Crime Prevention and Measures to Safeguard Public Safety - Coursework Example

1. a) The for the hearing was set on 31st January 1989 while the judgment was set on 23rd November 1989. b) The trial judge was Glidewell L.J. and his decision was that the plaintiff be compensated for 3, 500 pounds for damages where 1, 400 is interest accrued and in addition expenses of the proceedings. Subsequently, he dismissed the counterclaims by the defendants. c) The solicitors in the Court of Appeal were Franklin Evans for the defendants andChristopher Makey represented the plaintiff. d) The case that was distinguished by the Court of Appeal was Stilk v. Myrick (1809) 2 Camp.e) The case that was applied in the court of appeal was Hoenig v. Isaacs [1952] 2 All E.R. 176, C.A. 2. The decision of Court of Appeal was dismissal of the counter claims by the defendant. 3. The main reason why the defendant was in financial difficulty is because first the agreed amount of 20, 000 pound was too low to allow him operate reasonably at profit and secondly the plaintiff did not supervise his workmanship adequately. 4. The second subsidiary argument that the defendant’s counsel put forward was that the additional payment was only payable as each flat was completed. The flats were substantially completed. This implies that this was less than completion. This means that none of the eight flats was completed and, therefore, no further payment was due. 5. To dismiss the subsidiary argument by the defendant’s counsel, Glidewell LJ applies the authority in relation to a case of Hoenig v. Isaacs [1952] 2 All E.R. 176. In this case, the complainant’s work was to decorate and furnish the defendant’s house for 750 pounds payable as work proceeded and balanced on completion. Plaintiff received 400 pounds and the defendant moved into the house on bases that there were some defects. Some defects were found however, the work was substantially completed. The court ruled that the plaintiff was eligible to be paid the outstanding balance minus the cost of making defected goods or omissions. 6. Russell LJ agrees with the Glidewell LJ’s dismissal of the subsidiary argument since it relates to the defendant’s submission that the complainant deserved the £10,300 because of the eight houses none had been completed. He agrees with the judge’s findings that there has been the considerable completion and a small amount should be deducted to cover for incomplete and defective items. 7. For the benefit of law to his client, the defendant’s lawyer to support his position argues the complainant was promising to do more than what the subcontract specifies. That is to continue with carpentry work and do it within the stipulated time. He applies the authority based on the principle of law which dates back to a decision made in Stilk v. Myrick. 8. a) According to Glidewell LJ, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be relied upon because the doctrine provides a scenario where a person to a whom a promise is made can seek additional payments for services which he is bound to offer under the existing contract or by promise. He states that the usage of the {"status":"TOOLBAR_READY","toolbarId":220280897}{"status":"TOOLBAR_READY","toolbarId":22209786 doctrine of promissory estoppel has not been fully developed to be applied in a case like this. Additionally, the point was not discussed in the court, therefore, no reliance can be placed based on this concept regarding the case in hand.b) On point (a) above, Russell LJ does not agree with Glidewell LJ. Russell argues that importing an estoppel can enable a party to apply a cause of action which without an estoppel would not have been possible. The doctrine of estoppel is among the most flexible and important armoury applied in law. He cites a case which involved Woodhouse A.C. Israel Cocoa Ltd. S.A. against NigerianProduce Marketing Co. Ltd. It involved an agreement to the variance of currency where the obligation of the buyer was to be met and was affected by depreciation of the currency. The case decision was made on an issue of estoppel. 9.Looking at the approaches of the three judges towards the authority of Stilk v Mylick, (1809) Camp. 317. Glidewell LJ adapts the consideration approach in the case of Stilk and Mylick in determining the case where he says contacts though not under seal should be considered. Rusell LJ does not base his judgment alluding to this case. He states only a seal can enforce a gratuitous promise. He continues to say payment can be made to the promise on bases of future relations to avoid failure for wanting consideration. He believes that the consideration approach found in Stilk v. Mylick is not desirable or necessary to this case. He argues consideration is critical and judges should devise a new approach to this concept to reflect intensions of all parties.Purchas LJ agrees with the approach of consideration in the case of Stilk v. Mylick. He argues that the judgment given in this case does not warrant avoiding the rule in Stilk V. Mylick case. He argues a contract that is not under seal must be reinforced by consideration as it is the case in Stilk v. Myrick, 2 Camp. 317. In addition he says he is not in a position to go against the principles involving such judges of higher distinction as they represent a pillar stone in law of contract that has been applied over the years and up to now is still recognized in recent principles of law. 10. Rusell LJ believes that the agreement between Williams v Roffey Bros to pay additional 10,300 pounds is enforceable because the plaintiff did not undertake extra work different to what the plaintiff had originally signed for. The terms to carry the work varied and the variation is reinforced by consideration pragmatic approach in line with the relationship both parties portray. 11. The doctrine of duress not applicable in this case according to Purchas LJ because the initiative that led to the agreement of 9th April came from the side of the defendant and not the as opposed to the side of complainant. 12. (i) There is no dicendi between the contracts that A and B entered into. Both parties have entered into an oral agreement which requires consideration. The fact that party A is doubtful whether B will meet his part of the bargain.In statement B, there is a dicendi where Mr. Roffey is persuaded by Mr. Cottrell that the accused should pay a bonus to the complainant. This is because there is a valid reason that convinces the defendant to pay the plaintiff. Both parties are recognizing that there exists an oral agreement that is binding.In statement C, there is no dicendi and in statement D there is a dicendi. 13. Using the case of Williams v. Roffey, Sebastian can claim 2, 500 pounds owed to him by DBL. It is evident that Sebastian had completed his work according to the specification in the contract and he has done it in time. It is clear that DBL promised to pay Sebastian additional 5,000 pounds as part of an oral agreement. The fact that work was timely completed, demands that DBL is obligated to clear the arrears owed to Sebastian. Applying the principle of consideration like in the case of Stilk v. Myrick, 2 Camp. 317 Sebastian’s claim is bound by a contract that is not under which must be supported by consideration. By paying 2, 500 pounds to Sebastian, DBL proves that there exists an oral agreement for both parties.By completing the extension work in time, DBL was able to focus on other businesses like securing clients for the new space created. 14. In find it hard for Suki to claim 100 pounds he gave to John. Unlike in the case of Williams v. Roffey, the contract that John had with Suki is complete and the oral agreement they both had is fulfilled.“Purchas LJ alludes to the case of Stilk against Myrick, arguing that as a subject of a principle that an agreement not under seal must be anchored through consideration. This is in relation to the case of Williams v. Roffey. The fact that the construction of the treehouse was timely completed and the agreed amount was paid in full leaves no room where Suki can claim the 100 pounds he gave to Suki as part of the oral agreement. The fact that he saw wood in John’s van did not prove that it was part of the purchase made for the 100 pounds. Part 2 – Statute Analysis 1. The long title of the Act is Provisions as to owning, Handling, and Distribution of firearms and Ammunition; Crime prevention and Measures to safeguard Public Safety. 2. The short title is Firearms Act 1968. 3. The date in the brackets signifies when the Act was amended. 4. The Act came into force 30th May 1968. 5. The types of firearms that section 1 NOT apply;(a) A short gun in this act is to mean (not being an air gun) which-(i) has a barrel that does not go beyold 24 inches in vertical length and a barrel bore not exceeding 2 inches in diameter;(ii) either has no magazine or has non-detachable magazine that cannnot hold more than two cartridges; and(iii) is not a pistol; and,] (b) an air firearm that is an air gun , riffle or a revolver pistol. 6. a) A smooth bore gun with a 1½ inch bore barrel which is 20 inches long. The gun does not have a magazine and is not a revolver or an air weapon- S1 does not apply. This is because the barrel of the bore gun in this case falls short of 24 inches required so as not to fit in section 1 and also the length is shorter than the 24 inches. b) For a smooth bore gun with a 1⅓ inch bore barrel which is 28 inches long. The gun has a detachable magazine capable of holding two cartridges. The gun is not a revolver or an air weapon. There is no substantial information to say whether s. 1 applies. This is because the 1 1/3 inch bore barrel fall short of 2 inches while the length of the barrel exceeds 24. In addition, it has a magazine that capable of holding two cartridges there by making it hard to tell whether it fits the section. 7. Henry’s gun does not completely fall under any section of the act. However it can fall under the subsection 3(a) (ii) of the Act if the magazine bears a mark that is approved by the Secretary of State recognizing that the mark has been made and the adaptation certified in writing having been done though the right procedure by either of the companies stated in section 58 (1) of the Act. 8. Under the act, the length of the barrel of a firearm should be measured from the nozzle to the point where charge explodes on firing. 9. In relation to a smooth gun, a revolver means a gun that contains a series of chambers that does revolve when a gun goes off. 10. A firearm refers to a lethal barreled weapon of any caliber from which a shot, bullet or other forms of missile can be launched. 11. The difference in the offences contained in ss.16 and 16A of the Act is that in 16 A the offence includes possessing an imitation of a firearm or a firearm with an intention or ability to make an individual or through proxy cause another person to believe violence will be used on them while ss. 16 talks of possession of a firearm with an intention to bring fear or violence. 12. a) According to section 3 (2) of the Act, it is an offence for person to transfer or sell a firearm to a person who does not hold a firearm certificate that authorizes him to purchase or acquire a firearm, or shows by virtue of this Act that that he is entitled to acquire or purchase firearm without a certificate. The fact that James did not ask for the certificate before selling the firearm to Des makes him liable under this Act. b) The maximum sentence that James can be handed down if indicted is a jail term of five years, this is in relation to section 3 (2) of the Act that creates the offense. 13. It is an offence under this Actifor a person to use a firearm or imitation of a firearm with an intention to resist or obstruct lawful arrest or detention of oneself or another person. It is also an offence to under section 17 (2) for one to carry a firearm or imitation unless he shows what is in his possession is a lawful object. Under section 19 of this Act it is an offence without lawful authority or a reasonable explanation to carry a firearm in public places together with ammunition suitable for use in that firearm. Under section 16 of the Act is an offence to possess a firearm with an intention to injure and under section 16 A it’s an offence to possess a firearm with an intention of causing fear or violence. Fred is guilty of all these offences. 14. Ann has committed an offence under the Act. In section 17 of the Act it is an offence for a person to resist arrest by using firearm or imitation to prevent lawful arrest. Under section 17 (2) of the Act it is an offence for one to possess an imitation of a firearm if he fails to prove that what one has in possession is a lawful object. In this case, Ann does not prove that. Ann tries to instill fear by using an imitation of a firearm. Under section 16 A it’s an offence to possess an imitation of afirearm with an intention of causing fear of make a person believe that unlawful violence will be used to them. 15. Sam has breached 3 (1) (a) of the Act he transfers a firearm to another person and he is not registered under the Act as a firearms dealer. In section 3 (2) of the Act it is an offence to transfer a firearm to a person who does not in his possession a valid firearm certificate. Read More