: donor, grantor, trustor and trustmaker. Regardless of what this entity is called, its role is to legally transfer control of an asset to a trustee, who manages it for one or more beneficiaries. In certain types of trusts, the settlor may also be the beneficiary, the trustee, or both. The settlor of a trust is the person who creates the trust. To do so, the settlor does two things. First, the settlor establishes the legal document that contains the trust's terms. Second, the settlor then transfers property into the trust, which is also known as funding the trust. Technically, once the trust document is signed and the trust funded, the settlor's role is complete. However, in many cases, the settlor also maintains one or more additional roles that continue beyond the initial establishment of the trust. Revocable trusts and settlors The most common example of the settlor having multiple roles involves revocable trusts. Also known as living trusts, a revocable trust typically has the settlor also acting as the trustee of the trust as well as remaining one of the trust's primary beneficiaries. With a revocable trust, the settlor usually retains the right to make changes to any of the trust's terms at any time, including even the ability to terminate the trust and take back all of its property. Even though the settlor maintains substantial control in a typical revocable trust situation, the trust document will clearly state limitations on that power. For instance, if the settlor becomes unable to manage his or her own financial affairs, then a successor trustee can take control of the trust pursuant to its terms. The trust document will often include provisions that state conditions under which power can pass to a successor trustee. Irrevocable trusts and settlors With an irrevocable trust, the situation is quite different for the settlor. Most of the time, a settlor will establish an irrevocable trust for someone else's benefit. In that case, the trustee must follow the terms of the trust document, and the settlor does not retain the ability to make changes to the trust after its formation. In practice, though, the settlor often has substantial influence in an irrevocable trust's operations. Those who are involved in the ongoing management of the trust typically want to honor the settlor's wishes, and therefore, the settlor's views on certain issues will carry weight. The term settlor is legal jargon, but the idea behind it is simple. As the person who creates and funds a trust, the settlor is the person who takes action to turn estate and trust planning into reality. Trusts are designed to hold money, investments or property for various purposes. Different types of trusts — testamentary, living (inter vivos), revocable, irrevocable and more — protect assets in different ways. Trusts can facilitate a smooth and speedy transfer of assets upon death, eliminate probate costs, minimize estate taxes, and ensure that the settlor’s assets are used in the way intended. For example, a trust can allow a parent to make sure a child doesn’t squander an inheritance. Trusts also let the settlor decide, at a time when he or she is fully mentally capable, what would happen to his or her assets in the event of mental disability or incapacity. Setting up a simple trust can be an inexpensive task that the settlor can accomplish with self-help legal forms or a more complexes process involving an attorney and costs of up to $2,000. If a bank or trust company is appointed trustee, there are also administrative costs to maintain the trust over time.

Question 397

Factoring ( Wiki )

Answer 397

Factoring is a financial transaction and a type of debtor finance in which a business sells its accounts receivable (i.e., invoices) to a third party (called a factor) at a discount.[1][2][3][4] A business will sometimes factor its receivable assets to meet its present and immediate cash needs.[5][6] Forfaiting is a factoring arrangement used in international trade finance by exporters who wish to sell their receivables to a forfaiter.[7] Factoring is commonly referred to as accounts receivable factoring, invoice factoring, and sometimes accounts receivable financing. Accounts receivable financing is a term more accurately used to describe a form of asset based lending against accounts receivable

Question 398

Forfeiting ( Wiki )

Answer 398

forfaiting is a financial transaction involving the purchase of receivables from exporters by a forfaiter.[1] The forfaiter takes on all the risks associated with the receivables but earns a margin.[1] The forfaiter may also be immunized from certain risks if the transaction involves payment by negotiable instrument.[2] The forfaiting is a transaction involving the sale of one of the firm's transactions. Factoring is also a financial transaction involving the purchase of financial assets, but factoring involves the sale of any portion of a firm's receivables.

Question 399

Negotiable Instrument ( Wiki )

Answer 399

A negotiable instrument is a document guaranteeing the payment of a specific amount of money, either on demand, or at a set time, with the payer named on the document. More specifically, it is a document contemplated by or consisting of a contract, which promises the payment of money without condition, which may be paid either on demand or at a future date. The term can have different meanings, depending on what law is being applied and what country it is used in and what context it is used in. In the Commonwealth of Nations almost all jurisdictions have codified the law relating to negotiable instruments in a Bills of Exchange Act, e.g. Bills of Exchange Act 1882 in the UK, Bills of Exchange Act 1908 in New Zealand, Bills of Exchange Act 1909 in Australia,[1] the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in India and the Bills of Exchange Act 1914 in Mauritius. The Bills of Exchange Act: defines a bill of exchange as: 'an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person, or to bearer. defines a cheque as: 'a bill of exchange drawn on (behalf of) a banker, which is payable on demand (by banker)' defines a promissory note as: 'an unconditional promise in writing made by one person to another, signed by the maker, engaging to pay on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person or to bearer.' Additionally most Commonwealth jurisdictions have separate Cheques Acts providing for additional protections for bankers collecting unendorsed or irregularly endorsed cheques, providing that cheques that are crossed and marked 'not negotiable' or similar are not transferable, and providing for electronic presentation of cheques in inter-bank cheque clearing systems.

Question 400

Contract ( Wiki )

Answer 400

A contract is a voluntary, and or neccesarie, arrangement between two or more parties which is enforceable by law as a binding legal agreement. Contract is a branch of the law of obligations in jurisdictions of the civil law tradition. Contract law concerns the rights and duties that arise from agreements.[1] A contract arises when the parties agree that there is an agreement. Formation of a contract generally requires an offer, acceptance, consideration, and a mutual intent to be bound. Each party to a contract must have capacity to enter the agreement. Minors, intoxicated persons, and those under a mental affliction may have insufficient capacity to enter a contract. Some types of contracts may require formalities, such as a memorialization in writing. common law, the elements of a contract are offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations, and consideration. Not all agreements are necessarily contractual, as the parties generally must be deemed to have an intention to be legally bound. A so-called gentlemen's agreement is one which is not intended to be legally enforceable, and which is "binding in honour only".[2]

Question 401

Intension to be legally bound.

Answer 401

Intention to be legally bound, otherwise "intention to create legal relations",[1] is a concept used in contract law, particularly English contract law, to denote whether a court should presume that parties to an agreement wish it to be enforceable at law. A contract is a legally binding agreement. Once an offer has been accepted, there is an agreement, but not necessarily a contract. The element that converts any agreement into a true contract is "intention to create legal relations". The courts seek evidence that the parties to the agreement intended that it should be governed by, and subject to, the law of contract; so that the agreement gives rise to legal consequences. Each party thus adopts a legal obligation, and each may seek a remedy in the event of breach. Counterintuitively, the best way of discovering whether the parties intended to contract is not to ask them, as this "subjective test" would give the rogue an easy loophole to escape liability. (He would reply, "No!".) Instead, just as in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893],[5] the court applies the "objective test" and asks whether the reasonable bystander, after taking into account all the circumstances of the case, thinks that the parties intended to be bound. Since the advertisement stated that the company had "deposited £1,000 in the Alliance Bank to show sincerity in the matter", the court held that any objective bystander who read this would presume an intention to contract. The rebuttable presumption establishes a burden of proof; but the burden may be rebutted the presumption by evidence to the contrary. The civil standard of proof is "a balance of probabilities", while the criminal standard of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt". Here, different presumptions will apply, according to the class of agreement. For these purposes, there are four classes: Family agreements: a presumption of NO contract Social agreements (i.e. agreements between friends): no presumption (case decided on its merits, using the objective test) Commercial agreements: a presumption of a VALID contract Collective agreements: a presumption of NO contract

Question 402

Meeting of the minds ( Wiki )

Answer 402

Meeting of the minds (also referred to as mutual agreement, mutual assent or consensus ad idem) is a phrase in contract law used to describe the intentions of the parties forming the contract. In particular, it refers to the situation where there is a common understanding in the formation of the contract. Formation of a contract is initiated with a proposal or offer.[1] This condition or element is often considered a requirement to the formation of a contract.

Question 403

Charter

Answer 403

A charter is the grant of authority or rights, stating that the granter formally recognizes the prerogative of the recipient to exercise the rights specified. It is implicit that the granter retains superiority (or sovereignty), and that the recipient admits a limited (or inferior) status within the relationship, and it is within that sense that charters were historically granted, and that sense is retained in modern usage of the term. The word entered the English language from the Old French charte (ultimately from the GreekLatin "χάρτης" word for "paper"). It has come to be synonymous with the document that lays out the granting of rights or privileges.

Question 404

Sovereignty

Answer 404

Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity.[1] It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state foundation.

Question 405

Westphalian sovereignty

Answer 405

State sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation-state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law. As European influence spread across the globe, these principles became central to international law and to the prevailing world order.[1] The principle of sovereignty thus underlies the modern international system of states. The origins of this system are often traced in scholarly and popular literature to the Peace of Westphalia, signed in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years' War. However, both the basis and the conclusion of this view have been criticized by some revisionist academics and politicians, with revisionists questioning the significance of the Peace, and some commentators and politicians attacking the Westphalian system of sovereign nation-states.

Question 406

Assurance

Answer 406

Assurance is a type of financial coverage that provides remuneration for an event that is CERTAIN to happen. One of the best examples of assurance is whole life insurance as opposed to term life insurance. (In the United Kingdom, "life assurance" is another term for life insurance.) The adverse event that the two types of life insurance deal with is the death of the person the policy covers. Since the death of he covered person is certain, a life assurance policy (whole life insurance) results in payment to the beneficiary when the policyholder dies. A term life insurance policy, however, covers a set period of time, such as 30 years, from the time the policy was bought. If the policyholder dies during that time, the beneficiary receives money, but if the policyholder dies after the 30 years, no money is received. The assurance policy covers an event that will happen no matter what, while the insurance policy covers an event that might happen (the policyholder might die within the next 30 years). Assurance can also refer to professional services provided by accountants, lawyers and other professionals that assure the integrity and usability of documents and information produced by businesses and other organizations. Assurance in this context helps businesses and other institutions manage risk and evaluate potential pitfalls. Audits are one example of assurance provided by such firms for businesses to assure that information provided to shareholders is accurate and impartial. Investors of a publicly traded company grow suspicious that the company is recognizing revenue too early, leading to positive financial results in recent quarters that will also lead to worse results in the future. Under pressure from shareholders, the management of the company in question agrees to hire an assurance firm to review its accounting procedures and systems and provide a report to shareholders. The report will provide assurance to shareholders and other investors that the company's financial statements are accurate and that its revenue recognition policies are in line with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The assurance firm reviews the financial statements, interviews accounting and other department personnel, and speaks with customers and clients. The assurance firm finds that the company in question has followed GAAP and assures stakeholders that the company's results are sound. Read more: Assurance http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/assurance.asp#ixzz4nNo9P7VD Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Question 407

Insurance

Answer 407

Insurance is a contract, represented by a policy, in which an individual or entity receives financial protection or reimbursement against losses from an insurance company. The company pools clients' risks to make payments more affordable for the insured. Insurance policies are used to hedge against the risk of financial losses, both big and small, that may result from damage to the insured or her property, or from liability for damage or injury caused to a third party.

Question 408

Hedge

Answer 408

A hedge is an investment to reduce the risk of adverse price movements in an asset. Normally, a hedge consists of taking an offsetting position in a related security, such as a futures contract. Hedging, in the Wall Street sense of the word, is best illustrated by example. Imagine that you want to invest in the budding industry of bungee cord manufacturing. You know of a company called Plummet that is revolutionizing the materials and designs to make cords that are twice as good as its nearest competitor, Drop, so you think that Plummet's share value will rise over the next month. Unfortunately, the bungee cord manufacturing industry is always susceptible to sudden changes in regulations and safety standards, meaning it is quite volatile. This is called industry risk. Despite this, you believe in this company, and you just want to find a way to reduce the industry risk. In this case, you are going to hedge by going long on Plummet while shorting its competitor, Drop. The value of the shares involved will be $1,000 for each company. (For more on short selling, check out Short Selling Tutorial and When to Short a Stock.) If the industry as a whole goes up, you make a profit on Plummet but lose on Drop – hopefully for a modest overall gain. If the industry takes a hit, for example if someone dies bungee jumping, you lose money on Plummet but make money on Drop. Basically, your overall profit – the profit from going long on Plummet – is minimized in favor of less industry risk. This is sometimes called a pairs trade, and it helps investors gain a foothold in volatile industries or find companies in sectors that have some kind of systematic risk.

Question 409

Chose in Action

Answer 409

A chose in action is essentially a right to sue. It is an intangible personal property right recognized and protected by the law, that has no existence apart from the recognition given by the law, and that confers no present possession of a tangible object.

Question 410

Chose

Answer 410

Chose (pronounced: /ʃoʊz =(showz) French for "thing") is a term used in common law tradition in different senses. A chose local is a thing annexed to a place, such as a mill. A chose transitory is something movable, that can be carried from place to place. However, chose in those senses is practically obsolete, and it is now used only in the phrases chose in action and chose in possession.[1]

Question 411

Assent ( Wiki )

Answer 411

assent (third-person singular simple present assents, present participle assenting, simple past and past participle assented) To agree, to give approval. Macaulay The princess assented to all that was suggested. To admit a thing as true. Bible, Acts xxiv. 9 And the Jews also assented, saying that these things were so. agreement, act of agreeing I will give this act my assent.

Question 412

Accede

Answer 412

From Middle English acceden, from Latin accēdō (“approach, accede”), formed from ad (“to, toward, at”) + cēdō (“move, yield”) (English cede). Compare French accéder. Unrelated to ascend, aside from the common ad prefix. singular simple present accedes, present participle acceding, simple past and past participle acceded) (archaic, intransitive) To approach; to arrive, to come forward. [15th-19th c.] (intransitive, now rare) To give one's adhesion; to join up with (a group, etc.); to become part of. [from 15th c.] (intransitive) To agree or assent to a proposal or a view; to give way. [from 16th c.] (intransitive) To come to an office, state or dignity; to attain, assume (a position). [from 18th c.] (intransitive) To become a party to an agreement or a trea

Question 413

Assentor

Answer 413

One who assents. From ad- +‎ sentiō +‎ -ō. Sentio = From Proto-Indo-European *sent- (“to feel”). Cognate with Lithuanian sintėti (“to think”), Old High German sinnan (“to go; desire”).

Question 414

-or ( Suffix )

Answer 414

Suffix appended to words to create an agent noun, indicating a person who does something. English generally appends this suffix where Latin would do it—to the root of a Latin-type perfect passive participle. For other words, English tends to use the suffix -er. Occasionally both are used (computer vs. computor).

Question 415

Agreement ( Wiki )

Answer 415

agreement (countable and uncountable, plural agreements) (countable) An understanding between entities to follow a specific course of conduct. (uncountable) A state whereby several parties share a view or opinion; the state of not contradicting one (uncountable, law) A legally binding contract enforceable in a court of law.

Question 416

Concord

Answer 416

From French concorde, Latin concordia, from concors (“of the same mind, agreeing”); con- + cor, cordis (“heart”). See heart, and compare accord genitive cordis); third declension (anatomy) heart (figuratively) soul, mind COR - HEART - Etymology From Middle English herte, from Old English heorte (“heart”), from Proto-Germanic *hertô (“heart”), from Proto-Indo-European *ḱḗr (“heart”). Germanic cognates: see *hertô. The Indo-European root is also the source of Latin cor, cordis, Ancient Greek καρδιά (kardiá),

Question 417

Accord

Answer 417

First attested in the late 13th century. From Middle English acorden, a borrowing from Old French acorder (compare modern French accord and accorder), from Vulgar Latin *accordō, accordāre (“to be heart to heart with”), formed from Latin ad + cor (“heart”).

Question 418

Promissory Note

Answer 418

A promissory note, sometimes referred to as a note payable, is a legal instrument (more particularly, a financial instrument and a debt instrument), in which one party (the maker or issuer) promises in writing to pay a determinate sum of money to the other (the payee), either at a fixed or determinable future time or on demand of the payee, under specific terms. If the promissory note is unconditional and readily saleable, it is called a negotiable instrument. The term note payable is commonly used in accounting (as distinguished from accounts payable) or commonly as just a "note", it is internationally defined by the Convention providing a uniform law for bills of exchange and promissory notes, but regional variations exist. A banknote is frequently referred to as a promissory note, as it is made by a bank and payable to bearer on demand. Mortgage notes are another prominent example.

Question 419

Bank Note

Answer 419

A banknote (often known as a bill, paper money, or simply a note) is a type of negotiable instrument known as a promissory note, made by a bank, payable to the bearer on demand. Banknotes were originally issued by commercial banks, who were legally required to redeem the notes for legal tender (usually gold or silver coin) when presented to the chief cashier of the originating bank. These commercial banknotes only traded at face value in the market served by the issuing bank.[2] Commercial banknotes have primarily been replaced by national banknotes issued by central banks.

Question 420

Position of Trust

Answer 420

A position of trust is any position that requires its holder to enjoy the trust of those who elected or chose the holder. It is often used in a more restricted sense defined by an organization or by legislation. According to one common definition, it is any position that has responsibility for "cash, keys, or kids (minors)". The concept of "keys" refers to security, including IT security and management.[1][2] According to another common definition, it is any position of authority over another person or within an organization, for example as a supervisor.

Question 421

Trustee

Answer 421

Trustee (or the holding of a trusteeship) is a legal term which, in its broadest sense, is a synonym for anyone in a position of trust and so can refer to any person who holds property, authority, or a position of trust or responsibility for the benefit of another. A trustee can also refer to a person who is allowed to do certain tasks but not able to gain income.[1] Although in the strictest sense of the term a trustee is the holder of property on behalf of a beneficiary,[1] the more expansive sense encompasses persons who serve, for example, on the board of trustees of an institution that operates for a charity, for the benefit of the general public, or a person in the local government. A trust can be set up either to benefit particular persons, or for any charitable purposes (but not generally for non-charitable purposes): typical examples are a will trust for the testator's children and family, a pension trust (to confer benefits on employees and their families) and a charitable trust. In all cases, the trustee may be a person or company, whether or not they are a prospective beneficiary.

Question 422

Estate in Land

Answer 422

An estate in land is an interest in real property that is or may become possessory. In the legal systems of almost every country, the ultimate true "owner" of all land is the sovereign, which for a republic is the whole people of a society[citation needed], which with sovereign, exclusive dominion over a well-defined tract of land, may be called a "state". Private parties own not the underlying land, but claims on parcels of land, which taken together define the estate for that parcel. This superior ownership is the basis for taking the land through eminent domain. However, the claims that define the estate are themselves personal property.

Question 423

State

Answer 423

A sovereign state is, in international law, a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.[1] It is also normally understood that a sovereign state is neither dependent on nor subjected to any other power or state.[2]

Question 424

Questions of Law

Answer 424

In law, a question of law, also known as a point of law, is a question that must be answered by applying relevant legal principles to interpretation of the law.[1] Such a question is distinct from a question of fact, which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence as well inferences arising from those facts. Answers to questions of law are generally expressed in terms of broad legal principles and can be applied to many situations rather than be dependent on particular circumstances or factual situations. An answer to a question of law as applied to the particular facts of a case is often referred to as a "conclusion of law." In several civil law jurisdictions the highest court do consider the issue as to questions of fact settled by the lower court and will only consider questions of law. The thus may refer a case back to a lower court to re-apply the law and answer any fact-based evaluations based on their answer on the application of the law. International courts such as the Benelux Court of Justice and the European Court of Justice will only answer questions of law, asked by judges of national courts if they are not certain about the interpretation of the law of multilateral organizations.

Question 425

Questions of Fact

Answer 425

In law, a question of fact, also known as a point of fact, is a question that must be answered by reference to facts and evidence as well as inferences arising from those facts. Such a question is distinct from a question of law, which must be answered by applying relevant legal principles. The answer to a question of fact (a "finding of fact") usually depends on particular circumstances or factual situations.[2] All questions of fact are capable of proof or disproof by reference to a certain standard of proof. Depending on the nature of the matter, the standard of proof may require that a fact be proven to be "more likely than not" (there is barely more evidence for the fact than against, as established by a preponderance of the evidence) or true beyond reasonable doubt. Answers to questions of fact are determined by a trier of fact such as a jury, or a judge. In many jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, appellate courts generally do not consider appeals based on errors of fact (errors in answering a question of fact). Rather, the findings of fact of the first venue are usually given great deference by appellate courts.[3]

Question 426

De Jure

Answer 426

In law and government, de jure (/deɪ ˈdʒʊrɪ/; Latin: de iure, "in law") describes practices that are legally recognized by official laws.[1] In contrast, de facto ("in fact" or "in practice") describes situations that are generally known to exist in reality, even if not legally authorized.

Question 427

De Facto

Answer 427

De facto (/deɪ ˈfæktoʊ/), Latin for "in fact", describes practices that exist in reality, even if not legally authorized.[1][2][3] It is commonly used to refer to what happens in practice, in contrast with de jure ("in law"), which refers to things that happen according to law. Unofficial customs that are widely accepted are sometimes called the de facto standard.

Question 428

The Crown

Answer 428

The Crown is the state in all its aspects within the jurisprudence of the Commonwealth realms and their sub-divisions (such as Crown dependencies, provinces or states), although the term is not only a metonym for the State.[1] The Crown is a corporation sole that represents the legal embodiment of executive, legislative, and judicial governance in the monarchy of each country. These monarchies are united by the personal union of their monarch, but they are separate as states. The concept of the Crown developed first in the Kingdom of England as a separation of the literal crown and property of the nation state from the person and personal property of the monarch. The concept spread through English and later British colonisation and is now rooted in the legal lexicon of the other 15 independent realms and the three Crown dependencies. In this context it should not be confused with any physical crown, such as those of the British royal regalia.

Question 429

Called Up Share Capital

Answer 429

Called up share capital is shares issued to investors, under the understanding that the shares will be paid for at a later date, or in installments. Shares may be issued in this manner in order to sell shares on relaxed terms to investors, which may increase the total amount of equity that a business can obtain. The difference between called-up share capital and paid-up share capital is investors have already paid in full for paid-up capital. Called-up capital has not yet been completely paid, though payment has been requested by the issuing entity. Depending on the situation, share capital can fall into one of four categories. Read more: What is the difference between called-up share capital and paid-up share capital? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/073015/what-difference-between-calledup-share-capital-and-paidup-share-capital.asp#ixzz4pPbCbF6C Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook The reference to "called up" means that the company has issued a request for a portion or all of the unpaid balance. Technically, the demand for payment comes from the board of directors of the issuing company. Once a shareholder has paid the issuing entity the full amount owed for issued shares, these shares are considered to be called up, issued, and fully paid. However, this does not mean that the shares are registered, which would allow the shareholder to sell the shares to a third party. The registration process requires the issuer to register the shares with the applicable government oversight entity, which involves a lengthy application process and ongoing public reporting of financial results by the issuer. Once a shareholder has paid for called up share capital, it is most common for the shares to simply be considered part of the total number of shares outstanding, with no further description of their prior status.

Question 430

Called Up Capital

Answer 430

Called-Up Capital Depending on the jurisdiction and the business in question, some companies may issue shares to investors with the understanding they will be paid at a later date. This allows for more flexible investment terms and may entice investors to contribute more share capital than if they had to provide funds up front. The amount of share capital owed by shareholders, but has not yet been paid, is referred to as called-up capital.

Question 431

Paid Up Capital

Answer 431

Any amount of money that has already been paid by investors in exchange for shares of stock is paid-up capital. Even if an investor has not paid in full, the amount already remitted is included as paid-up capital. All paid-up capital is listed under the shareholders' equity section of the issuing company's balance sheet.

Question 432

Letter and Spirit of the Law

Answer 432

The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not necessarily the intent of those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not necessarily adhering to the literal wording.

Question 433

Jury Nullification

Answer 433

Jury nullification is a concept where members of a trial jury can vote a defendant not guilty if they do not support a government's law, do not believe it is constitutional or humane, or do not support a possible punishment for breaking a government's law. This may happen in both civil and criminal trials. In a criminal trial, a jury nullifies by acquitting a defendant, even though the members of the jury may believe that the defendant did the act the government considers illegal. This may occur when members of the jury disagree with the law the defendant has been charged with breaking, or believe that the law should not be applied in that particular case. A jury can similarly convict a defendant on the ground of disagreement with an existing law, even if no law is broken (although in jurisdictions with double jeopardy rules, a conviction can be overturned on appeal, but an acquittal cannot).

Question 434

Truer of Fact

Answer 434

A trier of fact, or finder of fact, is a person, or group of persons, who determines facts in a legal proceeding, usually a trial. To determine a fact is to decide, from the evidence, whether something existed or some event occurred.[1] Various aspects of a case that are not in controversy may be the "facts of the case" and are determined by the agreement of the separate parties; the trier of fact need not decide such issues. In a jury trial, a jury is the trier of fact. The jury finds the facts and applies them to the relevant statute or law it is instructed by the judge to use in order to reach its verdict. Thus, in a jury trial, the findings of fact are made by the jury while the judge makes legal rulings as to what evidence will be heard by the jury and what legal framework governs the case. Jurors are instructed to strictly follow the law as given by the judge, but are in no way obligated to do so. In some cases this amounts to jury nullification, e.g. the jury effectively re-writing the law or blatantly ignoring it in a particular case.

Question 435

Bench Trial

Answer 435

A bench trial is a trial by judge, as opposed to a trial by jury.[1] The term applies most appropriately to any administrative hearing in relation to a summary offense to distinguish the type of trial. Many legal systems (Roman, Islamic) use bench trials for most or all cases or for certain types of cases. While a jury renders a verdict, a judge in a bench trial does the same by making a finding.[2]

Question 436

Summary Offense

Answer 436

A summary offence is a crime in some common law jurisdictions that can be proceeded against summarily, without the right to a jury trial and/or indictment (required for an indictable offence).

Question 437

Jury Trial

Answer 437

A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a lawful proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact, which then direct the actions of a judge. It is distinguished from a bench trial in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions. English "courts of law" tried cases of torts or private law for monetary damages using juries, but "courts of equity" that tried civil cases seeking an injunction or another form of non-monetary relief did not. As a result, this practice continues in American civil laws, but in modern English law, only criminal proceedings and some inquests are likely to be heard by a jury.

Question 438

Private Law - Contracts

Answer 438

A contract is a voluntary arrangement between two or more parties that is enforceable by law as a binding legal agreement. Contract is a branch of the law of obligations in jurisdictions of the civil law tradition. Contract law concerns the rights and duties that arise from agreements.[1] A contract arises when the parties agree that there is an agreement. Formation of a contract generally requires an offer, acceptance, consideration, and a mutual intent to be bound. Each party to a contract must have capacity to enter the agreement. Minors, intoxicated persons, and those under a mental affliction may have insufficient capacity to enter a contract. Some types of contracts may require formalities, such as a memorialization in writing.

Question 439

Intent to be bound

Answer 439

Meeting of the minds (also referred to as mutual agreement, mutual assent or consensus ad idem) is a phrase in contract law used to describe the intentions of the parties forming the contract. In particular, it refers to the situation where there is a common understanding in the formation of the contract. Formation of a contract is initiated with a proposal or offer.[1] This condition or element is considered a requirement to the formation of a contract in some jurisdictions.

Question 440

Covenant

Answer 440

A covenant, in its most general sense and historical sense, is a solemn promise to engage in or refrain from a specified action. Under historical English common law a covenant was distinguished from an ordinary contract by the presence of a seal. Because the presence of a seal indicated an unusual solemnity in the promises made in a covenant, the common law would enforce a covenant even in the absence of consideration.[1] In United States contract law, an implied covenant of good faith is presumed. A covenant is a type of contract in which the covenantor makes a promise to a covenantee to do (affirmative covenant) or not do some action (negative covenant). In real property law, the term real covenants is used for conditions tied to the use of land. A "covenant running with the land", also imposes duties or restrictions upon the use of that land regardless of the owner. Restrictive covenants are somewhat similar to easements and equitable servitudes, leading to some discussion about whether these concepts should be unified;[2] the Restatement (Third) of Property takes steps to merge these concepts as servitudes.[3] Real covenant law in the United States has been referred to as an "unspeakable quagmire" by one court.[4]

Question 441

Real Covenant related to land

Answer 441

In property law, land-related covenants are called "real covenants" and are a major form of covenant, typically imposing restrictions on how the land may be used (negative covenants) or requiring a certain continuing action (affirmative covenant). These may also "run with the land" (called a covenant appurtenant), meaning that any future owners of the land must abide by the terms, or may apply to a particular person (called a covenant in gross).[5] Under English law, affirmative covenants typically do not run with the land; in the United States such covenants are examined more closely, but with exceptions affirmative covenants have been permitted to run with the land.[6] The covenant may be shown in the deed and should be disclosed to prospective purchasers; it may also be recorded, or in the case of Commonwealth countries shown in Torrens title. Real covenants and easements or equitable servitudes are similar[7] and in 1986, a symposium discussed whether the law of easements, equitable servitudes, and real covenants should be unified.[2] As time passes and the original promisee of the covenant is no longer involved in the land, enforcement may become lax.[8]

Question 442

Equitable Servitude

Answer 442

An equitable servitude is a term used in the law of real property to describe a nonpossessory interest in land that operates much like a covenant running with the land. However, covenants and equitable servitudes should not be confused. One may tell the difference based on the remedy plaintiff seeks. Holders of a covenant seek money damages, but holders of equitable servitudes seek injunctions.

Question 443

Good Faith (Law)

Answer 443

In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. It is implied in every contract in order to reinforce the express covenants or promises of the contract. A lawsuit (or a cause of action) based upon the breach of the covenant may arise when one party to the contract attempts to claim the benefit of a technical excuse for breaching the contract, or when he or she uses specific contractual terms in isolation in order to refuse to perform his or her contractual obligations, despite the general circumstances and understandings between the parties. When a court or triar or fact interprets a contract, there is always an "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" in every written agreement.[1]

Question 444

Cause of Action

Answer 444

A cause of action, in law, is a set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue to obtain money, property, or the enforcement of a right against another party.[1] The term also refers to the legal theory upon which a plaintiff brings suit (such as breach of contract, battery, or false imprisonment). The legal document which carries a claim is often called a Statement of Claim in English law, or a Complaint in U.S. federal practice and in many U.S. states. It can be any communication notifying the party to whom it is addressed of an alleged fault which resulted in damages, often expressed in amount of money the receiving party should pay/reimburse. To pursue a cause of action, a plaintiff pleads or alleges facts in a complaint, the pleading that initiates a lawsuit. A cause of action generally encompasses both the legal theory (the legal wrong the plaintiff claims to have suffered) and the remedy (the relief a court is asked to grant). Often the facts or circumstances that entitle a person to seek judicial relief may create multiple causes of action. Although it is fairly straightforward to file a Statement of Claim in most jurisdictions, if it is not done properly, then the filing party may lose his case due to simple technicalities.

Question 445

Pleading

Answer 445

In law as practiced in countries that follow the English models, a pleading is a formal written statement of a party's claims or defenses to another party's claims in a civil action. The parties' pleadings in a case define the issues to be adjudicated in the action. The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) govern pleading in England and Wales. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern pleading in United States federal courts. Each state in the United States has its own statutes and rules that govern pleading in the courts of that state.

Question 446

Complaint

Answer 446

In legal terminology, a complaint is any formal legal document that sets out the facts and legal reasons (see: cause of action) that the filing party or parties (the plaintiff(s)) believes are sufficient to support a claim against the party or parties against whom the claim is brought (the defendant(s)) that entitles the plaintiff(s) to a remedy (either money damages or injunctive relief).

Question 447

Filing (legal)

Answer 447

In law, filing is the act of submitting a document to the clerk of a court for the court's immediate consideration and for storage in the court's files. Courts will not consider motions unless an appropriate memorandum or brief is filed before the appropriate deadline. Usually a filing fee is paid which is part of court costs. In civil procedure systems, filing rules can be mandatory or permissive. In a mandatory filing system, all documents of legal importance exchanged between the parties are also filed with the court, while in a permissive filing system, nothing needs to be filed until the case reaches a point where direct judicial management is absolutely necessary (such as the brink of trial). For example, the United States federal courts operate on a mandatory filing system (with minor exceptions for the most routine discovery exchanges).[1] In contrast, the U.S. state of New York is known for its permissive filing system, which was modified in 1992 but still largely operates in its traditional form in certain lower courts.[2] Filing may also refer to submission of a form to a government agency, with or without an accompanying fee.

Question 448

Motion (legal)

Answer 448

In United States law, a motion is a procedural device for decision. It is a request to the judge (or judges) to make a decision about the case.[1] Motions may be made at any point in administrative, criminal or civil proceedings, although that right is regulated by court rules which vary from place to place. The party requesting the motion may be called the movant, or may simply be the moving party. The party opposing the motion is the nonmovant or nonmoving party.

Question 449

Discovery (law)

Answer 449

Discovery, in the law of the United States and other countries, is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as a request for answers to interrogatories, request for production of documents, request for admissions and depositions.[2] Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery.[3]

Question 450

Subpoena (witness summons)

Answer 450

A subpoena /səˈpiːnə/ (also subpœna) or witness summons is a writ issued by a government agency, most often a court, to compel testimony by a witness or production of evidence under a penalty for failure. There are two common types of subpoena: subpoena ad testificandum orders a person to testify before the ordering authority or face punishment. The subpoena can also request the testimony to be given by phone or in person. subpoena duces tecum orders a person or organization to bring physical evidence before the ordering authority or face punishment. This is often used for requests to mail copies of documents to the requesting party or directly to court. The term subpoena is from the Middle English suppena and the Latin phrase sub poena meaning "under penalty".[2] It is also spelled "subpena".

Question 451

Service of process

Answer 451

Service of process is the procedure by which a party to a lawsuit gives an appropriate notice of initial legal action to another party (such as a defendant), court, or administrative body in an effort to exercise jurisdiction over that person so as to enable that person to respond to the proceeding before the court, body, or other tribunal. Notice is furnished by delivering a set of court documents (called "process") to the person to be served.

Question 452

Legal Process

Answer 452

Legal process (or sometimes "process"), are the proceedings in any civil lawsuit or criminal prosecution and, particularly, describes the formal notice or writ used by a court to exercise jurisdiction over a person or property.[1] Such process is usually "served" upon a party, to compel that party to come to court, and may take the form of a summons, mandate, subpoena, warrant, or other written demand issued by a court.

Question 453

Summons

Answer 453

Legally, a summons (also known in England and Wales as a claim form and in the Australian state of New South Wales as a Court Attendance Notice (CAN)) is a legal document issued by a court (a judicial summons) or by an administrative agency of government (an administrative summons) for various purposes. A judicial summons is served on a person involved in a legal proceeding. Legal action may be in progress against the person, or the person's presence as witness may be required.[1] In the former case, the summons will typically announce to the person to whom it is directed that a legal proceeding has been started against that person, and that a case has been initiated in the issuing court. In some jurisdictions, it may be drafted in legal English difficult for the layman to understand, while several U.S. states expressly require summonses to be drafted in plain English and that they must start with this phrase: "Notice! You have been sued."[citation needed] The summons announces a date by which the person or persons summoned must either appear in court, or respond in writing to the court or the opposing party or parties. The summons is the descendant of the writ of the common law. It replaces the former procedure in common-law countries by which the plaintiff actually had to ask the sheriff to arrest the defendant in order for the court to obtain personal jurisdiction in both criminal and civil actions. A citation, traffic violation ticket, or notice to appear is a type of summons prepared and served at the scene of the occurrence by a law enforcement official, compelling the appearance of a defendant before the local magistrate within a certain period of time to answer for a minor traffic infraction, misdemeanor, or other summary offence. Failure to appear within the allotted period of time is a separate crime of failure to appear.

Question 454

Failure to Appear

Answer 454

Failure to appear is the legal term for the failure of a defendant or respondent to appear at (or within) the stated time before a tribunal as directed in a summons. Where the conduct alleged in the summons or complaint is an infraction or summary offence, failure to appear is a crime for which a bench-warrant can be issued if the defendant promised to appear. If the conduct alleged is a tort or other cause for civil action, failure to appear generally results in a default judgment by the court in favor of the plaintiff/petitioner.

Question 455

Bench Warrant

Answer 455

An arrest warrant is a warrant issued by a judge or magistrate on behalf of the state, which authorizes the arrest and detention of an individual, or the search and seizure of an individual's property.

Question 456

Default Judgement

Answer 456

Default judgment is a binding judgment in favor of either party based on some failure to take action by the other party. Most often, it is a judgment in favor of a plaintiff when the defendant has not responded to a summons or has failed to appear before a court of law. The failure to take action is the default. The default judgment is the relief requested in the party's original petition.[1] Default can be compared to a forfeit victory in sports. In a civil trial involving damages, a default judgment will enter the amount of damages pleaded in the original complaint. If proof of damages is required, the court may schedule another hearing on that issue. A party can have a default judgment vacated, or set aside, by filing a motion, after the judgment is entered, by showing of a proper excuse.

Question 457

Hearing (law)

Answer 457

In law, a hearing is a proceeding before a court or other decision-making body or officer, such as a government agency[1] or a Parliamentary committee.[2] A hearing is generally distinguished from a trial in that it is usually shorter and often less formal.[1] In the course of litigation, hearings are conducted as oral arguments in support of motions, whether to resolve the case without further trial on a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, or to decide discrete issues of law, such as the admissibility of evidence, that will determine how the trial proceeds. Limited evidence and testimony may also be presented in hearings to supplement the legal arguments.[1] In the United States, one aspect of the "due process revolution" is that many administrative decisions that were once made much less formally must now be preceded by a hearing. An important step in this development was the Supreme Court decision in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970). There the Court held that an agency could not terminate a recipient's welfare benefits without a pre-termination hearing. The decision also illustrated that what constitutes a "hearing" can depend on the context. In Goldberg, the goal of a speedy decision was held to "justify the limitation of the pre-termination hearing to minimum procedural safeguards," which included such basic matters as the right to appear and to cross-examine witnesses, but did not include "a complete record and a comprehensive opinion".

Question 458

Cross Examination

Answer 458

In law, cross-examination is the interrogation of a witness called by one's opponent. It is preceded by direct examination and may be followed by a redirect (re-examination).

Question 459

Direct Examination

Answer 459

The direct examination or examination-in-chief is one stage in the process of adducing evidence from witnesses in a court of law. Direct examination is the questioning of a witness by the party who called him or her, in a trial. Direct examination is usually performed to elicit evidence in support of facts which will satisfy a required element of a party's claim or defense. In direct examination, one is generally prohibited from asking leading questions. This prevents a lawyer from feeding answers to a favorable witness. An exception to this rule occurs if one side has called a witness, but it is either understood, or becomes clear, that the witness is hostile to the questioner's side of the controversy. The lawyer may then ask the court to declare the person he or she has called to the stand a hostile witness. If the court does so, the lawyer may thereafter ask witness leading questions during direct examination. The techniques of direct examination are taught in courses on trial advocacy.[1] Each direct examination is integrated with the overall case strategy through either a theme and theory or, with more advanced strategies, a line of effort.[2]

Question 460

Hostile Witness

Answer 460

A hostile witness, otherwise known as an adverse witness or an unfavorable witness, is a witness at trial whose testimony on direct examination is either openly antagonistic or appears to be contrary to the legal position of the party who called the witness. During direct examination, if the examining attorney who called the witness finds that their testimony is antagonistic or contrary to the legal position of their client, the attorney may request that the judge declare the witness hostile. If the request is granted, the attorney may proceed to ask the witness leading questions. Leading questions either suggest the answer ("You saw my client sign the contract, correct?") or challenge (impeach) the witness's testimony. As a rule, leading questions are generally only allowed during cross-examination, but a hostile witness is an exception to this rule. In cross-examination conducted by the opposing party's attorney, a witness is presumed to be hostile and the examining attorney is not required to seek the judge's permission before asking leading questions. Attorneys can influence a hostile witness's responses by using Gestalt psychology to influence the way the witness perceives the situation, and utility theory to understand their likely responses.[1] The attorney will integrate a hostile witness's expected responses into the larger case strategy through pretrial planning and through adapting as necessary during the course of the trial.[2]

Question 461

Leading Questions

Answer 461

In common law systems that rely on testimony by witnesses, a leading question or suggestive interrogation[1] is a question that suggests the particular answer or contains the information the examiner is looking to have confirmed. Their use is restricted in eliciting testimony in court, to reduce the ability of the examiner to direct or influence the evidence presented. Depending on the circumstances, leading questions can be objectionable or proper. Leading questions may often be answerable with a yes or no (though not all yes-no questions are leading). The propriety of leading questions generally depends on the relationship of the witness to the party conducting the examination. An examiner may generally ask leading questions of a hostile witness or on cross-examination (to elicit testimony which the witness might be reluctant to volunteer), but not on direct examination (to "coach" the witness to provide a particular answer).

Question 462

Loaded Questions

Answer 462

A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt). Leading questions are distinct from loaded questions, which are objectionable because they contain implicit assumptions (such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" indirectly asserting that the subject has beaten her at some point).

Question 463

Witness Impeachment

Answer 463

Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence of the United States, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial. The Federal Rules of Evidence contain the rules governing impeachment in US federal courts. Under the common law of England, a party could not impeach its own witness unless one of four special circumstances was met. The Voucher Rule required the proponent of the witness to "vouch" for the truthfulness of the witness. Here are the special circumstances: If the witness were an adverse party (such as the plaintiff calling the defendant to the stand, or vice versa). If the witness were hostile (such as the witness refusing to co-operate). If the witness were one that the party was required by law to call as a witness. If the witness surprised the party who called him by giving damaging testimony against that party. The rule has been eliminated in many jurisdictions. Under the US Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 607 permits any party to attack the credibility of any witness.

Question 464

Foundation Evidence

Answer 464

In law, a foundation is sufficient preliminary evidence of the authenticity and relevance for the admission of material evidence in the form of exhibits or testimony of witnesses. Material evidence is important evidence that may serve to determine the outcome of a case. Exhibits include real evidence, illustrative evidence, demonstrative evidence, and documentary evidence. The type of preliminary evidence necessary to lay the proper foundation depends on the form and type of material evidence offered. The lack of foundation is a valid objection that an adverse party may raise during trial.

Question 465

Adverse Party

Answer 465

An adverse party is an opposing party in a lawsuit under an adversary system of law. In general, an adverse party is a party against whom judgment is sought or "a party interested in sustaining a judgment or decree."[1] For example, the adverse party for a defendant is the plaintiff. A witness called on behalf of an adverse party is usually an adverse witness.[3] In general, the examination of an adverse party's witness may include leading questions and follows the rules of cross examination.[4]

Question 466

Kettle Logic

Answer 466

Kettle logic is a rhetorical device wherein one uses multiple arguments to defend a point, but the arguments are inconsistent with each other. Freud relates the story of a man who was accused by his neighbour of having returned a kettle in a damaged condition and the three arguments he offers. That he had returned the kettle undamaged. That it was already damaged when he borrowed it. That he had never borrowed it in the first place. The three arguments are inconsistent, and Freud notes that it would have been better if he had only used one.

Question 467

Alternative Facts

Answer 467

Alternative facts is a term in law to describe inconsistent sets of facts put forth by the same party in a court given that there is plausible evidence to support both alternatives.[1][2] The term is also used to describe competing facts for the two sides of the case.[3]

Question 468

Alternative Pleading

Answer 468

Alternative pleading is the legal term[1] in the law of the United States for a form of pleading that permits a party in a court action to argue multiple possibilities that may be mutually exclusive by making use of legal fiction. A pleading in the alternative sets forth multiple claims or defenses either hypothetically or alternatively, such that if one of the claims or defenses are held invalid or insufficient, the other claims or defenses should still have to be answered.

Question 469

Demonstrative Evidence

Answer 469

Demonstrative evidence is evidence in the form of a representation of an object. This is, as opposed to, real evidence, testimony, or other forms of evidence used at trial. Examples of demonstrative evidence include photos, x-rays, videotapes, movies, sound recordings, diagrams, forensic animation, maps, drawings, graphs, animation, simulations, and models.

Question 470

Real Evidence

Answer 470

Physical evidence (also called real evidence or material evidence) is any material object that plays some role in the matter that gave rise to the litigation, introduced as evidence in a judicial proceeding (such as a trial) to prove a fact in issue based on the object's physical characteristics.

Question 471

Chain of Custody

Answer 471

Chain of custody (CoC), in legal contexts, refers to the chronological documentation or paper trail that records the sequence of custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of physical or electronic evidence. The term is also sometimes used in the fields of history, art history, and archives as a synonym for provenance (meaning the chronology of the ownership, custody or location of a historical object, document or group of documents), which may be an important factor in determining authenticity. When evidence can be used in court to convict persons of crimes, it must be handled in a scrupulously careful manner to prevent tampering or contamination. The idea behind recording the chain of custody is to establish that the alleged evidence is in fact related to the alleged crime, rather than having, for example, been “planted” fraudulently to make someone appear guilty. An identifiable person must always have the physical custody of a piece of evidence. In practice, this means that a police officer or detective will take charge of a piece of evidence, document its collection, and hand it over to an evidence clerk for storage in a secure place. These transactions, and every succeeding transaction between the collection of the evidence and its appearance in court, should be completely documented chronologically in order to withstand legal challenges to the authenticity of the evidence.

Question 472

Possession (law)

Answer 472

In law, possession is the control a person intentionally exercises toward a thing. In all cases, to possess something, a person must have an intention to possess it. A person may be in possession of some property (although possession does not always imply ownership). Like ownership, the possession of things is commonly regulated by states under property law. An intention to possess (sometimes called animus possidendi) is the other component of possession. All that is required is an intention to possess something for the time being. In common law countries, the intention to possess a thing is a fact. Normally, it is proved by the acts of control and surrounding circumstances. It is possible to intend to possess something without knowing that it exists. For example, if you intend to possess a suitcase, then you intend to possess its contents, even though you do not know what it contains. It is important to distinguish between the intention sufficient to obtain possession of a thing and the intention required to commit the crime of possessing something illegally, such as banned drugs, firearms or stolen goods.[1] The intention to exclude others from the garage and its contents does not necessarily amount to the guilty mind of intending to possess stolen goods.[clarification needed] When people possess places to which the public has access, it may be difficult to know whether they intend to possess everything within those places. In such circumstances, some people make it clear that they do not want possession of the things brought there by the public. For example, it is not uncommon to see a sign above the coat rack in a restaurant which disclaims responsibility for items left there.g Possession is one of the most important concepts in property law. There are three related and overlapping but not identical legal concepts: possession, right of possession and ownership.

Question 473

Right of Possession

Answer 473

The right of possession (jura possessionis) means that someone currently holds something in hand and this person may be the temporary keeper or the long-term owner of an object. This term is most commonly used in regards to property and is a land-backed asset. This legal tradition holds that whoever occupies property and uses it for its social function has the right to possess it.[1]

Question 474

Registered Owner

Answer 474

The term registered owner is usually used in instances of title of a vehicle (such as an automobile) to refer to the person who has right of possession of the vehicle, as opposed to the party that has right of property. The party that has right of property is referred to as a lienholder, and in the event the registered owner fails to pay off the lien according to the agreed-to terms, the lienholder has the right to invoke repossession of the vehicle.

Question 475

Beneficial Owner

Answer 475

Beneficial owner is a legal term where specific property rights ("use and title") in equity belong to a person even though legal title of the property belongs to another person. Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Pocket ed. 2001 pg. 508). This often relates where the legal title owner has implied trustee duties to the beneficial owner.

Question 476

Beneficial Ownership

Answer 476

Beneficial ownership is a term used in international commercial legislation to refer to anyone who enjoys the benefits of ownership of a security or property, and yet does not nominally own the asset itself. Webster's defines a beneficial owner as "one who enjoys the benefit of a property of which another is the legal owner."[1]

Question 477

Right to Property

Answer 477

The right to property or right to own property (cf. ownership) is often classified as a human right for natural persons regarding their possessions. A general recognition of a right to private property is found more rarely, and is typically heavily constrained insofar as property is owned by legal persons (i.e. corporations) and where it is used for production rather than consumption.[1] A right to property is recognised in Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but is not recognised in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.[2] The European Convention on Human Rights, in Protocol 1, article 1 acknowledges a right for natural and legal persons to "peaceful enjoyment of his possessions", subject to the "general interest or to secure the payment of taxes".

Question 478

Ownership

Answer 478

Ownership of property may be private, collective, or common, and the property may be of objects, land or real estate, or intellectual property. Determining ownership in law involves determining who has certain rights and duties over the property. These rights and duties, sometimes called a "bundle of rights", can be separated and held by different parties. The process and mechanics of ownership are fairly complex: one can gain, transfer, and lose ownership of property in a number of ways. To acquire property one can purchase it with money, trade it for other property, win it in a bet, receive it as a gift, inherit it, find it, receive it as damages, earn it by doing work or performing services, make it, or homestead it. One can transfer or lose ownership of property by selling it for money, exchanging it for other property, giving it as a gift, misplacing it, or having it stripped from one's ownership through legal means such as eviction, foreclosure, seizure, or taking. Ownership is self-propagating in that the owner of any property will also own the economic benefits of that property.

Question 479

Authorship

Answer 479

An author is the originator of any written work such as a book or play, and is thus also a writer. More broadly defined, an author is "the person who originated or gave existence to anything" and whose authorship determines responsibility for what was created.[1]

Question 480

Real Party in Interest

Answer 480

In law, the real party in interest is the one who actually possesses the substantive right being asserted and has a legal right to enforce the claim (under applicable substantive law). Additionally, the "real party in interest" must sue in his own name. In many situations, the real party in interest will be the parties themselves (i.e., plaintiff and defendant).

Question 481

Title (property)

Answer 481

In property law, a title is a bundle of rights in a piece of property in which a party may own either a legal interest or equitable interest. The rights in the bundle may be separated and held by different parties. It may also refer to a formal document, such as a deed, that serves as evidence of ownership. Conveyance of the document may be required in order to transfer ownership in the property to another person. Title is distinct from possession, a right that often accompanies ownership but is not necessarily sufficient to prove it. In many cases, both possession and title may be transferred independently of each other. For real property, land registration and recording provide public notice of ownership information. In United States law, typically evidence of title is established through title reports written up by title insurance companies, which show the history of title (property abstract and chain of title) as determined by the recorded public record deeds;[1] the title report will also show applicable encumbrances such as easements, liens, or covenants.[2] In exchange for insurance premiums, the title insurance company conducts a title search through public records and provides assurance of good title, reimbursing the insured if a dispute over the title arises.[3] In the case of vehicle ownership, a simple vehicle title document may be issued by a governmental agency.

Question 482

Chain of Title

Answer 482

A chain of title is the sequence of historical transfers of title to a property. The "chain" runs from the present owner back to the original owner of the property. In situations where documentation of ownership is important, it is often necessary to reconstruct the chain of title. To facilitate this, a record of title documents may be maintained by a registry office or civil law notary.

Question 483

Abstract of Title (property abstract)

Answer 483

A property abstract is a collection of legal documents that chronicle transactions associated with a particular parcel of land. Generally included are references to deeds, mortgages, wills, probate records, court litigations, and tax sales—basically, any legal document that affects the property. The abstract will show the names of all property owners, how long a particular holder owned it, and the price of the land when it was sold. Rarely will an abstract mention capital improvements to the property. An abstract of title is the condensed history of the title to a particular parcel of real estate, consisting of a summary of the original grant and all subsequent conveyances and encumbrances affecting the property and a certification by the abstractor that the history is complete and accurate. In the United States, the abstract of title furnishes the raw data for the preparation of a policy of title insurance for the parcel of land in question. In Iowa, commercial title insurance is outlawed, so title insurance policies are issued by Iowa Title Guaranty, an Iowa state government agency.[2] An abstract of title should be distinguished from an opinion of title. While an abstract states that all of the public record documents concerning the property in question are contained therein, an opinion states the professional judgment of the person giving the opinion as to the vesting of the title and other matters concerning the chain of title. Many jurisdictions define the giving of an opinion of title as the practice of law, thus making it unlawful for a non-attorney to provide such an opinion.

Question 484

Certification

Answer 484

Certification refers to the confirmation of certain characteristics of an object, person, or organization. This confirmation is often, but not always, provided by some form of external review, education, assessment, or audit. Accreditation is a specific organization's process of certification. According to the National Council on Measurement in Education, a certification test is a credentialing test used to determine whether individuals are knowledgeable enough in a given occupational area to be labeled "competent to practice" in that area.[1]

Question 485

Property

Answer 485

Property, in the abstract, is what belongs to or with something, whether as an attribute or as a component of said thing. In the context of this article, it is one or more components (rather than attributes), whether physical or incorporeal, of a person's estate; or so belonging to, as in being owned by, a person or jointly a group of people or a legal entity like a corporation or even a society. (With that meaning, the word property is uncountable and so is not used with an indefinite article or as a plural.) Depending on the nature of the property, an owner of property has the right to consume, alter, share, redefine, rent, mortgage, pawn, sell, exchange, transfer, give away or destroy it, or to exclude others from doing these things,[1][2][3] as well as to perhaps abandon it; whereas regardless of the nature of the property, the owner thereof has the right to properly use it (as a durable, mean or factor, or whatever), or at the very least exclusively keep it.

Question 486

Redemption

Answer 486

noun: redemption; plural noun: redemptions 1. the action of saving or being saved from sin, error, or evil. "God's plans for the redemption of his world" synonyms: saving, freeing from sin, absolution "God's redemption of his people" a thing that saves someone from error or evil. "his marginalization from the Hollywood jungle proved to be his redemption" 2. the action of regaining or gaining possession of something in exchange for payment, or clearing a debt. synonyms: retrieval, recovery, reclamation, repossession, return More "the redemption of their possessions" exchange, cashing in, conversion "the redemption of credit vouchers" paying off, paying back, discharge, clearing, honoring "the redemption of the mortgage" fulfillment, carrying out, discharge, performing, honoring, meeting "the redemption of his obligations" archaic the action of buying one's freedom. Origin

Question 487

Permit

Answer 487

verb past tense: permitted; past participle: permitted pərˈmit/Submit give authorization or consent to (someone) to do something. "the law permits councils to monitor any factory emitting smoke" synonyms: allow, authorize, give someone permission, sanction, grant, give someone the right, license, empower, enable, entitle, qualify; More give one's blessing to, give the nod to; consent to, assent to, acquiesce in, agree to, tolerate, countenance; legalize, legitimate; informalgive the go-ahead to, give the thumbs up to, OK, give the OK to, give the green light to; formalaccede to; archaicsuffer; let "I cannot permit you to leave" antonyms: ban, forbid authorize or give permission for (something). "the country is not ready to permit any rice imports" (of a thing, circumstance, or condition) provide an opportunity or scope for (something) to take place; make possible. "some properties are too small to permit mechanized farming" dated allow for; admit of. "the camp permits of no really successful defense" Origin late Middle English (originally in the sense ‘commit, hand over’): from Latin permittere, from per- ‘through’ + mittere ‘send, let go.’

Question 488

Paid Up Capital

Answer 488

Paid-up capital is the amount of money a company has received from shareholders in exchange for shares of stock. Paid-up capital is created when a company sells its shares on the primary market, directly to investors.

Question 489

Authorized Capital

Answer 489

The authorised capital of a company (sometimes referred to as the authorised share capital, registered capital or nominal capital, particularly in the United States) is the maximum amount of share capital that the company is authorised by its constitutional documents to issue (allocate) to shareholders.

Question 490

Issued Shares

Answer 490

Issued shares is a term of law and finance for the number of shares of a corporation which have been allocated (allotted) and are subsequently held by shareholders. The act of creating new issued shares is called issuance, allocation or allotment. Allotment is simply the creation of shares and their transfer to a subscriber. After allotment, a subscriber becomes a shareholder, though usually that also requires formal entry in the share registry.

Question 491

Shares Outstanding

Answer 491

Shares outstanding are all the shares of a corporation or financial asset that have been authorized, issued and purchased by investors and are held by them. They have rights and represent ownership in the corporation by the person who holds the shares. They are distinguished from treasury shares, which are shares held by the corporation itself and have no exercisable rights. Shares outstanding plus treasury shares together amount to the number of issued shares.

Question 492

Treasury Stock

Answer 492

A treasury stock or reacquired stock is stock which is also bought back by the issuing company, reducing the amount of outstanding stock on the open market ("open market" including insiders' holdings). Stock repurchases are used as a tax efficient method to put cash into shareholders' hands, rather than paying dividends, in jurisdictions that treat capital gains more favorably. Sometimes, companies do it when they feel that their stock is undervalued on the open market. Other times, companies do it to reduce dilution from incentive compensation plans for employees. Another motive for stock repurchase is to protect the company against a takeover threat. The United Kingdom equivalent of treasury stock as used in the United States is treasury share. Treasury stocks in the UK refers to government bonds or gilts. Treasury stock is not entitled to receive a dividend Treasury stock has no voting rights Total treasury stock can not exceed the maximum proportion of total capitalization specified by law in the relevant country When shares are repurchased, they may either be canceled or held for reissue. If not canceled, such shares are referred to as treasury shares. Technically, a repurchased share is a company's own share that has been bought back after having been issued and fully paid.

Question 493

Dividend

Answer 493

A dividend is a payment made by a corporation to its shareholders, usually as a distribution of profits. When a corporation earns a profit or surplus, the corporation is able to re-invest the profit in the business (called retained earnings) and pay a proportion of the profit as a dividend to shareholders. Distribution to shareholders may be in cash (usually a deposit into a bank account) or, if the corporation has a dividend reinvestment plan, the amount can be paid by the issue of further shares or share repurchase.

Question 494

Joint Stock Company

Answer 494

A joint-stock company is a business entity in which shares of the company's stock can be bought and sold by shareholders. Each shareholder owns company stock in proportion, evidenced by their shares (certificates of ownership).[1] Shareholders are able to transfer their shares to others without any effects to the continued existence of the company.[2] In modern-day corporate law, the existence of a joint-stock company is often synonymous with incorporation (possession of legal personality separate from shareholders) and limited liability (shareholders are liable for the company's debts only to the value of the money they invested in the company). Therefore, joint-stock companies are commonly known as corporations or limited companies.

Question 495

Unlimited Company

Answer 495

An unlimited company or private unlimited company is a hybrid company (corporation) incorporated with or without a share capital (and similar to its limited company counterpart) but where the legal liability of the members or shareholders is not limited: that is, its members or shareholders have a joint, several and non-limited obligation to meet any insufficiency in the assets of the company to enable settlement of any outstanding financial liability in the event of the company's formal liquidation.

Question 496

Liability

Answer 496

In financial accounting, a liability is defined as the future sacrifices of economic benefits that the entity is obliged to make to other entities as a result of past transactions or other past events,[1] the settlement of which may result in the transfer or use of assets, provision of services or other yielding of economic benefits in the future. A liability is defined by the following characteristics: Any type of borrowing from persons or banks for improving a business or personal income that is payable during short or long time; A duty or responsibility to others that entails settlement by future transfer or use of assets, provision of services, or other transaction yielding an economic benefit, at a specified or determinable date, on occurrence of a specified event, or on demand; A duty or responsibility that obligates the entity to another, leaving it little or no discretion to avoid settlement; and, A transaction or event obligating the entity that has already occurred Liabilities in financial accounting need not be legally enforceable; but can be based on equitable obligations or constructive obligations. An equitable obligation is a duty based on ethical or moral considerations. A constructive obligation is an obligation that is implied by a set of circumstances in a particular situation, as opposed to a contractually based obligation. The accounting equation relates assets, liabilities, and owner's equity: Assets = Liabilities + Owner's Equity {\text{Assets}}={\text{Liabilities}}+{\text{Owner's Equity}} The accounting equation is the mathematical structure of the balance sheet.

Question 497

Equity

Answer 497

In accounting, equity (or owner's equity) is the difference between the value of the assets and the value of the liabilities of something owned. It is governed by the following equation: Equity = Assets − Liabilities {\displaystyle {\text{Equity}}={\text{Assets}}-{\text{Liabilities}}} For example, if someone owns a car worth $15,000 (an asset), but owes $5,000 on a loan against that car (a liability), the car represents $10,000 of equity. Equity can be negative if liabilities exceed assets. Shareholders' equity (or stockholders' equity, shareholders' funds, shareholders' capital or similar terms) represents the equity of a company as divided among shareholders of common or preferred stock. Negative shareholders' equity is often referred to as a shareholders' deficit. Alternatively, equity can also refer to the capital stock of a corporation. The value of the stock depends on the corporation's future economic prospects. For a company in liquidation proceedings, the equity is that which remains after all liabilities have been paid.

Question 498

Net Worth

Answer 498

Net worth is the value of all the non-financial and financial assets owned by an institutional unit or sector minus the value of all its outstanding liabilities.[1] Net worth can apply to companies, individuals, governments or economic sectors such as the sector of financial corporations or to entire countries.

Question 499

Estate (Law)

Answer 499

An estate, in common law, is the net worth of a person at any point in time alive or dead. It is the sum of a person's assets – legal rights, interests and entitlements to property of any kind – less all liabilities at that time. The issue is of special legal significance on a question of bankruptcy and death of the person. (See inheritance.) Depending on the particular context, the term is also used in reference to an estate in land or of a particular kind of property (such as real estate or personal estate). The term is also used to refer to the sum of a person's assets only. The equivalent in civil law legal systems is patrimony.

Question 500

Estate in Land

Answer 500

An estate in land is an interest in real property that is or may become possessory. In the legal systems of almost every country, the ultimate true "owner" of all land is the sovereign, which for a republic is the whole people of a society,[citation needed] which with sovereign, exclusive dominion over a well-defined tract of land, may be called a "state". Private parties own not the underlying land, but claims on parcels of land, which taken together define the estate for that parcel. This superior ownership is the basis for taking the land through eminent domain. However, the claims that define the estate are themselves personal property. This should be distinguished from an "estate" as used in reference to an area of land, and "estate" as used to refer to property in general. In property law, the rights and interests associated with an estate in land may be conceptually understood as a "bundle of rights" because of the potential for different parties having different interests in the same real property.

Question 501

Indenture

Answer 501

An indenture is a legal contract between two parties, particularly for indentured labour or a term of apprenticeship but also for certain land transactions. The term comes from the medieval English "indenture of retainer"[1] — a legal contract written in duplicate on the same sheet, with the copies separated by cutting along a jagged (toothed, hence the term "indenture") line so that the teeth of the two parts could later be refitted to confirm authenticity (Chirograph).[2] Each party to the deed would then retain a part. When the agreement was made before a court of law a tripartite indenture was made, with the third piece kept at the court. The term is used for any kind of deed executed by more than one party, in contrast to a deed poll which is made by one individual. In the case of bonds, the indenture shows the pledge, promises, representations and covenants of the issuing party. An indenture is a legal contract that reflects or covers a debt or purchase obligation. It specifically refers to two types of practices: in historical usage, an indentured servant status, and in modern usage, it is an instrument used for commercial debt or real estate transaction. It was named after the practice of writing a contract or deed on a single piece of paper, then cutting it in half with a unique cut-line (indenture) so that both pieces could be placed together to demonstrate they were cut from the same piece of paper.

Question 502

Chirigraph

Answer 502

A chirograph is a medieval document, which has been written in duplicate, triplicate or very occasionally quadruplicate (four copies) on a single piece of parchment, with the Latin word "chirographum" (occasionally replaced by some other term) written across the middle, and then cut through to separate the parts. It is equally a papal decree whose circulation is limited to the Roman curia. The Latin word "chirographum", often spelled "cirographum" or "cyrographum" in the medieval period, is derived from the Greek χειρόγραϕον, and simply means "handwritten".

Question 503

Deed Poll

Answer 503

A deed poll (plural: deeds poll) is a legal document binding only to a single person or several persons acting jointly to express an active intention. It is, strictly speaking, not a contract because it binds only one party and expresses an intention instead of a promise.

Question 504

Deed

Answer 504

A deed (anciently "an evidence") is any legal instrument in writing which passes, affirms or confirms an interest, right, or property and that is signed, attested, delivered, and in some jurisdictions, sealed. It is commonly associated with transferring (conveyancing) title to property. The deed has a greater presumption of validity and is less rebuttable than an instrument signed by the party to the deed. A deed can be unilateral or bilateral. Deeds include conveyances, commissions, licenses, patents, diplomas, and conditionally powers of attorney if executed as deeds. The deed is the modern descendant of the medieval charter, and delivery is thought to symbolically replace the ancient ceremony of livery of seisin.[1]

Question 505

Livery of Seisin (delivery)

Answer 505

Livery of seisin (/ˈseɪzɪn/) is an archaic legal conveyancing ceremony, formerly practised in feudal England and in other countries following English common law, used to convey holdings in property. The term livery is closely related to if not synonymous with delivery used in some jurisdictions in contract law or the related law of deeds. The oldest forms of common law provided that a valid conveyance of a feudal tenure in land required physical transfer by the transferor to the transferee in the presence of witnesses of a piece of the ground itself, in the literal sense of a hand-to-hand passing of an amount of soil, a twig, key to a building on that land, or other token. Livery in deed, whereby the parties met together on the land and the transferor symbolically delivered possession of the land by handing over a twig or a clump of earth to the recipient. Livery in law, whereby the parties went within sight of the land and the transferor declared to the recipient that possession was being given, followed by the recipient entering onto the land. The symbol of livery for a house was the door's ring or hasp; for mills, the "clap and hopper"; for a church, a psalm book and keys, and so on.

Question 506

Conveyance

Answer 506

In law, conveyancing is the transfer of legal title of real property from one person to another, or the granting of an encumbrance such as a mortgage or a lien.[1] A typical conveyancing transaction has two major phases: the exchange of contracts (when equitable interests are created) and completion (also called settlement, when legal title passes and equitable rights merge with the legal title).

Question 507

HM Land Registry

Answer 507

Her Majesty's Land Registry is a non-ministerial department of the Government of the United Kingdom, created in 1862 to register the ownership of land and property in England and Wales.[3] It reports to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

Question 508

Registers of Scotland

Answer 508

Registers of Scotland (RoS) is the non-ministerial department of the Scottish Government responsible for compiling and maintaining records relating to property and other legal documents.

Question 509

Sasine

Answer 509

Sasine in Scots law is the delivery of feudal property, typically land. Feudal property means immovable property, and includes everything that naturally goes with the property. For land, that would include such things as buildings, trees, and underground minerals. A superior (e.g., a heritor) might authorise his agent or factor to give possession of his property to someone else through a document known as a "precept of sasine". Over time, sasine came to be used in common speech as a reference to the deed or document recording the transfer, rather than to the transfer itself. Hence phrases such as "to give sasines", "to deliver sasines", "to receive sasines", "to take sasines". Alternate spellings: seizin, seisin, sasin, seasin, sasing, seasing, sesin, seasin, sesine, seasine, saisine.[1][2][3]

Question 510

Seisin

Answer 510

Seisin (or seizin) denotes the legal possession of a feudal fiefdom or fee, that is to say an estate in land. It was used in the form of "the son and heir of X has obtained seisin of his inheritance", and thus is effectively a term concerned with conveyancing in the feudal era. The person holding such estate is said to be "seized of it", a phrase which commonly appears in inquisitions post mortem (i.e. "The jurors find that X died seized of the manor of ..."). The monarch alone "owned" all the land of England by his allodial right and all his subjects were merely his tenants under various contracts of feudal tenure. Seisin comes from Middle English saysen, seysen, in the legal sense of to put in possession of, or to take possession of, hence, to grasp, to seize. The Old French variations seisir, saisir, are from Low Latin sacire, generally referred to the same source as Gothic satjan, Old English settan, to put in place, set.

Question 511

Feudal land tenure in England

Answer 511

Under the English feudal system several different forms of land tenure existed, each effectively a contract with differing rights and duties attached thereto. Such tenures could be either free-hold, signifying that they were hereditable or perpetual, or non-free where the tenancy terminated on the tenant's death or at an earlier specified period. The main varieties are as follows: by barony (per baroniam). Such tenure constituted the holder a feudal baron, and was the highest degree of tenure. It imposed duties of military service and required attendance at parliament. All such holders were necessarily tenants-in-chief. by knight-service. This was a tenure ranking below barony, and was likewise for military service, of a lesser extent. It could be held in capite from the king or as a mesne tenancy from a tenant-in-chief. by castle-guard. This was a form of military service which involved guarding a nearby castle for a specified number of days per year. by scutage where the military service obligations had been commuted, or replaced, by money payments. by serjeanty. Such tenure was in return for acting as a servant to the king, in a non-military capacity. Service in a ceremonial form is termed "grand serjeanty" whilst that of a more functional or menial nature is termed "petty serjeanty". by frankalmoinage, generally a tenure restricted to clerics. by fee-farm, a grant of the right to collect and retain revenues in return for a fixed rent. Usually a royal grant. by copyhold, where the duties and obligations were tailored to the requirements of the lord of the manor and a copy of the terms agreed was entered on the roll of the manorial court as a record. by socage. A form of tenure, involving payment in produce or in money. Quit-rent. The payment of an annual fee in exchange for freedom from all other feudal obligations. In paragio, a form of tenure frequently appearing in Domesday Book. (Coolf tenuit in paragio de rege, manor of Welige, IoW). Free burgage, tenure within a town or city.[1] Curtesy tenure. A tenant "by the curtesy of England", being a widower of a wife by whom he has issue by her born alive, in respect of her enseized right in land, generally originating in a paternal inheritance. Roger Bigod claimed it unsuccessfully on the death of his wife Aliva.[2] Tenant-at-will. Such tenant had no security of tenure whatsoever. It developed into the more secure "copyhold tenure", where the terms were set out in an entry on the manorial roll. Gavelkind. Frequently found in mediaeval Kent, "held according to the custom of gavelkind". It withdrew a dower from a widow if she remarried. Fee simple, a tenure with no service obligations attached which could be a free-holding (i.e. hereditable) or non-free (expiring on the tenant's death).[4] On the abolition of feudal tenure in 1660, all existing tenures were converted to this tenure.

Question 512

Land Tenure

Answer 512

In common law systems, land tenure is the legal regime in which land is owned by an individual, who is said to "hold" the land. The French verb "tenir" means "to hold" and "tenant" is the present participle of "tenir". The sovereign monarch, known as The Crown, held land in its own right. All private owners are either its tenants or sub-tenants. Tenure signifies the relationship between tenant and lord, not the relationship between tenant and land. Over history, many different forms of land ownership, i.e., ways of owning land, have been established. A landholder/landowner is a holder of the estate in land with considerable rights of ownership or, simply put, an owner of land.

Question 513

Subinfeudiation

Answer 513

In English law, subinfeudation is the practice by which tenants, holding land under the king or other superior lord, carved out new and distinct tenures in their turn by sub-letting or alienating a part of their lands.[1] The tenants were termed mesne lords, with regard to those holding from them, the immediate tenant being tenant in capite. The lowest tenant of all was the freeholder, or, as he was sometimes termed tenant paravail. The Crown, who in theory owned all lands, was lord paramount. In Scots law, the feudal system was abolished by the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000. The length of a lease was limited to 175 years to prevent the existence of perpetual landlord-tenant relationships similar to those that existed under feudal tenure.[2]

Question 514

Civil Death

Answer 514

Civil death (Latin: civiliter mortuus)[1] is the loss of all or almost all civil rights by a person due to a conviction for a felony or due to an act by the government of a country that results in the loss of civil rights. It is usually inflicted on persons convicted of crimes against the state or adults determined by a court to be legally incompetent because of mental disability.[2] In medieval Europe, felons lost all civil rights upon their conviction. This civil death often led to actual death, since anyone could kill and injure a felon with impunity.[3] Under the Holy Roman Empire, a person declared civilly dead was referred to as vogelfrei, ‘free as a bird’, and could even be killed since they were completely outside the law.[4] Historically outlawry, that is, declaring a person as an outlaw, was a common form of civil death.[4] In the US, the disenfranchisement of felons[5] has been called a form of civil death, as has being subjected to collateral consequences in general.[6]

Question 515

Mortmain

Answer 515

Mortmain is the perpetual, inalienable ownership of real estate by a corporation or legal institution; the term is usually used in the context of its prohibition. Historically, the land owner usually would be the religious office of a church; today, insofar as mortmain prohibitions against perpetual ownership still exist, it refers most often to modern companies and charitable trusts. The term "mortmain" is derived from Mediaeval Latin mortua manus, literally "dead hand", through Old French morte main.[1]

Question 516

Rule against perpetuities

Answer 516

The rule against perpetuities is a rule in the Anglo-American common law that prevents people from using legal instruments (usually a deed or a will) to exert control over the ownership of property for a time long beyond the lives of people living at the time the instrument was written. Specifically, the rule forbids a person from creating future interests (traditionally contingent remainders and executory interests) in property that would vest at a date beyond that of the lifetimes of those then living plus 21 years. In essence, the rule prevents a person from putting qualifications and criteria in a deed or a will that would continue to affect the ownership of property long after he or she has died, a concept often referred to as control by the "dead hand" or "mortmain".

Question 517

Statutes of Mortmains

Answer 517

The Statutes of Mortmain were two enactments, in 1279 and 1290, by Edward I of England aimed at preserving the kingdom's revenues by preventing land from passing into the possession of the Church. Possession of property by a corporation such as the church was known as mortmain. Mortmain literally means "the dead hand." In Medieval England, feudal estates generated taxes (in the form of incidents) upon the inheritance or granting of the estate.

Question 518

Feoffment

Answer 518

In the Middle Ages, especially under the European feudal system, feoffment or enfeoffment was the deed by which a person was given land in exchange for a pledge of service. This mechanism was later used to avoid restrictions on the passage of title in land by a system in which a landowner would give land to one person for the use of another. The common law of estates in land grew from this concept.

Question 519

Legal Person

Answer 519

A legal person (in legal contexts often simply person, less ambiguously legal entity)[1][2] is any human or non-human entity, in other words, any human being, firm, or government agency that is recognized as having legal rights and obligations, such as having the ability to enter into contracts, to sue, and to be sued.[3][4][5] The term "legal person" is however ambiguous because it is also used in contradistinction to "natural person", i.e. as a synonym of terms used to refer only to non-human legal entities.[6][7] So there are of two kinds of legal entities, human and non-human: natural persons (also called physical persons) and juridical persons (also called juridic, juristic, artificial, legal, or fictitious persons, Latin: persona ficta), which are other entities (such as corporations) that are treated in law as if they were persons.[4][8][9] While human beings acquire legal personhood when they are born, juridical persons do so when they are incorporated in accordance with law. Legal personhood is a prerequisite to legal capacity, the ability of any legal person to amend (enter into, transfer, etc.) rights and obligations. In international law, consequently, legal personality is a prerequisite for an international organization to be able to sign international treaties in its own name.

Question 520

Parens Patriae

Answer 520

Parens patriae is Latin for "parent of the nation" (lit., "parent of the fatherland"). In law, it refers to the public policy power of the state to intervene against an abusive or negligent parent, legal guardian or informal caretaker, and to act as the parent of any child or individual who is in need of protection. For example, some children, incapacitated individuals, and disabled individuals lack parents who are able and willing to render adequate care, thus requiring state intervention. In U.S. litigation, parens patriae can be invoked by the state to create its standing to sue; the state declares itself to be suing on behalf of its people. For example, the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvement Act of 1976 (15 USC 15c), through Section 4C of the Clayton Act, permits state attorneys general to bring parens patriae suits on behalf of those injured by violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Question 521

Non-Compose-Mentis

Answer 521

The Latin non compos mentis translates as "of unsound mind": nōn ("not") prefaces compos mentis, meaning "having control of one's mind". This phrase was first used in thirteenth-century English law. In medieval and early modern Britain, the term Non compos mentis was often related to religious or mysterious phenomena such as diabolical influence. From the seventeenth century, the condition was increasingly viewed as a mental illness, also described as insanity or madness. In English law, Non compos mentis was a juristic term to describe a person's action as not motivated by reason, but being influenced by some false image or mental impression.[2] Non compos mentis and 'Felo de se' (the Latin word for 'self-murder',) presented two different verdicts in the case of a suicide. In the finding of a jury, the deceased who was stigmatized felo de se, would be excluded from burial in consecrated ground and would forfeit their estate to the Crown, while these penalties would not apply to the deceased affirmed non compos mentis, i.e. deemed to be insane.[3]

Question 522

Law of Restitution

Answer 522

The English law of Restitution is the law of gain-based recovery.[1] Its precise scope and underlying principles remain a matter of significant academic and judicial controversy.[2] Broadly speaking, the law of restitution concerns actions in which one person claims an entitlement in respect of a gain acquired by another, rather than compensation for a loss. Many academic commentators have sought to impose structure upon the law of restitution by searching for a common rationale and constructing taxonomies of the various types of claim.[3] Whether such frameworks can account for the diverse range of restitutionary claims remains a controversial question. The implications of such frameworks for the relationship between law and Equity has often been a significant flashpoint in academic and judicial debate.[4] As the law currently stands,[5] the law of restitution can be usefully divided into (at least) three broad categories: Restitution for unjust enrichment Restitution for wrongs Restitution to vindicate property rights Outside of these categories exist a range of doctrines which also provide restitutionary or analogous remedies. Academic commentators have sought to rationalise these in terms of unjust enrichment, with various degrees of success. It is now generally accepted that unjust enrichment has a part to play in the doctrine of subrogation.[6] Actions for recoupment (historically speaking, an action for money paid to the defendant's use) and contribution have also been said to reverse unjust enrichment.[7] Certain statutory frameworks providing for restitutionary remedies have been said to rest on the principle of unjust enrichment.[8]

Question 523

Joint and several liability

Answer 523

Where two or more persons are liable in respect of the same liability, in most common law legal systems they may either be: jointly liable, or severally liable, or jointly and severally liable. If parties have joint liability, then they are each liable up to the full amount of the relevant obligation.[2] So if a married couple takes a loan from a bank, the loan agreement will normally provide that they are to be "jointly liable" for the full amount. The converse is several or proportionate liability, where the parties are liable for only their respective obligations.[4] A common example of several liability is in syndicated loan agreements, which will normally provide that each bank is severally liable for its own part of the loan. If one bank fails to advance its agreed part of the loan to the borrower, then the borrower can sue only that bank, and the other banks in the syndicate have no liability. Under joint and several liability or all sums, a claimant may pursue an obligation against any one party as if they were jointly liable and it becomes the responsibility of the defendants to sort out their respective proportions of liability and payment.[2][4] This means that if the claimant pursues one defendant and receives payment, that defendant must then pursue the other obligors for a contribution to their share of the liability.

Question 524

Contribution Claim

Answer 524

A contribution claim is a claim brought by one or more defendants to a lawsuit for money damages brought by a plaintiff. A contribution claim asserts the party (usually a defendant) is entitled to "contribution" from a third party for any money damages awarded to the plaintiff. For example, if a plaintiff sues a homeowner for damages caused by a garage door, the defendant homeowner could add a third party, the manufacturer of the garage door to contribute to any damages awarded to the plaintiff according to the proportionate share of responsibility, liability, or fault assigned to the homeowner and the manufacturer by the jury.

Question 525

Counter Claim

Answer 525

In a court of law, a party's claim is a counter-claim if the defending party has previously (in the present action) made a claim against the claiming party. Examples of counterclaims include: After a bank has sued a customer for an unpaid debt, the customer counterclaims (sues back) against the bank for fraud in procuring the debt. The court will sort out the different claims in one lawsuit (unless the claims are severed). Two cars collide. After one person sues for damage to her car and personal injuries, the defendant counterclaims for similar property damage and personal injury claims.

Question 526

Cross Claim

Answer 526

A crossclaim is a claim asserted between codefendants or coplaintiffs in a case and that relates to the subject of the original claim or counterclaim according to Black's Law Dictionary. A cross claim is filed against someone who is a co-defendant or co-plaintiff to the party who originates the crossclaim. In common law, a crossclaim is a demand made in a pleading that is filed against a party which is on the "same side" of the lawsuit.[1]

Question 527

Service of Process

Answer 527

Service of process is the procedure by which a party to a lawsuit gives an appropriate notice of initial legal action to another party (such as a defendant), court, or administrative body in an effort to exercise jurisdiction over that person so as to enable that person to respond to the proceeding before the court, body, or other tribunal. Notice is furnished by delivering a set of court documents (called "process") to the person to be served.

Question 528

Summons

Answer 528

Legally, a summons (also known in England and Wales as a claim form and in the Australian state of New South Wales as a Court Attendance Notice (CAN)) is a legal document issued by a court (a judicial summons) or by an administrative agency of government (an administrative summons) for various purposes. A judicial summons is served on a person involved in a legal proceeding. Legal action may be in progress against the person, or the person's presence as witness may be required.[1] In the former case, the summons will typically announce to the person to whom it is directed that a legal proceeding has been started against that person, and that a case has been initiated in the issuing court. In some jurisdictions, it may be drafted in legal English difficult for the layman to understand, while several U.S. states expressly require summonses to be drafted in plain English and that they must start with this phrase: "Notice! You have been sued."[citation needed] The summons announces a date by which the person or persons summoned must either appear in court, or respond in writing to the court or the opposing party or parties. The summons is the descendant of the writ of the common law. It replaces the former procedure in common-law countries by which the plaintiff actually had to ask the sheriff to arrest the defendant in order for the court to obtain personal jurisdiction in both criminal and civil actions.

Question 529

Failure to Appear

Answer 529

Failure to appear is the legal term for the failure of a defendant or respondent to appear at (or within) the stated time before a tribunal as directed in a summons. Where the conduct alleged in the summons or complaint is an infraction or summary offence, failure to appear is a crime for which a bench-warrant can be issued if the defendant promised to appear. If the conduct alleged is a tort or other cause for civil action, failure to appear generally results in a default judgment by the court in favor of the plaintiff/petitioner.

Question 530

Arraingment

Answer 530

Arraignment is a formal reading of a criminal charging document in the presence of the defendant to inform the defendant of the charges against him or her. In response to arraignment, the accused is expected to enter a plea. Acceptable pleas vary among jurisdiction but they generally include "guilty", "not guilty", and the peremptory pleas (or pleas in bar) setting out reasons why a trial cannot proceed. Pleas of "nolo contendere" (no contest) and the "Alford plea" are allowed in some circumstances. The United States has 57 court systems - one each for federal (1), state (50), commonwealth (2), territorial (3), and federal district (1) jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction establishes its own rules of criminal procedure. All 57 sets of rules must comply with certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution (e.g. the privilege against self-incrimination, prohibition of excessive bail, etc.) but otherwise are bound only by their own local constitutions and statutes. At federal level, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that "arraignment shall [consist of an] open...reading [of] the indictment...to the defendant...and call[] on him to plead thereto. He/she shall be given a copy of the indictment...before he/she is called upon to plead."[5]

Question 531

Indictment

Answer 531

An indictment (/ɪnˈdaɪtmənt/ in-DYT-mənt) is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. In jurisdictions that use the concept of felonies, the most serious criminal offence is a felony; jurisdictions that do not use the concept of felonies often use that of an indictable offence—an offence that requires an indictment. Historically, in most common law jurisdictions, an indictment was handed up by a grand jury, which returned a "true bill" if it found cause to make the charge, or "no bill" if it did not find cause.

Question 532

Grand Jury

Answer 532

A grand jury is a legal body empowered to conduct official proceedings and investigate potential criminal conduct, and determine whether criminal charges should be brought. A grand jury may compel the production of documents and compel sworn testimony of witnesses to appear before it. A grand jury is separate from the courts, which do not preside over its functioning.[1] The United States and Liberia are the only countries that retain grand juries,[2][3] though other common law jurisdictions formerly employed them, and most others now employ some other form of preliminary hearing. Grand juries perform both accusatory and investigatory functions. The investigatory functions of grand juries include obtaining and reviewing documents and other evidence, and hearing sworn testimonies of witnesses who appear before it; the accusatory function determines whether there is probable cause to believe that one or more persons committed a certain offence within the venue of a district court.

Question 533

Petit Jury

Answer 533

In common law, a petit jury (or trial jury, sometimes petty jury) hears the evidence in a trial as presented by both the plaintiff (petitioner) and the defendant (respondent). After hearing the evidence and often jury instructions from the judge, the group retires for deliberation, to consider a verdict.

Question 534

Jury

Answer 534

A jury is a sworn body of people convened to render an impartial verdict (a finding of fact on a question) officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Modern juries tend to be found in courts to ascertain the guilt, or lack thereof, in a crime.

Question 535

Question of Law

Answer 535

In law, a question of law, also known as a point of law, is a question that must be answered by applying relevant legal principles to interpretation of the law.[1] Such a question is distinct from a question of fact, which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence as well inferences arising from those facts. Answers to questions of law are generally expressed in terms of broad legal principles and can be applied to many situations rather than be dependent on particular circumstances or factual situations. An answer to a question of law as applied to the particular facts of a case is often referred to as a "conclusion of law."

Question 536

Evidence (Law)

Answer 536

The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury.[1] The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction. The quantum of evidence is the amount of evidence needed; the quality of proof is how reliable such evidence should be considered. Important rules that govern admissibility concern hearsay, authentication, relevance, privilege, witnesses, opinions, expert testimony, identification and rules of physical evidence. There are various standards of evidence or standards showing how strong the evidence must be to meet the legal burden of proof in a given situation, ranging from reasonable suspicion to preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt.

Question 537

Not Proven

Answer 537

Not proven is a verdict available to a court in Scotland. Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts: one of conviction ("guilty") and two of acquittal ("not proven" and "not guilty").[1][2]

Question 538

Acquittal

Answer 538

In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal certifies that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as the criminal law is concerned. This is so even where the prosecution is simply abandoned by the prosecution. The finality of an acquittal is dependent on the jurisdiction. In some countries, such as the United States, an acquittal operates to bar the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict, or whether it results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused. In other countries, the prosecuting authority may appeal an acquittal similar to how a defendant may appeal a conviction.

Question 539

Discovery

Answer 539

Discovery, in the law of the United States and other countries, is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as a request for answers to interrogatories, request for production of documents, request for admissions and depositions.[2] Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery.[3]

Question 540

Motion

Answer 540

In United States law, a motion is a procedural device to bring a limited, contested issue before a court for decision.[1] It is a request to the judge (or judges) to make a decision about the case.[1] Motions may be made at any point in administrative, criminal or civil proceedings, although that right is regulated by court rules which vary from place to place. The party requesting the motion may be called the movant, or may simply be the moving party. The party opposing the motion is the nonmovant or nonmoving party.

Question 541

Summary Judgement

Answer 541

In law, a summary judgment (also judgment as a matter of law) is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily, i.e., without a full trial. Such a judgment may be issued on the merits of an entire case, or on discrete issues in that case. In common-law systems, questions about what the law actually is in a particular case are decided by judges; in rare cases jury nullification of the law may act to contravene or complement the instructions or orders of the judge, or other officers of the court. A factfinder has to decide what the facts are and apply the law. In traditional common law the factfinder was a jury, but in many jurisdictions the judge now acts as the factfinder as well. It is the factfinder who decides "what really happened", and it is the judge who applies the law to the facts as determined by the factfinder, whether directly or by giving instructions to the jury. In the absence of an award of summary judgment (or some type of pretrial dismissal), a lawsuit ordinarily proceeds to trial, which is an opportunity for litigants to present evidence in an attempt to persuade the factfinder that they are saying "what really happened", and that, under the applicable law, they should prevail. The necessary steps before a case can get to trial include disclosing documents to the opponent by discovery, showing the other side the evidence, often in the form of witness statements. This process is lengthy, and can be difficult and costly. A party moving (applying) for summary judgment is attempting to avoid the time and expense of a trial when, in the moving party's view, the outcome is obvious. Typically this is stated as, when all the evidence likely to be put forward is such that no reasonable factfinder could disagree with the moving party, summary judgment is appropriate. Sometimes this will occur when there is no real dispute as to what happened, but it also frequently occurs when there is a nominal dispute but the non-moving party cannot produce enough evidence to support its position. A party may also move for summary judgment in order to eliminate the risk of losing at trial, and possibly avoid having to go through discovery (i.e., by moving at the outset of discovery), by demonstrating to the judge, via sworn statements and documentary evidence, that there are no material factual issues remaining to be tried. If there is nothing for the factfinder to decide, then the moving party asks rhetorically, why have a trial? The moving party will also attempt to persuade the court that the undisputed material facts require judgment to be entered in its favor. In many jurisdictions, a party moving for summary judgment takes the risk that, although the judge may agree there are no material issues of fact remaining for trial, the judge may also find that it is the non-moving party that is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Question 542

Witness Statement

Answer 542

A witness statement is a signed document recording the evidence of a witness. A definition used in the UK is "a written statement signed by a person which contains the evidence which that person would be allowed to give orally".[1] In the United States, witness statements are generally eschewed in favour of a discovery process including deposition of oral testimony given by key witnesses prior to trial.[citation needed]

Question 543

Judgement as a Matter of Law

Answer 543

Judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) is a motion made by a party, during trial, claiming the opposing party has insufficient evidence to reasonably support its case. JMOL is also known as a directed verdict, which it has replaced in American federal courts. JMOL is similar to judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment, all of which test the factual sufficiency of a claim. Judgment on the pleadings is a motion made after pleading and before discovery; summary judgment happens after discovery and before trial; JMOL occurs during trial.

Question 544

Burden of a Proof

Answer 544

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the duty of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party. In a legal dispute, one party is initially presumed to be correct and gets the benefit of the doubt, while the other side bears the burden of proof. When a party bearing the burden of proof meets their burden, the burden of proof switches to the other side. Burdens may be of different kinds for each party, in different phases of litigation.

Question 545

Burden of Production (Prima facie)

Answer 545

Prima facie (/ˈpraɪmə ˈfeɪʃɪ.iː/, /ˈfeɪʃə/, or /ˈfeɪʃiː/; from Latin: prīmā faciē) is a Latin expression meaning on its first encounter or at first sight. The literal translation would be "at first face" or "at first appearance", from the feminine forms of primus ("first") and facies ("face"), both in the ablative case. In modern, colloquial and conversational English, a common translation would be, "on the face of it". The term prima facie is used in modern legal English (including both civil law and criminal law) to signify that upon initial examination, sufficient corroborating evidence appears to exist to support a case. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that, unless rebutted, would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. In most legal proceedings, one party has a burden of proof, which requires it to present prima facie evidence for all of the essential facts in its case. If it cannot, its claim may be dismissed without any need for a response by other parties. A prima facie case might not stand or fall on its own; if an opposing party introduces other evidence or asserts an affirmative defense it can only be reconciled with a full trial. Sometimes the introduction of prima facie evidence is informally called making a case or building a case.

Question 546

Res ipsa loquitur

Answer 546

In the common law of torts, res ipsa loquitur (Latin for "the thing speaks for itself") is a doctrine that infers negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved. Although modern formulations differ by jurisdiction, common law originally stated that the accident must satisfy the necessary elements of negligence: duty, breach of duty, causation, and injury. In res ipsa loquitur, the elements of duty of care, breach and causation are inferred from an injury that does not ordinarily occur without negligence. Elements The injury is of the kind that does not ordinarily occur without negligence. The injury is caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant. The injury-causing accident is not by any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff. The defendant's non-negligent explanation does not completely explain plaintiff’s injury. The first element may be satisfied in one of three ways: (a) The injury itself is sufficient to prove blatant or palpable negligence as a matter of law, such as amputation of the wrong limb or leaving instruments inside body after surgery. (b) The general experience and observation of mankind is sufficient to support the conclusion that the injury would not have resulted without negligence, such as a hysterectomy (removal of the uterus) performed when the patient consented only to a tubal ligation (clipping of the fallopian tubes for purposes of sterilization). (c) Expert testimony creates an inference that negligence caused the injury, such as an expert general surgeon testifying that he has performed over 1000 appendectomies (removal of the appendix) and has never caused injury to a patient's liver. He also does not know of any of his surgeon colleagues having inflicted injury to a patient's liver during an appendectomy. The testimony would create an inference that injuring the liver in the course of an appendectomy is negligence. The second element is discussed further in the section below. The third element requires the absence of contributory negligence from the plaintiff. The fourth element emphasizes that defendant may defeat a res ipsa loquitur claim by producing evidence of a non-negligent scenario that would completely explain plaintiff's injury and negate all possible inferences that negligence could have occurred.

Question 547

Truer of Fact

Answer 547

A trier of fact, or finder of fact, is a person, or group of persons, who determines facts in a legal proceeding, usually a trial. To determine a fact is to decide, from the evidence, whether something existed or some event occurred. In a jury trial, a jury is the trier of fact. The jury finds the facts and applies them to the relevant statute or law it is instructed by the judge to use in order to reach its verdict. Thus, in a jury trial, the findings of fact are made by the jury while the judge makes legal rulings as to what evidence will be heard by the jury and what legal framework governs the case.

Question 548

Administrative Law

Answer 548

Administrative law is the body of law that governs the activities of administrative agencies of government. Government agency action can include rulemaking, adjudication, or the enforcement of a specific regulatory agenda. Administrative law is considered a branch of public law. As a body of law, administrative law deals with the decision-making of the administrative units of government (for example, tribunals, boards or commissions) that are part of a national regulatory scheme in such areas as police law, international trade, manufacturing, the environment, taxation, broadcasting, immigration and transport. Administrative law expanded greatly during the twentieth century, as legislative bodies worldwide created more government agencies to regulate the social, economic and political spheres of human interaction. Civil law countries often have specialized courts, administrative courts, that review these decisions.

Question 549

Administrative Law Judge

Answer 549

An administrative law judge (ALJ) in the United States is a judge and trier of fact who both presides over trials and adjudicates the claims or disputes (in other words, ALJ-controlled proceedings are bench trials) involving administrative law. ALJs can administer oaths, take testimony, rule on questions of evidence, and make factual and legal determinations.[1] And depending upon the agency's jurisdiction, proceedings may have complex multi-party adjudication, as is the case with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or simplified and less formal procedures, as is the case with the Social Security Administration.

Question 550

Statutory Law

Answer 550

Statutory law or statute law is written law set down by a body of legislature or by a singular legislator (in the case of absolute monarchy).[1] This is as opposed to oral or customary law; or regulatory law promulgated by the executive or common law of the judiciary. Statutes may originate with national, state legislatures or local municipalities.

Question 551

1983 Code of Canon Law

Answer 551

The 1983 Code of Canon Law (abbreviated 1983 CIC from its Latin title Codex Iuris Canonici), also called the Johanno-Pauline Code,[1] is the "fundamental body of ecclesiastical laws for the Latin Church".[2] It is the second and current comprehensive codification of canonical legislation for the Latin Church sui juris of the Catholic Church. It was promulgated on 25 January 1983 by John Paul II[3] and took legal effect on the First Sunday of Advent (27 November)[4] 1983. It replaced the 1917 Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Benedict XV on 27 May 1917.

Question 552

Subreption.

Answer 552

A deliberate misrepresentation. A concealment of the truth.

Question 553

Obreption

Answer 553

``` 1. Canon Law. fraud in obtaining or attempting to obtain something from an official. Compare subreption (def 1). 2. Scots Law. the act of obtaining something, as an escheat, by falsehood. Compare subreption (def 2). ```

Question 554

Rescript

Answer 554

Can. 59 §1. A rescript is an administrative act issued in writing by competent executive authority; of its very nature, a rescript grants a privilege, dispensation, or other favor at someone’s request.

Question 555

Privilege

Answer 555

Can. 76 §1. A privilege is a favor given through a particular act to the benefit of certain physical or juridic persons; it can be granted by the legislator as well as by an executive authority to whom the legislator has granted this power.

Question 556

Dispensation

Answer 556

Can. 85 A dispensation, or the relaxation of a merely ecclesiastical law in a particular case, can be granted by those who possess executive power within the limits of their competence, as well as by those who have the power to dispense explicitly or implicitly either by the law itself or by legitimate delegation.

Question 557

Fixed Exchange Rate System

Answer 557

A fixed exchange rate, sometimes called a pegged exchange rate, is a type of exchange rate regime where a currency's value is fixed against either the value of another single currency, to a basket of other currencies, or to another measure of value, such as gold.

Question 558

Floating Exchange Rate

Answer 558

A floating exchange rate or fluctuating exchange or flexible exchange rate is a type of exchange-rate regime in which a currency's value is allowed to fluctuate in response to foreign-exchange market mechanisms. A currency that uses a floating exchange rate is known as a floating currency. A floating currency is contrasted with a fixed currency whose value is tied to that of another currency, material goods or to a currency basket.

Question 559

Exchange Rate Regime

Answer 559

An exchange-rate regime is the way an authority manages its currency in relation to other currencies and the foreign exchange market. It is closely related to monetary policy and the two are generally dependent on many of the same factors. The basic types are a floating exchange rate, where the economy dictates movements in the exchange rate; a pegged float, where a central bank keeps the rate from deviating too far from a target band or value; and a fixed exchange rate, which ties the currency to another currency, mostly reserve currencies such as the U.S. dollar or the euro or a basket of currencies.

Question 560

Currency Band

Answer 560

A currency band is a range of values for the exchange rate for a country’s currency which the country’s central bank acts to keep the exchange rate within.[1] The central bank selects a range, or "band", of values at which to set their currency, and will intervene in the market or return to a fixed exchange rate if the value of their currency shifts outside this band. This allows for some revaluation, but tends to stabilize the currency's value within the band. In this sense, it is a compromise between a fixed (or "pegged") exchange rate and a floating exchange rate.[2]

Question 561

European Exchange Rate Mechanism

Answer 561

The European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) was a system introduced by the European Economic Community on 13 March 1979, as part of the European Monetary System (EMS), to reduce exchange rate variability and achieve monetary stability in Europe, in preparation for Economic and Monetary Union and the introduction of a single currency, the euro, which took place on 1 January 1999.

Question 562

Exchange Rate

Answer 562

In finance, an exchange rate is the rate at which one currency will be exchanged for another. It is also regarded as the value of one country’s currency in relation to another currency.[1] For example, an interbank exchange rate of 114 Japanese yen to the United States dollar means that ¥114 will be exchanged for each US$1 or that US$1 will be exchanged for each ¥114. In this case it is said that the price of a dollar in relation to yen is ¥114, or equivalently that the price of a yen in relation to dollars is $1/114.

Question 563

Currency War (Devaluation)

Answer 563

Currency war, also known as competitive devaluations, is a condition in international affairs where countries seek to gain a trade advantage over other countries by causing the exchange rate of their currency to fall in relation to other currencies. As the exchange rate of a country's currency falls, exports become more competitive in other countries, and imports into the country become more expensive. Both effects benefit the domestic industry, and thus employment, which receives a boost in demand from both domestic and foreign markets. However, the price increases for import goods (as well as in the cost of foreign travel) are unpopular as they harm citizens' purchasing power; and when all countries adopt a similar strategy, it can lead to a general decline in international trade, harming all countries.

Question 564

Purchasing Power

Answer 564

Purchasing power (sometimes retroactively called adjusted for inflation) is the number and quality or value of goods and services that can be purchased with a unit of currency. For example, if one had taken one unit of currency to a store in the 1950s, it is probable that it would have been possible to buy a greater number of items than would be the case today, indicating that one would have had a greater purchasing power in the 1950s. Currency can be either a commodity money, like gold or silver, or fiat money emitted by government sanctioned agencies. As Adam Smith noted, having money gives one the ability to "command" others' labor, so purchasing power to some extent is power over other people, to the extent that they are willing to trade their labor or goods for money or currency. If one's monetary income stays the same, but the price level increases, the purchasing power of that income falls. Inflation does not always imply falling purchasing power of one's money income since the latter may rise faster than the price level. A higher real income means a higher purchasing power since real income refers to the income adjusted for inflation.

Question 565

Inflation

Answer 565

In economics, inflation is a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time.[1] When the price level rises, each unit of currency buys fewer goods and services; consequently, inflation reflects a reduction in the purchasing power per unit of money – a loss of real value in the medium of exchange and unit of account within the economy.

Question 566

Deflation

Answer 566

In economics, deflation is a decrease in the general price level of goods and services.[1] Deflation occurs when the inflation rate falls below 0% (a negative inflation rate). Inflation reduces the value of currency over time, but deflation increases it. This allows one to buy more goods and services than before with the same amount of currency. Deflation is distinct from disinflation, a slow-down in the inflation rate, i.e. when inflation declines to a lower rate but is still positive.[2] Deflation hurts the Banks, because people will have extra left over money to pay off their debts or loans, because they are spending less on survival. Also, it impedes big purchases that are usually made with loans, because people wait for a cheaper price in the future. Deflation increases the purchasing power of their money, allowing them to "Save" money. A lack of "Savings" creates economic desperation that can be exploited by reduced wages, causing people to work harder for less, to compete to get the job by providing an employer with more value than the competition is willing to give for the same pay.

Question 567

Wage

Answer 567

A wage is monetary compensation (or remuneration, personnel expenses, labor) paid by an employer to an employee in exchange for work done. Payment may be calculated as a fixed amount for each task completed (a task wage or piece rate), or at an hourly or daily rate (wage labour), or based on an easily measured quantity of work done. Wages are part of the expenses that are involved in running a business. Payment by wage contrasts with salaried work, in which the employer pays an arranged amount at steady intervals (such as a week or month) regardless of hours worked, with commission which conditions pay on individual performance, and with compensation based on the performance of the company as a whole. Waged employees may also receive tips or gratuity paid directly by clients and employee benefits which are non-monetary forms of compensation. Since wage labour is the predominant form of work, the term "wage" sometimes refers to all forms (or all monetary forms) of employee compensation.

Question 568

Wage Rate

Answer 568

Wage labour involves the exchange of money for time spent at work (the latter quantity is termed labor power by Marx and subsequent economists). As Moses I. Finley lays out the issue in The Ancient Economy: The very idea of wage-labour requires two difficult conceptual steps. First it requires the abstraction of a man's labour from both his person and the product of his work. When one purchases an object from an independent craftsman … one has not bought his labour but the object, which he had produced in his own time and under his own conditions of work. But when one hires labour, one purchases an abstraction, labour-power, which the purchaser then uses at a time and under conditions which he, the purchaser, not the "owner" of the labour-power, determines (and for which he normally pays after he has consumed it). Second, the wage labour system requires the establishment of a method of measuring the labour one has purchased, for purposes of payment, commonly by introducing a second abstraction, namely labour-time.[1] The wage is the monetary measure corresponding to the standard units of working time (or to a standard amount of accomplished work, defined as a piece rate). The earliest such unit of time, still frequently used, is the day of work. The invention of clocks coincided with the elaborating of subdivisions of time for work, of which the hour became the most common, underlying the concept of an hourly wage.[2][3] Wages were paid in the Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt,[4] Ancient Greece,[5] and Ancient Rome.[5]

Question 569

Piece Rate

Answer 569

Piece work (or piecework) is any type of employment in which a worker is paid a fixed piece rate for each unit produced or action performed[1] regardless of time.

Question 570

Distraint

Answer 570

Distraint or distress is "the seizure of someone’s property in order to obtain payment of rent or other money owed",[1] especially in common law countries.[2] Distraint is the act or process "whereby a person (the distrainor), traditionally even without prior court approval, seizes the personal property of another located upon the distrainor's land in satisfaction of a claim, as a pledge for performance of a duty, or in reparation of an injury."[3] Distraint typically involves the seizure of goods (chattels) belonging to the tenant by the landlord to sell the goods for the payment of the rent. In the past, distress was often carried out without court approval. Today, some kind of court action is usually required,[4] the main exception being certain tax authorities, such as HM Revenue and Customs in the United Kingdom and, in the United States, the Internal Revenue Service—agencies that retain the legal power to levy assets (by either seizure or distraint) without a court order.[5]

Question 571

Avowry

Answer 571

In law, avowry is where one takes a distress for rent or other thing, and the other sues replevin. In which case the taker shall justify, in his plea, for what cause he took it, and if he took it in his own right, is to show it, and so avow the taking—which is called his avowry. If he took it in the right of another, when he has shown the cause, he is to make conusance of the taking, as being a bailiff or servant to him in whose right he did it.

Question 572

Advowson

Answer 572

Advowson (or "patronage") is the right in English law of a patron (avowee) to present to the diocesan bishop (or in some cases the ordinary if not the same person) a nominee for appointment to a vacant ecclesiastical benefice or church living, a process known as presentation (jus praesentandi, Latin: "the right of presenting"). The word derives, via French, from the Latin advocare, from vocare "to call" plus ad, "to, towards", thus a "summoning".[1] In effect, an advowson is the right to nominate a person to be parish priest (subject to episcopal approval), and such right was often originally held by the lord of the manor of the principal manor within the parish. Legally, advowsons were treated as real property that could be held or conveyed, and conversely could be taken or encumbered, in the same general manner as a parcel of land. Advowsons were among the earliest incorporeal hereditaments, and often held in fee tail. Litigation on the basis of an advowson was somewhat specialized, with unique forms of action inapplicable to other realty, such as the writ of quare impedit, by which a patron sued a bishop in support of his presented candidate being unreasonably hindered from succeeding to a benefice.

Question 573

Bona Vacantia

Answer 573

(Bona Vacantia) means vacant goods and is the name given to ownerless property, which by law passes to the Crown. The Treasury Solicitor acts for the Crown to administer the estates of people who die intestate (without a Will) and without known kin (entitled blood relatives) and collect the assets of dissolved companies and other various ownerless goods in England and Wales. Bona vacantia (Latin for "ownerless goods") is a legal concept associated with property that has no owner. It exists in various jurisdictions, with consequently varying application, but with origins mostly in English law. Bona vacantia is applied according to the laws of the relevant province, and the roots of the laws may be traced to Roman law. Similarly to England, unclaimed money will mostly revert to the Crown[1] who may then make further distribution. Unclaimed property other than money might also be claimed on behalf of the Crown but (as with the UK jurisdictions) this is not inevitable.

Question 574

Dominium directum et utile

Answer 574

Dominium directum et utile is a Latin legal term referring to the "complete and absolute dominion [in property]"; i.e. the union of the title and the exclusive use. ``` Dominium directum (Feudal): the right of the lord (i.e., the right to direct) in the disposition of an asset (typically land). Dominium utile (Feudal): the right of use and utility of an asset, and to keep the benefits (such as the right to live on the land, and to keep the profits from agriculture). ``` The terms derive from Latin dominium (domain, dominion), directum (direction, in the sense of leadership), and utile (use, utility). An asset is defined to mean itself and those things that naturally go with it. For land, that would include buildings, trees, underground resources, etc. It would not include "movable" property, such as wagons or livestock. The holder of the dominium directum is considered the superior (i.e., the lord); the holder of the dominium utile is considered the inferior (i.e., the vassal). Dominium utile includes the right of the holder to keep any income or profit derived from the asset. The transfer of the dominium directum does not affect the rights of any holders of dominium utile. The holder of a dominium utile has no right of transfer (however, there were usually conditions allowed for, such as transfer to a son in the event of death). The definition was constructed from the sources. The "lord" holding dominium directum may be anyone with sovereign power over the asset, such as a monarch or other nobility, or an established Christian Church.

Question 575

Dominium

Answer 575

For the album by Malevolence, see Dominium (album). Dominium, a legal term meaning "Dominion; control; ownership," forms several related compounds in legal Latin: Dominium directum – Direct ownership, that is control of the property, but not necessarily with right to its utilization or alienation. For example, a holder in life tenure has dominium directum but not dominium utile because he may control the property but not exhaust its resources. This is to be distinguished from allodial right or fee simple (dominium plenum) and the right retained by the grantor of the life estate who holds the rights to the utilization of the land's resources (dominium utile). Dominium directum et utile – The complete and absolute dominion in property; the union of the title and the exclusive use. See Fairfax's Devisee v Hunter's Lessee (US) 7 Cranch 603, 618, 3 L Ed 453, 458. Equivalent in nature to dominium plenum or fee simple. Dominium eminens – (Civil law.) The right of eminent domain. Gilmer v Lime Point, 18 Cal 229, 251. Dominium non potest esse in pendenti – Ownership cannot be held in suspense. Dominium plenum – Full or complete ownership of an estate. Commonly rendered in English as fee simple. Dominium utile – Beneficial ownership of an estate. A holder of the reversion of a life estate holds the dominium utile of the property (although not the control or dominium directum) because he has the right to the long-term utilization any resources (mineral, vegetative, etc.) on the property but not to the immediate use of the property–the holder of the life estate has control of the property Duorum in solidum dominium vel possessio esse non potest – Sole ownership or possession cannot be in two persons. In general, "utilization" of resources on the property is subject to a reasonableness test. A life tenant with dominium directum of an estate may make reasonable use of resources, which means roughly renewable or trivial usage: the culling of firewood in the midst of an expansive forest, or the extraction of coal sufficient for home use from a fecund mine. Any commercialization (e.g. selling rights to the coal shaft) or large-scale exploitation (raising extensive erections on the estate using the timber resources) will implicate the dominium utile reserved to the holder in reversion and be subject to legal action at common law.

Question 576

Life Estate

Answer 576

In common law and statutory law, a life estate is the ownership of land for the duration of a person's life. In legal terms, it is an estate in real property that ends at death when ownership of the property may revert to the original owner, or it may pass to another person. The owner of a life estate is called a "life tenant". In the combined jurisdiction of England and Wales since 1925 a freehold estate intended to be 'held' as a life interest takes effect only as an interest enjoyed in equity, specifically as an interest in possession trust. The other type of land ownership is leasehold and although most long leases are for a period of between 99 and 999 years 'leases for life' will be interpreted in often unpredictable ways as either as a licence or a lease.

Question 577

Interest in Possession Trust

Answer 577

An interest in possession trust is a form of legal arrangement which gives a person a "present right to the present enjoyment of something".[1] At least one of the beneficiaries of this type of trust will have the right to receive the income generated by the trust (if trust funds are invested) or the right to enjoy the trust assets for the present time in another way, for example by living in a property owned by the trustees. The beneficiary with the right to enjoy the trust property for the time being is said to have an interest in possession and is colloquially described (though not always strictly accurately) as an income beneficiary. A trust can give the interest in possession to a beneficiary for a fixed period, for an indefinite period or, more usually, for the rest of the beneficiary's life. Such a life interest trust is the most common example of an interest in possession trust. In the United Kingdom, the 10-yearly Inheritance Tax charge may be due on assets transferred into this type of trust on or after 22 March 2006. [2] In the example of a life interest trust, the interest in possession ends when the income beneficiary, also called the life tenant, dies. The capital of the trust will then pass to another beneficiary (or more than one). Where a charity has the right to income under a trust, it will also have an interest in possession, but this will clearly not be a life interest trust – an example would be a trust under which an art gallery has the right to display works owned by the trustees for a certain period. Either the will or trust deed establishing the trust, or the general law, will set out how tax and trustees' expenses will be divided between the income beneficiary and the capital of the trust. Trustee investment policies will also allow emphasis on either present income (which may reduce the real value of the capital) or capital growth (increasing income in the long term and capital remaining when the interest in possession is terminated) or a balance. Interest in possession trusts are often created as part of a will. Typically, a surviving spouse will be granted a right to the income of the trust by the settlor. When the surviving spouse dies, the rest of the fund (the remainder) may pass to the couple's children or other named persons.

Question 578

Life Estate

Answer 578

In common law and statutory law, a life estate is the ownership of land for the duration of a person's life. In legal terms, it is an estate in real property that ends at death when ownership of the property may revert to the original owner, or it may pass to another person. The owner of a life estate is called a "life tenant". In the combined jurisdiction of England and Wales since 1925 a freehold estate intended to be 'held' as a life interest takes effect only as an interest enjoyed in equity, specifically as an interest in possession trust. The other type of land ownership is leasehold and although most long leases are for a period of between 99 and 999 years 'leases for life' will be interpreted in often unpredictable ways as either as a licence or a lease.

Question 579

Devisee

Answer 579

The creator of a will to dispose property into a trust. A will or testament is a legal document by which a person, the testator, expresses their wishes as to how their property is to be distributed at death, and names one or more persons, the executor, to manage the estate until its final distribution. For the devolution of property not disposed of by will, see inheritance and intestacy. Though it has at times been thought that a "will" was historically limited to real property while "testament" applies only to dispositions of personal property (thus giving rise to the popular title of the document as "Last Will and Testament"), the historical records show that the terms have been used interchangeably.[1] Thus, the word "will" validly applies to both personal and real property. A will may also create a testamentary trust that is effective only after the death of the testator.

Question 580

Testator

Answer 580

A testator (/tɛsˈteɪtɔːr/) is a person who has written and executed a last will and testament that is in effect at the time of his/her death.[1] It is any "person who makes a will."

Question 581

Testacy

Answer 581

Testacy means the status of being testate, that is, having executed a will. The property of such a person goes through the probate process.

Question 582

Testamentary Capacity

Answer 582

In the common law tradition, testamentary capacity is the legal term of art used to describe a person's legal and mental ability to make or alter a valid will. This concept has also been called sound mind and memory or disposing mind and memory.

Question 583

Perjury

Answer 583

Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.[1][A] Contrary to popular misconception, no crime has occurred when a false statement is (intentionally or unintentionally) made while under oath or subject to penalty. Instead, criminal culpability attaches only at the instant the declarant falsely asserts the truth of statements (made or to be made) that are material to the outcome of the proceeding. For example, it is not perjury to lie about one's age except if age is a fact material to influencing the legal result, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits or whether a person was of an age to have legal capacity.

Question 584

Dead Man's Statute

Answer 584

A dead man's statute, also known as to as a dead man act or dead man's rule, is a statute designed to prevent perjury in a civil case by prohibiting a witness who is an interested party from testifying about communications or transactions with a deceased person (a "decedent") against the decedent unless there is a waiver. This prohibition applies only against a witness who has an interest in the outcome of the case and applies only where that witness is testifying for his own interests and against the interests of the decedent. Furthermore, the restriction only exists in civil cases, never in criminal cases. The restriction can be waived. A waiver can occur in a number of ways: The decedent's representative fails to object to the testimony; The decedent's own representative testifies to the communication; The decedent's testimony is brought before the jury in the form of a deposition or in another form. With respect to U.S. federal courts, Rule 601 of the Federal Rules of Evidence defers to state law the determination of whether a witness is competent to testify. [1] About half of the U.S. States have enacted a dead man statute, more commonly referred to as the "dead man's rule." Some states have enacted compromise variations to the rule. For example, in Virginia, an interested witness may testify only as to the statements of the deceased if this testimony is corroborated by a disinterested witness. In other states, such as Illinois, the rule has been expanded to prevent an interested party from testifying about communications with a minor or a legally incompetent person.

Question 585

Will Contest

Answer 585

A will contest, in the law of property, is a formal objection raised against the validity of a will, based on the contention that the will does not reflect the actual intent of the testator (the party who made the will) or that the will is otherwise invalid. Will contests generally focus on the assertion that the testator lacked testamentary capacity, was operating under an insane delusion, or was subject to undue influence or fraud. A will may be challenged in its entirety or in part. Courts and legislation generally feel a strong obligation to uphold the final wishes of a testator, and, without compelling evidence to the contrary, "the law presumes that a will is valid and accurately reflects the wishes of the person who wrote it".[1]

Question 586

In Terrorem Clause

Answer 586

In terrorem, Latin for "into/about fear", is a legal threat, usually one given in hope of compelling someone to act without resorting to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution. For example, many intellectual property attorneys send in terrorem letters, which threaten litigation absent compliance with the written request, to persons that are violating their clients' trademark rights before resorting to court proceedings. In terrorem clauses (referred to in English as No-contest clauses) are also used in wills to keep beneficiaries from contesting the will by either completely disinheriting them from any share, or reducing their share to a nominal amount. These clauses are not uniformly recognized. In some states, in terrorem clauses are disfavored, but can still be enforceable. In New York,[1] for example, the Estates Powers & Trust Law codifies the use of, and the limits of, in terrorem clauses in EPTL 3-3.5(b).

Question 587

No Contest Clause

Answer 587

A no-contest clause, also called an in terrorem clause, is a clause in a legal document, such as a contract or a will, that is designed to threaten someone, usually with litigation or criminal prosecution, into acting, refraining from action, or ceasing to act. The phrase is typically used to refer to a clause in a will that threatens to disinherit a beneficiary of the will if that beneficiary challenges the terms of the will in court. Many states[1] in the United States hold a no-contest clause in a will to be unenforceable, so long as the person challenging the will has probable cause to do so.[2]

Question 588

Fiduciary

Answer 588

A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence. In a fiduciary relationship, one person, in a position of vulnerability, justifiably vests confidence, good faith, reliance, and trust in another whose aid, advice, or protection is sought in some matter.[2]:at p. 68[3] In such a relation good conscience requires the fiduciary to act at all times for the sole benefit and interest of the one who trusts. Fiduciary duties exist to ensure that those who manage other people’s money act in their beneficiaries' interests, rather than serving their own interests.

Question 589

Standard of Care

Answer 589

In tort law, the standard of care is the only degree of prudence and caution required of an individual who is under a duty of care. The requirements of the standard are closely dependent on circumstances.[1] Whether the standard of care has been breached is determined by the trier of fact, and is usually phrased in terms of the reasonable person. It was famously described in Vaughn v. Menlove (1837) as whether the individual "proceed[ed] with such reasonable caution as a prudent man would have exercised under such circumstances".

Question 590

Duty of Care

Answer 590

In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law which the defendant has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed by operation of law between individuals with no current direct relationship (familial or contractual or otherwise), but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law (meaning case law). Duty of care may be considered a formalisation of the social contract, the implicit responsibilities held by individuals towards others within society. It is not a requirement that a duty of care be defined by law, though it will often develop through the jurisprudence of common law. The duty of care requires control persons to act on an informed basis after due consideration of all information.

Question 591

Cause of Action

Answer 591

A cause of action, in law, is a set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue to obtain money, property, or the enforcement of a right against another party.[1] The term also refers to the legal theory upon which a plaintiff brings suit (such as breach of contract, battery, or false imprisonment). The legal document which carries a claim is often called a Statement of Claim in English law, or a Complaint in U.S. federal practice and in many U.S. states. It can be any communication notifying the party to whom it is addressed of an alleged fault which resulted in damages, often expressed in amount of money the receiving party should pay/reimburse. To pursue a cause of action, a plaintiff pleads or alleges facts in a complaint, the pleading that initiates a lawsuit. A cause of action generally encompasses both the legal theory (the legal wrong the plaintiff claims to have suffered) and the remedy (the relief a court is asked to grant). Often the facts or circumstances that entitle a person to seek judicial relief may create multiple causes of action. Although it is fairly straightforward to file a Statement of Claim in most jurisdictions, if it is not done properly, then the filing party may lose his case due to simple technicalities.

Question 592

Reasonable Person

Answer 592

In law, a reasonable person, reasonable man, or the man on the Clapham omnibus[1] is a hypothetical person of legal fiction crafted by the courts and communicated through case law and jury instructions.[2] Strictly according to the fiction, it is misconceived for a party to seek evidence from actual people in order to establish how the reasonable man would have acted or what he would have foreseen.[1][3] This person's character and care conduct under any common set of facts, is decided through reasoning of good practice or policy—or "learned" permitting there is a compelling consensus of public opinion—by high courts.[4][5] The reasonable person belongs to a family of hypothetical figures in law including: the "right-thinking member of society," the "officious bystander," the "reasonable parent," the "reasonable landlord," the "fair-minded and informed observer," the "person having ordinary skill in the art" in patent law, and stretching back to Roman jurists, the figure of the bonus paterfamilias,[1] all used to define legal standards.

Question 593

Trier of Fact

Answer 593

A trier of fact, or finder of fact, is a person, or group of persons, who determines facts in a legal proceeding, usually a trial. To determine a fact is to decide, from the evidence, whether something existed or some event occurred.[1] Various aspects of a case that are not in controversy may be the "facts of the case" and are determined by the agreement of the separate parties; the trier of fact need not decide such issues. In a jury trial, a jury is the trier of fact. The jury finds the facts and applies them to the relevant statute or law it is instructed by the judge to use in order to reach its verdict.

Question 594

Duty of Loyalty

Answer 594

The duty of loyalty requires control persons to look to the interests of the company and its other owners and not to their personal interests. In general, they cannot use their positions of trust, confidence and inside knowledge to further their own private interests or approve an action that will provide them with a personal benefit (such as continued employment) that does not primarily benefit the company or its other owners

Question 595

Duty of Good Faith

Answer 595

The duty of good faith requires control persons to exercise care and prudence in making business decisions—that is, the care that a reasonably prudent person in a similar position would use under similar circumstances. Control persons fail to act in good faith, even if their actions are not illegal, when they take actions for improper purposes or, in certain circumstances, when their actions have grossly inequitable results. The duty to act in good faith is an obligation not only to make decisions free from self-interest, but also free of any interest that diverts the control persons from acting in the best interest of the company. The duty to act in good faith may be measured by an individual's particular knowledge and expertise. The higher the level of expertise, the more accountable that person will be (e.g., a finance expert may be held to a more exacting standard than others in accepting a third party valuation).

Question 596

Beneficiary

Answer 596

A beneficiary (also, in trust law, cestui que use) in the broadest sense is a natural person or other legal entity who receives money or other benefits from a benefactor.

Question 597

Benefactor

Answer 597

A benefactor (from Latin bene, meaning 'good', and factor, meaning 'maker') is a person who gives some form of help to benefit a person, group or organization (the beneficiary), often gifting a monetary contribution in the form of an endowment to help a cause. Benefactors are humanitarian leaders and charitable patrons providing assistance in many forms, such as an alumnus from a university giving back to a college or an individual providing assistance to others.

Question 598

Natural Person

Answer 598

In jurisprudence, a natural person is a person (in legal meaning, i.e., one who has its own legal personality) that is an individual human being, as opposed to a legal person, which may be a private (i.e., business entity or non-governmental organization) or public (i.e., government) organization. Historically, a human being was not necessarily a natural person in some jurisdictions where slavery existed (subject of a property right) rather than a person. In many cases, fundamental human rights are implicitly granted only to natural persons. For example, the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states a person cannot be denied the right to vote based on their biological sex, or Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees equality rights, apply to natural persons only. Another example of the distinction between natural and legal persons is that a natural person can hold public office, but a corporation cannot. A corporation or non-governmental organization can, however, file a lawsuit or own property as a legal person.

Question 599

Legal Personality

Answer 599

A legal person (in legal contexts often simply person, less ambiguously legal entity)[1][2] is any human or non-human entity, in other words, any human being, firm, or government agency that is recognized as having legal rights and obligations, such as having the ability to enter into contracts, to sue, and to be sued.[3][4][5] The term "legal person" is however ambiguous because it is also used in contradistinction to "natural person", i.e. as a synonym of terms used to refer only to non-human legal entities.[6][7] So there are of two kinds of legal entities, human and non-human: natural persons (also called physical persons) and juridical persons (also called juridic, juristic, artificial, legal, or fictitious persons, Latin: persona ficta), which are other entities (such as corporations) that are treated in law as if they were persons.[4][8][9] While human beings acquire legal personhood when they are born[citation needed], juridical persons do so when they are incorporated in accordance with law. Legal personhood is a prerequisite to legal capacity, the ability of any legal person to amend (enter into, transfer, etc.) rights and obligations. In international law, consequently, legal personality is a prerequisite for an international organization to be able to sign international treaties in its own name.

Question 600

Personhood

Answer 600

Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law and is closely tied with legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability. Capacities or attributes common to definitions of personhood can include human nature, agency, self-awareness, a notion of the past and future, and the possession of rights and duties, among others.[6] However, the concept of a person is difficult to define in a way that is universally accepted, due to its historical and cultural variability and the controversies surrounding its use in some contexts. In philosophy, the word "person" may refer to various concepts. According to the "naturalist" epistemological tradition, from Descartes through Locke and Hume, the term may designate any human (or non-human) agent who: (1) possesses continuous consciousness over time; and (2) who is therefore capable of framing representations about the world, formulating plans and acting on them.

Question 601

Non-Human

Answer 601

Non-human (also spelled nonhuman) is any creature displaying some[citation needed], but not enough, human characteristics to be considered a human. The term has been used in a variety of contexts and may also be used to refer to objects that have been developed with human intelligence, such as robots or vehicles. In the animal rights movement, it is common to distinguish between "human animals" and "non-human animals". Participants in the animal rights movement generally recognize that non-human animals have some similar characteristics to those of human persons. For example, various non-human animals have been shown to register pain, compassion, memory, and some cognitive function. Some animal rights activists argue that the similarities between human and non-human animals justify giving non-human animals rights that human society has afforded to humans, such as the right to self-preservation, and some even wish for all non-human animals or at least those that bear a fully thinking and conscious mind, such as vertebrates and some invertebrates such as cephalopods, to be given a full right of personhood.

Question 602

Agency

Answer 602

Agency is the capacity of an actor to act in a given environment.[citation needed] The capacity to act does not at first imply a specific moral dimension to the ability to make the choice to act, and moral agency is therefore a distinct concept. In sociology, an agent is an individual engaging with the social structure. Notably, though, the primacy of social structure vs. individual capacity with regard to persons' actions is debated within sociology. This debate concerns, at least partly, the level of reflexivity an agent may possess.[citation needed] Agency may either be classified as unconscious, involuntary behavior, or purposeful, goal directed activity (intentional action). An agent typically has some sort of immediate awareness of their physical activity and the goals that the activity is aimed at realizing. In ‘goal directed action’ an agent implements a kind of direct control or guidance over their own behavior.[1]

Question 603

Corpus

Answer 603

the term ‘corpus’ (Latin for ‘body’) which refers to the assets with which the trust is funded and the term ‘donor’ which is the person donating assets to a charity.[1]

Question 604

Bailment

Answer 604

Bailment describes a legal relationship in common law where physical possession of personal property, or a chattel, is transferred from one person (the "bailor") to another person (the "bailee") who subsequently has possession of the property. It arises when a person gives property to someone else for safekeeping, and is a cause of action independent of contract or tort. There are three types of bailment: ``` for the benefit of the bailor and bailee for the sole benefit of the bailor; and for the sole benefit of the bailee. Examples A bailment for the mutual benefit of the parties is created when there is an exchange of performances between the parties (e.g. a bailment for the repair of an item when the owner is paying to have the repair accomplished). ``` A bailor receives the sole benefit from a bailment when a bailee acts gratuitously (e.g. the owner leaves the precious item such as a car or a piece of jewelry in the safekeeping of a trusted friend while the owner is traveling abroad without any agreement to compensate the friend). A bailment is created for the sole benefit of the bailee when a bailor acts gratuitously (e.g., the loan of a book to a patron, the bailee, from a library, the bailor). Bailment is distinguished from a contract of sale or a gift of property, as it only involves the transfer of possession and not its ownership. To create a bailment, the bailee must both intend to possess, and actually physically possess, the bailable chattel. Bailment is a typical common law concept although similar concepts exists in civil law (Spain- Depósito).[1] In addition, unlike a lease or rental, where ownership remains with the lessor but the lessee is allowed to use the property, the bailee is generally not entitled to the use of the property while it is in his possession. A common example of bailment is leaving your car with a valet. Leaving your car in an unattended parking garage is typically a lease or license of a parking space rather than a bailment, as the car park's intent to possess your car cannot be shown. However, bailments arise in many other situations, including terminated leases of property, warehousing (including store-it-yourself) or in carriage of goods.

Question 605

Possession (Law)

Answer 605

In law, possession is the control a person's intentional exercises toward a thing. In all cases, to possess something, a person must have an intention to possess it. A person may be in possession of some property (although possession does not always imply ownership). Like ownership, the possession of anything is commonly regulated by states under property law. An intention to possess (sometimes called animus possidendi) is the other component of possession. All that is required is an intention to possess something for the time being. In common law countries, the intention to possess a thing is a fact. Normally, it is proved by the acts of control and surrounding circumstances. It is possible to intend to possess something without knowing that it exists. For example, if you intend to possess a suitcase, then you intend to possess its contents, even though you do not know what it contains. It is important to distinguish between the intention sufficient to obtain possession of a thing and the intention required to commit the crime of possessing something illegally, such as banned drugs, firearms or stolen goods.[1] The intention to exclude others from the suitcase and its contents does not necessarily amount to the guilty mind of intending to possess illegally. When people possess places to which the public has access, it may be difficult to know whether they intend to possess everything within those places. In such circumstances, some people make it clear that they do not want possession of the things brought there by the public. For example, it is not uncommon to see a sign above the coat rack in a restaurant which disclaims responsibility for items left there.

Question 606

Ownership

Answer 606

Ownership of property may be private, collective, or common, and the property may be of objects, land or real estate, or intellectual property. Determining ownership in law involves determining who has certain rights and duties over the property. These rights and duties, sometimes called a "bundle of rights", can be separated and held by different parties. The process and mechanics of ownership are fairly complex: one can gain, transfer, and lose ownership of property in a number of ways. To acquire property one can purchase it with money, trade it for other property, win it in a bet, receive it as a gift, inherit it, find it, receive it as damages, earn it by doing work or performing services, make it, or homestead it. One can transfer or lose ownership of property by selling it for money, exchanging it for other property, giving it as a gift, misplacing it, or having it stripped from one's ownership through legal means such as eviction, foreclosure, seizure, or taking. Ownership is self-propagating in that the owner of any property will also own the economic benefits of that property. Throughout history,[not specific enough to verify] nations (or governments) and religious organizations have owned property.[citation needed] These entities exist primarily for other purposes than to own or operate property; hence, they may have no clear rules regarding the disposition of their property. To own and operate property, structures (often known today as legal entities) have been created in many societies throughout history. The differences in how they deal with members' rights is a key factor in determining their type. Each type has advantages and disadvantages derived from their means of recognizing or disregarding (rewarding or not) contributions of financial capital or personal effort. Cooperatives, corporations, trusts, partnerships, and condominium associations are only some of the many varied types of structured ownership; each type has many subtypes. Legal advantages or restrictions on various types of structured ownership have existed in many societies past and present. To govern how assets are to be used, shared, or treated, rules and regulations may be legally imposed or internally adopted or decreed.

Question 607

Owner (Legal Entity)

Answer 607

A legal person (in legal contexts often simply person, less ambiguously legal entity)[1][2] is any human or non-human entity, in other words, any human being, firm, or government agency that is recognized as having privileges and obligations, such as having the ability to enter into contracts, to sue, and to be sued.[3][4][5] The term "legal person" is however ambiguous because it is also used in contradistinction to "natural person", i.e. as a synonym of terms used to refer only to non-human legal entities.[6][7] So there are of two kinds of legal entities, human and non-human: natural persons (also called physical persons) and juridical persons (also called juridic, juristic, artificial, legal, or fictitious persons, Latin: persona ficta), which are other entities (such as corporations) that are treated in law as if they were persons.[4][8][9] While human beings acquire legal personhood when they are born (or even before in some jurisdictions), juridical persons do so when they are incorporated in accordance with law. Legal personhood is a prerequisite to legal capacity, the ability of any legal person to amend (enter into, transfer, etc.) rights and obligations. In international law, consequently, legal personality is a prerequisite for an international organization to be able to sign international treaties in its own name.

Question 608

Birth Certificate

Answer 608

...it's a small paper but it actually establishes who you are and gives access to the rights and the privileges, and the obligations, of citizenship. — Archbishop Desmond Tutu, February 2005[5] A birth certificate is a vital record that documents the birth of a child. The term "birth certificate" can refer to either the original document certifying the circumstances of the birth or to a certified copy of or representation of the ensuing registration of that birth. Depending on the jurisdiction, a record of birth might or might not contain verification of the event by such as a midwife or doctor.

Question 609

ALIEN

Answer 609

A Person that is a Stranger, being a person born under the laws and jurisdiction of some other body corporate or country and not subject to the Jurisdiction of the Body Corporate or Competent Forum of Law; or A Person that is a Foreigner, being a person who resists the proper Jurisdiction of the Body Corporate or Competent Forum of Law in regards to some matter, by use of outlandish, strange or disagreeable behaviour. A Thing; and “Alienate” means to seize, hold, transfer, sell the Property of any Foreigner or Thing under the Jurisdiction of the Body Corporate or Competent Forum of Law; and

Question 610

APOSTACY

Answer 610

“Apostasy” means the disaffiliation, abandonment or renunciation by a Person of their ecclesiastical or fiduciary obligations and duty, or obligations of faith under the Rule of Law; and

Question 611

ASSULT

Answer 611

“Assault” means any wilful attempt or threat to inflict injury upon a Person in the care, possession, control or custody of the Body Corporate by another, where: (viii) (ix) The alleged perpetrator possesses the apparent present ability and means to threaten or inflict injury; and The alleged victim or Body Corporate possesses sufficient evidence of an intentional display of force such as would give the alleged victim or Body Corporate reasonable apprehension to fear or expect immediate harm; and

Question 612

ASSIGN - ASSIGNMEMT

Answer 612

“Assign”, also “Assigns”, also “Assignee” means those to whom Property is, will, or may be lawfully assigned whether by conveyance, devise, descent, transfer or Act of Law; and "Assignment” means a formal Covenant or Decree and Instrument of Transfer of certain Rights from an Owner to the Purchaser or another party; and

Question 613

ATTACHMENT

Answer 613

“Attachment” means:- (x) (xi) (xii) The taking into custody of the Courts of the Body Corporate or a Competent Forum of Law the person or property of one already before such court, or of one whom it is sought to bring before it; and A form of writ issued by the Courts of the Body Corporate or a Competent Forum of Law, commanding a lawful force to bring before it a person who has been found guilty of contempt of such a court; and A form of writ issues during an action within the Courts of the Body Corporate or a Competent Forum of Law, commanding a lawful force to attach the property, rights, credits or effects of the defendant to satisfy the demands of the plaintiff; and

Question 614

AUTHENTIC

Answer 614

“Authentic” means something that is the same as the Original; or validated as reliable and worthy of Trust; or conforming to Reality consistent with these present Articles; and

Question 615

AUTHORITY

Answer 615

“Authority”, also “An Authority” means an exclusive Right or Power, to do or act in a particular way, derived solely from the acceptance and promise to perform one or more obligations of Office through a proper Oath and Vow; and

Question 616

BARGAIN

Answer 616

“Bargain” means a Contract of Mutual Bindings (Promises) as Security, whereby one Party promises to assign a Right as Property for some consideration; and the other Party promises to receive the Property and take good care of it and pay the consideration. A Bargain is not a Transfer of Title, but a Bailment of Goods for some financial consideration; and

Question 617

BATTERY

Answer 617

“Battery” means an assault whereby any force, however small, is actually applied, directly or indirectly, to a Person or immediate personal possessions of the Person in the care, possession, control or custody of the Body Corporate by another, against the Will of the Person and without reasonable cause; and

Question 618

BELLIGERENT

Answer 618

“Belligerent” means a hostile or combative person or body actively engaged in warfare against the legitimate Jurisdiction of the Body Corporate or the United States or its allies. An enemy of the state and an enemy combatant; and

Question 619

BENEFICE

Answer 619

“Benefice”, or “Benefices” means a gift granted by Trust under Transfer and Title including both Rights and obligations to certain Property; and

Question 620

BENEFICIAL INTEREST

Answer 620

“Beneficial Interest” also “Vested Interest” means the Right to receive a Profit or Advantage from Property that is held by another Party; and

Question 621

BIAS

Answer 621

“Bias” also “Apprehended Bias” means the presence of sufficient Evidence to reasonably conclude that the Officer or Agent in question is more likely than not to unconsciously or deliberately decide a particular issue or matter unfairly; and with unreasonable prejudice against one or more of the parties in favour of another; and

Question 622

BLASPHEMY

Answer 622

“Blasphemy” and “Blasphemous” means a Profane and Sacrilegious Act of irreverence in the writing, uttering of sacred scripture and Divinities contrary to Divine Law and Ecclesiastical Law as defined by the present Bylaws; and

Question 623

BODY - BODY CORPORATE

Answer 623

“Body” also “Bodies” means any individual persons, companies, corporations, and all other bodies whatsoever in any form which have a legal personality; and any government departments and instrumentalities, public bodies, schools, colleges, officials, universities and scientific, professional and trade organisations which have the power to become a member of a company and a legal personality; and “Body Corporate” and “Body Corporate and Politic” means the Corporation; and

Question 624

BONA FIDE

Answer 624

“Bona Fide” (Lat.) means with good faith; honestly, openly, sincerely, and without deceit, ill will or fraud (See also “Good Faith”); and “Good faith”, also “Bona Fide” means honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable standards of fair dealing; and

Question 625

CASE

Answer 625

“Case” means an Action with the Courts of the Body Corporate or some Competent Forum of Law; and “Case Number” means proof and reference of the commencement of lawful and legitimate Action within the Courts of the Body Corporate or some Competent Forum of Law as a court of original record; and

Question 626

CHANCERY

Answer 626

“Chancery” means a secure repository and archives of the Corporation for the safe keeping of original official documents and other material of importance held in trust through the Corporation Secretary; and

Question 627

CHARGE - LIEN

Answer 627

“Charge”, also “Land Charge” means a rent or annuity or principal moneys payable by instalments, or otherwise, with or without interest charged, otherwise than by deed, upon land, under the provisions of any lawful and moral statute, for securing to any person either the moneys spent by him or the costs, charges and expenses incurred by him under such statutes, or the moneys advanced by him for repaying the moneys spent, or the costs, charges and expenses incurred by another person under the authority of a lawful and moral Act; and

Question 628

CHEAT

Answer 628

“Cheat” means:- (xiii) (xiv) (xv) The employment of deceitful practices in defrauding or endeavouring to defraud, the Body Corporate or any Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate; and The use of tricks, devices, weights, measures, artifices, false instruments or deceptions for the purpose of deceiving and defrauding a Person of the Body Corporate or any Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate; and The fraudulent obtaining of property of another by any deceitful, immoral or dishonest behaviour involving one or more tricks, devices, false weights or measures, artifices, false instruments or deceptions; and

Question 629

CHOSE IN ACTION

Answer 629

“Chose in Action” also “Chose” means a personal right recoverable by a suit at law. A right to personal things of which the owner has not the possession, but merely a right of action for their possession. A right to receive or recover a debt, demand, or damages on a cause of action ex contractual or for a tort or omission of a duty; and

Question 630

CLAIM

Answer 630

“Claim” or “Claims” means any formal demand or cause of action for ownership, compensation or damages where certain key elements are alleged to be of sufficient weight to justify a Right, either in favour or against any Asset(s) or an obligation of an Estate, Trust or subsidiary, of a Person or Body Corporate; and

Question 631

CLEAN HANDS

Answer 631

“Clean Hands” means a party is forbidden by all competent forms of Law from seeking to derive an advantage in such a Forum of Law from having committed one or more wrongs; or that a party is disqualified from bringing a matter concerning breach of trust or honesty or duty, if they themselves are also accused of a similar act; or that a party that possesses an interest in a matter cannot then sit as an independent arbitrator or judge, unless both parties waive their right of objection; and

Question 632

COMPETENT - INCOMPETENT

Answer 632

“Competent”, also “Competency” means having sufficient skill, knowledge, qualifications, ability, reason, discernment or authority to perform a position of trust or office. A Competent Person by default is assumed to possess a Sound Mind and sufficient Capacity of Authority to perform a particular position of trust or office such as an Attorney General, Solicitor General or Procurator General; and “Incompetence” and “Incompetency” means a person found culpable of incapacity, or Irresponsibility, or Irrationality, or Dishonesty and therefore lacking sufficient skill, or knowledge, or qualifications or ability, or reason or discernment or authority to perform a position of Trust or Office; and

Question 633

CONCEALMENT

Answer 633

“Concealment” means to intentionally hide or keep secret one or more omissions, acts or liabilities against the interests of the Body Corporate or a Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate.

Question 634

CONSENT

Answer 634

“Consent” and “Consented” means the expressed intent, concord and “meeting of minds” to something proposed and cannot be implied by silence; and

Question 635

CONSIDERATION

Answer 635

“Consideration” is the presentation of value given as a pledge and the reason or inducement for a party to enter into an Agreement. The existence of some clear Consideration is a necessary element for an Agreement to be binding; and “Consideration in Money” means (a) a capital sum of money or a rent; or (b) Land being freehold or leasehold for any term of years whereof not less than sixty (60) years shall be unexpired; or (c) any easement, right or privilege over or in relation to Land, or part thereof; or (d) the benefit of any restrictive covenant or condition; or (e) the release of any Land, or any part thereof, from any easement, right or privilege, including a right of pre-emption or from the burden of any restrictive covenant or condition affecting the same; and

Question 636

CONSTITUTION

Answer 636

“Constitution” means the Constitution of the Corporation being the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation and these present Bylaws; and

Question 637

CONVEYANCE

Answer 637

“Convey” means to pass or transmit the title to property from one to another; to transfer property or the title to property by deed or instrument under Seal. Used popularly in sense of "assign," "sale," or "transfer"; and “Conveyance” means a transfer of legal title to land, lease, assent, vesting declaration, vesting instrument, disclaimer, mortgage, release and every other assurance of property of, or an interest therein by any instrument, except a will and “convey” has a corresponding meaning; and

Question 638

COPYHOLD - COPYRIGHT

Answer 638

"Copyhold” means:- (xvi) The Rights of Use of Property granted or entitled to a Member by the Body Corporate and duly recorded in its Rolls; and (xvii) Enfranchisements, freehold or leasehold Property that the Body Corporate is empowered to manage, or administer on behalf of a duly authorised person, body or entity; and “Copyright Infringement” means violation of Copyright of the Body Corporate through unauthorised copying or use of a work or other subject matter under Copyright; and “Copyright” means:- (xviii) (xix) (xx) The exclusive patentable or literary Rights donated, granted, assigned or delegated to the Body Corporate and duly recorded in its Registers concerning certain literary or artistic productions; and Those Rights granted to the Body Corporate by the United States, States, Territories or Allies through proof of Copyright by proper registration and recording of such literary or artistic productions; and Rights granted by statute to the author or originator of certain literary or artistic productions; and

Question 639

COURT

Answer 639

“Court” means a formal legal or administrative proceeding under the governing Jurisdiction of the Corporation concerning a matter of dispute, the conduct of an official or some claim brought against the property of the Corporation; or some other action recognised as proceeding within a Competent Forum of Law; and

Question 640

CRIME - CRIMINAL

Answer 640

“Crime” means:- (xxiii) (xxiv) (xxv) An Act in violation of these present Bylaws; or An Act done in violation of those duties that an Officer, Agent or Member owes to the Corporation as a Body Politic and Corporate; and whereby the present Bylaws have provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the Body Politic and Corporate; or An Act intentionally committed or omitted in violation of the present Bylaws forbidding or commanding it, and where annexed to it, upon conviction, one or more punishments may be lawfully executed; and “Criminal” means:- (xxvi) One who has committed a criminal offence in violation of these present Bylaws; and (xxvii) One who has been legally convicted of a Crime through the Courts of the Body Corporate or associated Competent Forum of Law; and (xxviii) Those things pertaining to or connected with the criminal code of the Body Corporate, or the administration of Justice, relating to the nature, classification and character of Crime; and

Question 641

CURRENCY

Answer 641

“Currency” means a form of Money that by authority of some legislative body or sovereign power permits such Currency to be circulated as if equivalent to Public Money; and

Question 642

DEBT

Answer 642

“Debt” means:- (xxix) (xxx) (xxxi) A binding promise as a solemn obligation under Agreement; or A sum of money due under a Contract; or A sum of money due as Penalty upon Default against one or more terms of a Contract; or (xxxii) ARightofActionuponanyDelinquencyforfailuretopaya Penalty; or (xxxiii) A sum of money due as a Fine, issued by judgement of the Courts of the Body Corporate, or associated Competent Forum of Law and required to be paid for the punishment of an Offence; and

Question 643

DECEIPT

Answer 643

“Deceit” means any fraudulent misrepresentation or contrivance, whereby someone makes false representations against the interests of the Body Corporate, or any Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate; and the Body Corporate has no reasonable means of detecting such fraud, causing damage, injury or harm; and “Deception” means an intentionally misleading act by falsehood; and

Question 644

DEFAMATION

Answer 644

“Defamation” and “Defamatory” and “Defame” means any false or deliberately misrepresented statement designed to harm, or injure the reputation of the Body Corporate or an Officer or Member of the Body Corporate; and

Question 645

DELINQUENT

Answer 645

“Delinquency” and “Delinquent” means:- (xxxiv) Deliberate or negligent misconduct, or maladministration, or default upon a debt, or dereliction of duty associated with the obligations of any Covenant, Deed, Agreement or Contract by another party in relation to the Body Corporate or any Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate; or (xxxv) A person or body found guilty of some crime, offence, or failure of duty or obligation by the Courts of the Body Corporate or associated Competent Forum of Law; or (xxxvi) A Debt or Claim unpaid at the time appointed by Law, or fixed by Contract in accord with the present Bylaws; or (xxxvii) A person or body who fails to substantiate in a timely fashion, the proof of any Claim or Demand made against the Body Corporate or made against any Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate. A false, dishonest and unsubstantiated Claim - an Extortion; and

Question 646

DEMAND

Answer 646

“Demand” means the:- (xxxviii) The assertion of a Legal Right of the Body Corporate or the Right of a Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate; or (xxxix) An imperative request by one person to another, under an asserted Legal Right, requiring the latter to do or yield something or to abstain from some act once the request is made; and (xl) A valid and legitimate Debt or Amount due to the Body Corporate or due in the name of a Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate; and

Question 647

DESECRATION

Answer 647

“Desecration” means any act of disrespect or impiety carried out within Sacred Circumscribed Space; and

Question 648

DISCLAIM

Answer 648

“Disclaim” and “Disclaimer” means the renunciation, quitting and relinquishing of a Beneficial Interest or Claim, or Right by a Beneficial Holder so as to have nothing to do with a Thing; and

Question 649

DISTRESS

Answer 649

“Distress” means the seizing of property of a delinquent, wrong doer or other dishonest person, found culpable under these present Bylaws, into the custody of the Courts of the Body Corporate or some Competent Forum of Law, to procure satisfaction for the wrong done; and

Question 650

DISHONEST

Answer 650

“Dishonesty” means the characteristic or condition of being proven by a Court of the Body Corporate or some Competent Forum of Law to be dishonourable, shameful, indecent, scandalous, lewd or disgraced and incapable of being trusted; and

Question 651

DONOR - DONEE

Answer 651

“Donor” means a Person who conveys and transfers complete possession and ownership of a Right or Claim of Right without any financial consideration; and may be done without condition, or done under one or more terms and conditions; and “Donee” means a Person who accepts one or more Powers as either Rights or Claims of Right without any financial consideration; and if done without consideration then such Powers may be called “General”; or if subject to one or more terms and conditions then such Powers may be called “Special”; and

Question 652

DUTY

Answer 652

“Duties” means specific obligations arising from fiduciary obligations of one’s office or position; and

Question 653

EMBEZZLEMENT

Answer 653

“Embezzlement” means wilfully to take, misapply, or misuse the Property or Money of a Person in the care, possession, control or custody of the Body Corporate, against their Will or some Agreement, whereby the wrongdoer acquired possession of the said Property or Money lawfully, by reason of some office or employment or position of trust; and

Question 654

ENDORSE

Answer 654

“Endorsement” and “Endorse” means a signature that alone or accompanied by other words is made on a security certificate in registered form or on a separate document for the purpose of assigning, transferring, or redeeming the security or granting a power to assign, transfer, or redeem it; and

Question 655

ENDURING GUARDIAN

Answer 655

“Enduring Guardian”, also “Legal Guardian” means a Legal Person created by Statute whereby such a Person appointed to care for the personal and property interests of another, called a ward, usually in the absence of a properly nominated Guardian. An Enduring Guardian or Legal Guardian is always a subordinate power to those granted to a General Guardian and Trustee by Deed by the ward; and

Question 656

ENEMY

Answer 656

“Enemy” means a person who opposes the legitimate Jurisdiction of the Body Corporate or the United States or its allies. An adversary or belligerent against the laws of the Body Corporate or the United States and its allies; and

Question 657

ENTRAPMENT

Answer 657

“Entrapment” means any act by a public official or agent to induce an Officer, Agent or Employee of the Body Corporate or a Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate, to commit a civil or criminal offence for the purpose of instituting a civil act or criminal prosecution against him; and

Question 658

EQUITABLE INTERESTS AND POWERS

Answer 658

“Equitable Interest” means all the other interests and charges in or over Land or in the proceeds of sale thereof; or capable of subsisting as a legal estate; and “Equitable Powers” means all the powers whereby equitable interests or powers can only be transferred or created in or over land what are not legal powers; and

Question 659

ESTATE OWNER

Answer 659

“Estate Owner” means the owner of a legal and or equitable estate, excluding infants; and

Question 660

ESTOPPLE

Answer 660

“Estoppel” means that a party to any action involving the Body Corporate or concerning a Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate is prevented by the Courts of the Body Corporate or a Competent Forum of Law from making certain allegations, or denial of certain facts or state of facts, in consequence of previous allegation or denial or conduct or admission, or in consequence of a final adjudication of the matter; and

Question 661

EVIDENCE

Answer 661

“Evidence” means any accepted means in Argument employed for the purpose of proving one or more alleged Facts, whereby the Truth is established or disproven; and

Question 662

EXTORTION

Answer 662

“Extortion” means:- (xli) (xlii) (xliii) The wrongful obtaining of property from the Body Corporate or a Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate induced by use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under colour of official right; or Any unsubstantiated demand for payment issued against the Body Corporate, or issued against any Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate; or Undeniable evidence of refusal, obstruction or delay in providing timely written evidence upon request, in relation to providing necessary proof of the substance of any letter or notice of demand for payment issued against the Body Corporate, or issued against any Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate; and

Question 663

FALSE - FALLACY - FALLACIOUS

Answer 663

“Fallacious” and “False” means any Argument whereby its conclusion does not follow from its premises; or that its Claims or Arguments contradict Law and the present Bylaws; and

Question 664

FAULT

Answer 664

“Fault” means a default, breach, or wrongful act or omission; and

Question 665

FRAUD

Answer 665

“Fraud” means the intentional perversion of one or more Truths and Facts, for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon a false Reality, to cause the victim to part with some valuable thing, or incur an injury or to surrender a Right. The proof by a Court of the Body Corporate or Competent Forum of Law of a person obtaining an unlawful advantage or injury gained by unfair means; and

Question 666

FOREIGN

Answer 666

“Foreign” means:- (xliv) (xlv) The jurisdiction concerning a Stranger, being some other body corporate or country whereby the Body Corporate or Competent Forum of Law has no legitimate Jurisdiction; or The Jurisdiction of the Body Corporate or Competent Forum of Law in regards to some matter, when a particular person as a Foreigner uses outlandish, strange or disagreeable behaviour. A Thing; and “Foreigner” means a person who resists the proper Jurisdiction of the Body Corporate or Competent Forum of Law in regards to some matter, by use of outlandish, strange or disagreeable behaviour. A Thing; and “Foreign Jurisdiction” means a jurisdiction that is not administered by the present Bylaws or Corporation Law; and

Question 667

FOUNDING MEMBERS

Answer 667

“Founders” and “Founding Members” means the first Members of the Corporation at the time of its incorporation and the original subscribers to the Constitution of the Corporation; and

Question 668

FORGERY

Answer 668

“Forgery” means the act of fabricating or producing false objects or items contrary to the Laws of the Body Corporate; or the making or altering a writing or signature purporting to be made by another; or the false making or material alteration of or addition to a written instrument issued under the Laws of the Body Corporate for the purpose of deceit and fraud; and

Question 669

FRIVOLOUS

Answer 669

“Frivolous” means any Suit or Action filed by a party who does not possess a proper Right of Entry and Action in accord with Law and the present Bylaws or Competent Forum of Law; or a Claim by a party against the Body Corporate or one of its Officers or Agents; and who is reasonably likely to be aware they have no reasonable prospect of success because of a lack of supporting Factual Evidence; and

Question 670

GOVERNING INSTRUMENT

Answer 670

“Governing Instrument” means the Constitution; and “Constitution” means the Constitution of the Corporation being the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation and these present Bylaws; and

Question 671

GUILT

Answer 671

“Guilt” and “Guilty” means:- (xlvi) Responsibility for an Offence against the Corporation as a Body Politic and Corporate, or a Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate; and (xlvii) Admission of culpability by an accused by failure of process to properly deny, or explain, or by virtue of repugnant, fallacious or dishonest testimony concerning an Offence against the Corporation as a Body Politic and Corporate, or a Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate; and (xlviii) ConfessionofculpabilitybyanaccusedconcerninganOffence against the Corporation as a Body Politic and Corporate, or a Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate; and (xlix) The conclusion and verdict of a Court of the Body Corporate or associated Competent Forum of Law as to the culpability of an accused in relation to the indictment, complaint or charges against them; and

Question 672

IMMORALITY

Answer 672

“Immorality” means the state or quality of being without morals, or good faith, or good conscience or faithfulness. One who acts contrary to the Laws of the Body Corporate; and

Question 673

IMPERSONATE

Answer 673

“Impersonation” and “Impersonate” means:- Acting in the capacity of claiming to represent the Body Corporate or its interests, or a Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate, without proper authority from the Body Corporate; and Obtaining a financial benefit or advantage in the name of a Person of the Body Corporate, or any Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate, without proper authority from the Body Corporate; and Falsely assuming the identity of a Person of the Body Corporate, or any Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate, for the purpose of depriving the true Person or the Body Corporate of certain rights, property, liberties, interests or remedies; and

Question 674

INSANITY

Answer 674

“Insanity” and “Insane” means a Person that abrogates or rejects the Laws of the Body Corporate and the notions of Truth and Fact; and therefore is temporarily or permanently incapable of reason; and so is unfit and mentally incapable of holding any position of trust or office; and

Question 675

INTENT

Answer 675

“Intent” and “Intention” means the mental exertion of a Mind caused by an underlying wish, want, desire, purpose, goal or meaning being volition that leads to further mental impulses or physical actions; and

Question 676

INTIMIDATE

Answer 676

“Intimidate” and “Intimidation”means the:- Any wilful conduct by an accused, committed for the purpose of coercion, leading to real and manifest fear or duress of physical or other harm by any Person of the Body Corporate or any Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate; or Any deliberate act for the purpose of inferring a threat to inflict punishment, loss, or injury or pain upon a Person of the Body Corporate or any Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate, by the commission of some act, contrary to these present Bylaws; or Any deliberate act for the purpose of inferring a threat to injure, seize, alienate, take, or cause the loss of any Property or Rights of the Body Corporate or any Property or Rights of any Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate, by the commission of some act, contrary to these present Bylaws; and

Question 677

IRRATIONAL

Answer 677

“Irrationality” means the quality or state of being irrational, or want of the faculty.

Question 678

JURISDICTION

Answer 678

“Jurisdiction” means the Authority of a Forum of Law or Judge to administer Justice. The primary Jurisdiction for administering the Laws, Deeds and Agreements of the Body Corporate shall be the Courts of the Body Corporate; and any other competent Forums of Law nominated by such Courts; and

Question 679

KIDNAPPING

Answer 679

“Kidnapping” means the taking and carrying away, from any place, a Person in the care, possession, control or custody of the Body Corporate by another, with force, or the threat of injury, against the Will or Consent of the Person or Body Corporate; and

Question 680

LARCENY

Answer 680

“Larceny” means the wrongful or fraudulent taking and carrying away, from any place, the personal goods of a Person in the care, possession, control or custody of the Body Corporate by another, with intent to convert them into their own use, against the Will or Consent of the Person or Body Corporate; and

Question 681

LAND

Answer 681

“Land” means dirt, surface of the earth and any tenure and mines and minerals, buildings or parts of buildings and other corporeal hereditaments; also a manor, an advowson, a rent and other incorporeal hereditaments, and an easement, right, privilege, or benefit in, over, or derived from land; but not an undivided share in land; and mines and minerals include any strata or seam of minerals or substances in or under any land, and powers of working and getting the same but not an undivided share thereof; and

Question 682

LAW

Answer 682

“Law” means:- (lvi) (lvii) (lviii) (lix) (lx) (lxi) A proper and authentic Rule that describes, prohibits or permits certain Acts, consistent with the most sacred body of Laws known as Astrum Iuris Divini Canonum; and The Constitution of the Corporation, including its Regulations, Articles, Statutes, Resolutions, Rules and Bylaws; and the norms, statutes and policies of the governing Jurisdiction; and A Resolution of the Members of the Corporation passed at a proper Meeting of Members in accord with the present Articles; and A Writ, Judgement, Prescription, Opinion or Order issued by an Organ of the Corporation under the authority and interpretation of its Constitution; and A Statute of a proper legislative Body Politic that is not otherwise morally repugnant, perfidious, treasonous, blasphemous or heretical; and Corporation Law; and

Question 683

ESTATE

Answer 683

“Legal Estate” means any estate or interest in land that is authorised to subsist or to be created at law; and

Question 684

LEGITIMATE

Answer 684

“Legitimacy”, also “Legitimate” means Conformance, Accordance and Authenticity within Law and the present Articles. Hence Legitimate is equivalent to “lawful”; and

Question 685

LIABILITY

Answer 685

“Liability” means an obligation, Debt or responsibility owed by a Person to another; and

Question 686

LIEN - CHARGE

Answer 686

“Lien” means a charge against or interest in goods to secure payment of a debt or performance of an obligation, but the term does not include a security interest; and

Question 687

LUNACY

Answer 687

“Lunacy” and “Lunatic” means a Person who experiences episodes and events of intermittent Insanity, separated by lucid intervals; or a Person who suffers from Delusions; or a Person who from unsoundness of mind is incapable of managing their affairs, or so adjudged by a Court of the Body Corporate or other Competent Forum of Law; and

Question 688

MALADMINISTRATION

Answer 688

“Maladministration” means the abuse of power by an Officer or Trustee, being a breach of Trust by the Officer against the Members of the Body Corporate; or other dishonest, or immoral, or untrustworthy, or self- serving behaviour contrary to the Law of the Body Corporate; and

Question 689

MAL-FIDE

Answer 689

“Male Fide” or “Bad Faith” or “Bad Trust” means to intentionally act without Honesty; or to deliberately and intentionally mislead another; or to gain an advantage, without the intention or means to fulfil the associated obligations or duties; or seeking to obtain an advantage from committing a wrong; or to act with Perfidy or Vexation or Malice against the Body Corporate or one of its Officers, Agents or Members; and

Question 690

MALFEASANCE

Answer 690

“Malfeasance” means the wrongful or unjust doing of some Act that the doer has no Right to perform, or where he has stipulated by Contract not to do so; and

Question 691

MALICE

Answer 691

“Malice” and “Malicious” means any deliberately and wilfully negative, spiteful, wicked and evil act designed and intended to harm another, whether or not the other party was aware of such behaviour; and

Question 692

MAY

Answer 692

“May” means an auxiliary verb qualifying the meaning of another verb by expressing ability, competency, liberty, permission, possibility, probability or contingency; and

Question 693

MEANING

Answer 693

“Meaning”, also “Mean” also “Means”, means the quality of having intention or purpose. Hence, the definition of "mean" as having in mind a purpose; and

Question 694

MEMBER

Answer 694

“Member” means any Person for the time being entered into the Member Roll as an accepted and admitted Member of the Corporation as a Natural Born Native Inhabitant; and

Question 695

MERIT

Answer 695

“Merit” means the matter of substance in Law, whereby the party possesses a clear Right of Entry and Action to proceed, as distinguished from mere form and procedure of lodging such a Claim. A party without Merit is one unable to assert a clear Right of Entry and Action to proceed as defined under these Articles and the present Instrument; and

Question 696

MIND

Answer 696

“Mind” means:- (lxii) The systems, properties and functional states of consciousness of a higher order being as distinct from the physical and biological processes of the body; and (lxiii) Evidence of the particular systems, properties or functional states of consciousness of a being, consistent with the present Bylaws; and (lxiv) The ability of a Person to express their Will, Consent, Denial, Direction or Permission; and

Question 697

MISCONDUCT

Answer 697

“Misconduct” means intentional wrongful, improper or unlawful behaviour against the norms of society or the present Bylaws of the Body Corporate; and

Question 698

MORALLY REPUGNANT

Answer 698

"Morally Repugnant” means:- An inconsistency, opposition, or contradiction as to the fundamental principles of Law, the Rule of Law, Justice and Fair Process within one or more clauses of a Legal or Legislative Instrument, Agreement, Resolution, Statute or Testimony; or An Inconsistency, opposition or contradiction as to the fundamental principles of Law, the Rule of Law, Justice and Fair Process between two or more Legislative Instruments, Resolutions or Statutes of a body politic and corporate; or Direct conflict and absolutely irreconcilable inconsistency, opposition or contradiction concerning a legal matter between the Corporation as a Body Politic and Corporate and some other body politic or corporate seeking to corrupt, abrogate, obfuscate, misrepresent or deny the fundamental principles of Law, the Rule of Law, Justice and Fair Process; or Directconflictorcollisionbetweenabodypoliticorcorporateand the Corporation as a Body Politic and Corporate, concerning the proper Jurisdiction of the Corporation over a thing, subject, place or matter, such that the other body politic or corporate seeks or temporarily gains control by unlawful violence, threat, intimidation, larceny, assault, battery, robbery, kidnapping, fraud, cheating, misrepresentation, dishonesty, embezzlement or corruption; and

Question 699

MUST

Answer 699

“Must” means and is similar to “Shall” and is primarily of mandatory effect and in that sense is used in antithesis to “May” and is not an obligation to perform; and

Question 700

NATURAL BORN NATIVE INHABITANT

Answer 700

“Natural Born Native Inhabitant” means a Denizen by Birth and having entitlement to Land in Trust with the Body Corporate that cannot be alienated, abrogated, seized, sold or surrendered; and

Question 701

NEGLIGENCE

Answer 701

“Negligence” means the failure, whether intentional or otherwise, to exercise appropriate and reasonable care in the performance of certain actions in relation to the Body Corporate or a Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate.

Question 702

OBLIGATION

Answer 702

“Obligation” means a duty imposed by Law, courtesy or agreement; and

Question 703

OFFENCE

Answer 703

The commission of a criminal act against the Laws of the Corporation as a Body Politic and Corporate, representing not only an injury against the Corporation, but the Rule of Law generally; and punishable under the full force of the criminal laws and statutes of the Corporation; or The commission of a wrong against a Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate, whereby the remedy is a civil suit; and

Question 704

OFFICE

Answer 704

“Office” means a position of trust conferred by authority under proper Oath; and “Officer” means a Person duly appointed or elected to an office of trust or authority; and

Question 705

OMISSION

Answer 705

“Omission” means a failure of duty of care to act reasonably, or in a timely fashion, to prevent a loss, injury or harm against the Body Corporate or a Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate.

Question 706

OPPRESSION

Answer 706

“Oppression” means any injury or wrong committed by a public officer through the execution of such office against any Person in the care, possession, control or custody of the Body Corporate, without reasonable excuse for such injury or cause; and

Question 707

OWNER

Answer 707

“Owner” means the person in whom is vested the ownership, dominion, or title of property; proprietor, he who has dominion of a thing, real or personal, corporeal or incorporeal, that he has a right to enjoy and do with as he pleases, even to spoil or destroy it, as far as the law permits, unless he be prevented by some agreement or covenant that restrains his right; and

Question 708

PACTUM DE SINGULARIS CAELUM

Answer 708

“Pactum De Singularis Caelum”, also “Covenant of One Heaven”, means the highest of all covenants and agreements, the most supreme of all treaties, the most supreme Covenant of Trust and ownership, the most supreme source of all authority and rights and the most supreme object of value comprising of four (4) major sections being Exordium (Preamble), Recitatum (Recitals), Decretum (Agreement) and Obsignatum (Enactment) within one hundred forty four (144) Articles; and

Question 709

PAID

Answer 709

“Paid”, also “Pay” means the delivery in good faith to a Creditor the value of a Debt, either in Money or in Goods, such that the Debt is discharged either by acceptance or by the dishonour of the Creditor; and

Question 710

PARTY

Answer 710

“Party” means one or more Persons representing a distinct activity or position in relation to a cause or matter or activity; and

Question 711

PERFIDY

Answer 711

“Perfidy” means the state or act of betrayal and fundamental breach of trust, or violation of faith or allegiance, or violation of a promise or vow as prescribed by the Laws of the Body Corporate; and

Question 712

PERJURY

Answer 712

“Perjury” means the making of a false and blasphemous and profane oath or promise, or to cause another to make a blasphemous and profane oath; and

Question 713

PERFORMANCE

Answer 713

“Performance” means an action itself or its completion as stipulated and required under some form of Consensus; and

Question 714

PIRATE

Answer 714

“Pirate” means a Person who acts solely on his own claim of authority, without any genuine or recognised authority by the Body Corporate or the United States and its allies; or a Person seizing by force or appropriating property without due consideration for the present Bylaws of the Body Corporate; and

Question 715

POSSESSION

Answer 715

“Possession" is the intentional act and fact of holding, using or effectively controlling a Form. Possession is distinct from Ownership in that a Person who possesses a Form may have no rightful claim or title;

Question 716

PRIZE COURT

Answer 716

“Prize Court” means a Competent Forum of Law having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon captures made in time of war, or emergency, against enemies of the Body Corporate or the United States and its allies; and

Question 717

PRIVATE

Answer 717

“Private” means a Right as a Privilege (Privy) formed by Secret Agreement under Licence or Commission, to do or refrain from doing something that would otherwise be unlawful under Public Law; and

Question 718

PROCEEDING

Answer 718

“Proceeding” means action at law, suit in equity and thing “In Rem”; and

Question 719

PROCEDURE

Answer 719

“Procedure” means particular methods, forms, rules, steps and tasks associated with a legal proceeding within a competent forum of law; and

Question 720

PROOF

Answer 720

“Proof”, also “Proven” means an allegation of Fact that through the Process of Validation within a competent forum of law is found to be Authentic and True; and

Question 721

PROPRIETOR

Answer 721

“Proprietor”, also “Proprietary” means the registered proprietor for the time being of Land or a Charge and refers to ownership or characteristics relating to ownership. It describes all the rights that the owner of property can exercise. For example: Proprietary articles are items that are manufactured and marketed under an exclusive right; and

Question 722

PUBLIC MONEY

Answer 722

“Public Money” means any form of Legal Tender issued as a Public Fund against the Credit in Trust of the people of a valid body politic and corporate, or properly constituted society as a single Market as then managed by its elected Officers as Trustees; and

Question 723

PUBLIC NOTICE

Answer 723

“Public Notice” see Notice; see Gazette; and

Question 724

RATIFICATION

Answer 724

“Ratification” means the written confirmation and acknowledgement of a previous act done either by the party or parties responsible or by another; and

Question 725

REASONABLE

Answer 725

“Reasonable”, also “Reasonableness” means an Argument having the faculty of Reason and therefore capable of being Argued through Logic, Truth and Fact; and

Question 726

RECITAL OF TERMS

Answer 726

“Recital of Terms” means these Terms and any additional terms added to a valid Agreement that do not contradict the Articles of the Corporation; and

Question 727

REGISTERED ADDRESS

Answer 727

“Registered Address” means the address of a Member specified on a transfer or any other address of which the Member notifies the Corporation as a place at which the Member will accept service of notices; and

Question 728

REGISTERED OWNER

Answer 728

“Registered Owner”, in relation to a Security, means the person who appears in the Register as the holder of the Security; and

Question 729

REGISTERED SECURITY

Answer 729

“Registered Security” means a Certificated Security that entitles the Holder to the Rights defined under the Security providing they are the same Person listed in the Register matching the identity of the Security. A transfer of a Registered Security is effected by amending the Register; and

Question 730

REMISE

Answer 730

“Remise” means to remit or give up; and

Question 731

REPUGNANT

Answer 731

“Repugnant” and “Repugnancy” means:- (lxxi) An inconsistency, opposition, or contradiction between two or more clauses of the same Legal Instrument, Agreement, Resolution, Statute or Testimony; or (lxxii) Inconsistency, opposition or contradiction between two or more Legislative Instruments, Resolutions or Statutes of a body politic and corporate; or (lxxiii) Directconflictandabsolutelyirreconcilableinconsistency, opposition or contradiction concerning a legal matter between the legal or legislative instruments, bylaws, resolutions or statutes of a body politic or corporate and the Corporation as a Body Politic and Corporate; or (lxxiv) Direct conflict or collision between a body politic or corporate and the Corporation as a Body Politic and Corporate, concerning the proper Jurisdiction of the Corporation over a thing, subject, place or matter, such that there exists an absolutely irreconcilable inconsistency, opposition or contradiction between the other body politic or corporate and the Authority and Rights of the Corporation as a Body Politic and Corporate over a thing, subject, place or matter; and

Question 732

RESCIND

Answer 732

“Rescind”, also “Rescission” means the ending (withdrawal) of a contract by the Agent by Agreement or by default or by Fraud against the Principal (or Principal as Debtor); and

Question 733

REVOCATION

Answer 733

“Revocation” means a solemn recall and withdrawal by a Grantor of the authority of a Trustee and the nomination and installation of their replacement; and

Question 734

ROBBERY

Answer 734

“Robbery” means the taking and carrying away, from any place, the personal goods of a Person in the care, possession, control or custody of the Body Corporate by another, with force, or the threat of injury, against the Will or Consent of the Person or Body Corporate; and under such circumstances that in the absence of such force or threat of injury the act committed would be Larceny; and

Question 735

SANCTION

Answer 735

“Sanction” means to assent, concur or ratify or to reprimand; and

Question 736

SANITY

Answer 736

“Sanity” and “Sane” means the normal condition of the human mind in accepting the Logic, Reason, Truth, Fact, Validity and Legitimacy of Law and the present Bylaws; and

Question 737

SOUND MIND

Answer 737

“Sound Mind” also “Right Mind” means the Competency and Sanity of a Person to make Reasonable decisions, consistent with Law and the present Bylaws; and

Question 738

SEAL

Answer 738

“Seal” means the Official Seal of the Corporation; and

Question 739

SECRETARY

Answer 739

“Secretary” means any person appointed to perform the duties of secretary of the Corporation; and

Question 740

SECURITY

Answer 740

“Security” also “Securities” means any note, stock, treasury stock, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in an oil, gas, or mining title or lease or in payments out of production under such a title or lease, collateral trust certificate, transferable share, voting trust certificate or, in general, any interest or Instrument commonly known as a security, or any certificate of interest or participation, any temporary or interim certificate, receipt, or certificate of deposit for, or any warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing; and

Question 741

SECURITIES EXCHANGE

Answer 741

“Securities Exchange” means a duly registered and recognised Securities Exchange within the Jurisdiction of Corporation Law; and

Question 742

SECURITY INTEREST

Answer 742

“Security Interest” means a right, interest, power or arrangement in relation to personal property, chattels or fixtures that then provides security for the payment or satisfaction of a debt, obligation or liability including, without limitation under a bill of sale, mortgage, charge, promissory note, lien, pledge, trust, power, chattel paper, deposit, hypothecation or arrangement for retention of title, and includes an Agreement to grant or create any of those things; and

Question 743

SHALL

Answer 743

“Shall” means as used in statutes, contracts, or the like, this word is generally imperative or mandatory. But it may be construed as merely permissive or directory, (as equivalent to “May”, also “Must”) to carry out the legislative intention and in cases where no right or benefit to any one depends on its being taken in the imperative sense, and where no public or private right is impaired by its interpretation in the other sense; and

Question 744

SLAVERY

Answer 744

“Slavery” means:- “Bonded Labour” or “Debt Bondage” being any form or system of financial bondage operated by an Enemy Alien, Belligerent or Delinquent, whereby an Officer, Agent or Member of the Body Corporate, or any any Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate, knowingly or unknowingly pledges himself or person as collateral against some loan, debt, or corporate debt; and “Chattel Slavery” or “Debt Bondage” being any form or system of property custody or control operated by an Enemy Alien, Belligerent or Delinquent, whereby an Officer, Agent or Member of the Body Corporate, or any any Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate or their derivatives, are treated as the chattel of some Enemy Alien, Belligerent or Delinquent as the owner and bought and sold as commodities or securities; and (lxxvii) “Forced Labour” being any form or system of involuntary servitude operated by an Enemy Alien, Belligerent or Delinquent, whereby an Officer, Agent or Member of the Body Corporate or any any Person in the care, possession, jurisdiction, control or custody of the Body Corporate is forced by Threat, Intimidation, Assault or actual Battery to perform certain acts against their Will for a Enemy Alien, Belligerent or Delinquent; and

Question 745

STANDING

Answer 745

“Standing” means Locus Standi and the right to bring an action, or to be heard in a competent forum, or to address a competent forum on a matter before it; and

Question 746

STATUTE

Answer 746

“Statute” means: (i) (ii) (iii) A legislative Act of a body politic that is not otherwise morally repugnant, perfidious, treasonous, blasphemous or heretical; and The present Certificate of the Incorporation, together with the ratified Bylaws of the Corporation as one valid and legitimate Statute; and Any Resolution passed by a General Meeting or Special Meeting of Members of the Corporation and assented by the Directors of the Corporation, from time to time; and

Question 747

STATUTORY CONTRACT

Answer 747

“Statutory Contract” means: (iv) (v) Any valid Statute that has the effect of binding certain persons to the same extent as if there existed individual covenants between a nominated body and each person as a member to preserve such provisions of the Statute as if the terms and conditions of the covenant; and The Constitution of the Corporation being the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation, together with the ratified Bylaws of the Corporation; and all Resolutions passed by a General Meeting or Special Meeting of the Corporation; and

Question 748

SURRENDER

Answer 748

“Surrender” means the relinquishing of any Claim of Right or Beneficial Use of a “Thing” (in Trust) by a Beneficial Holder back to the Trustee, without collapsing the Trust and thus any underlying obligations of the former Beneficial Holder; and

Question 749

TAX

Answer 749

“Tax” and “Taxes” means a tax, levy, charge, impost, fee, deduction, withholding or duty of any nature, including, without limitation, stamp and transaction duty or any goods and services tax, value added tax or consumption tax that is imposed or collected by the Body Corporate in accordance with its Rights of ownership, self rating and valuation. Tax includes, but is not limited to, any interest, fine, penalty, charge, fee or other amount imposed in addition to those amounts; and

Question 750

TERMS

Answer 750

“Terms” means that any conditions (terms) that exist as well as the meaning of key words are clearly stated in simple language and that all parties have had reasonable time to read and review them. If Terms do not exist, are deceptive or grossly unclear, then a Contract or Agreement ceases to have any legal or lawful effect; and

Question 751

THS - THAT - THE

Answer 751

“That” means that the Clause it introduces is the subject or object of a verb; or expresses a reason or cause; or an aim, purpose or goal; or expression of intention completely and absolutely within the Jurisdiction and Authority of the Corporation and no other; and “The” means that the Concept or Object it articulates is presupposed and already defined, mentioned, specified and proven as being completely and absolutely within the Jurisdiction and Authority of the Corporation and no other; and “This”, also “this”, means the present Instrument; and

Question 752

PROCURE

Answer 752

OBTAIN 3rd PARTY SERVICES FOR ANOTHER. verb gerund or present participle: procuring ``` Obtain Acquire Hire Employ Indenture Contract with for services. Agent, Scout, Recruit, Pimp. Outsourcing services. Consultation. ``` 1. OBTAIN Obtain (something), especially with care or effort. "food procured for the rebels" synonyms: obtain, acquire, get, find, come by, secure, pick up, get possession of. More buy, purchase, hire, employ, contract with. informal Get hold of, get one's hands on, get one's mitts on... "vegetables and fruit were not easy to procure" obtain (someone) as a prostitute for another person. "he was charged with procuring a minor" synonyms: be a pimp, be pimping; "the police found that he was procuring" 2. LAW persuade or cause (someone) to do something. "he procured his wife to sign the agreement" _______________________________________________ procure (v.) c. 1300, "bring about, cause, effect," from Old French procurer "care for, be occupied with; bring about, cause; acquire, provide" (13c.) and directly from Late Latin procurare "manage, take care of. from pro "in behalf of" + curare "care for" Main modern sense "obtain; recruit" (late 14c.) is via "take pains to get" (mid-14c.). Related: Procured; procuring. _____________________________________________ cure (n.1) c. 1300, "care, heed," from Latin cura "care, concern, trouble," with many figurative extensions over time such as "study; administration; office of a parish priest; a mistress," and also "means of healing, successful remedial treatment of a disease" (late 14c.), from Old Latin coira-, a noun of unknown origin. Meaning "medical care" is late 14c. cure (n.2) "parish priest in France or a French country," from French curé (13c.), from Medieval Latin curatus "one responsible for the care (of souls)," from Latin curatus past participle of curare "to take care of" cure (v.) late 14c., "to restore to health or a sound state," from Old French curer and directly from Latin curare "take care of," hence, in medical language, "treat medically, cure" (see cure (n.1)). In reference to fish, pork, etc., "prepare for preservation by drying, salting, etc.," attested by 1743. Related: Cured; curing. Most words for "cure, heal" in European languages originally applied to the person being treated but now can be used with reference to the disease. Relatively few show an ancient connection to words for "physician;" typically they are connected instead to words for "make whole" or "tend to" or even "conjurer." French guérir (with Italian guarir, Old Spanish guarir) is from a Germanic verb stem also found in in Gothic warjan, Old English wearian "ward off, prevent, defend" (see warrant (n.)). _________________________________________ LATIN Latin- cūrātus cūrātus m (feminine cūrāta, neuter cūrātum); first/second declension arranged (taken care of) healed, cured Latin - cūrō cūrō (present infinitive cūrāre, perfect active cūrāvī, supine cūrātum); first conjugation I arrange, see to, attend to, take care of, ensure Romani templa deorum magna diligentia curant. The Romans care for the temples of the gods with great diligence. Benedictus de Spinoza, Tractatus Politicus sedulo curavi, humanas actiones non ridere, non lugere, neque detestari, sed intelligere I have laboured diligently, not to mock, lament, or execrate human actions; but to understand them. I heal, cure I govern, command I undertake, procure Latin - cūra cūra f (genitive cūrae); first declension care, concern, thought; trouble, solicitude; anxiety, grief, sorrow. c. 50 CE, Seneca the Younger, Phaedra, 607 Curae leues locuntur, ingentes stupent. Trivial concerns talk, great ones are speechless. Vergilius, Aeneis, Book VI, line 85 Mitte hanc de pectore curam. Dismiss this anxiety from your heart. ``` Attention, management, administration, charge, care; command, office; guardianship. Written work, writing. (medicine) Medical attendance, healing. (agriculture) Rearing, culture, care. (rare) An attendant, guardian, observer. ```

Question 753

AVERMENT

Answer 753

From ad + verus (Latin) allege as a fact in support of a plea. an affirmation or allegation. a formal statement by a party in a case of a fact or circumstance which the party offers to prove or substantiate. late Middle English: from Old French averrement, averement, from averer ‘declare true’ (see aver) ``` verb: aver; 3rd person present: avers; past tense: averred; past participle: averred; gerund or present participle: averring. ``` state or assert to be the case. "he averred that he was innocent of the allegations" synonyms: declare, maintain, claim, assert, state, attest, affirm, avow, swear, vow, profess, insist, protest. __________________________________________ AVER verb: aver; 3rd person present: avers; past tense: averred; past participle: averred; gerund or present participle: averring state or assert to be the case. "he averred that he was innocent of the allegations" synonyms: declare, maintain, claim, assert, state, attest, affirm, avow, swear, vow, profess, insist, protest; More