Plea bargaining has been a topic of debate for many years. Advocates feel that plea bargains cut down on caseloads, while opponents feel that criminals get off to easy or are punished to harshly by the system of bargaining. The purpose of this discussion is to discuss these two opposing points of view. I will then choose the one that personally appeals to me and offer support for it. Let’s begin the discussion by defining what a plea bargain is and how it is used.
Sexual harassment can be defined as “Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment (The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2009).” With the definition of sexual harassment in mind one can read an article by Mireya Navarro, titled “His Way Meets a Highway Called Court” published on July 10, 2005 in The New York Times and contemplate if the events that took place constitute sexual harassment or if the events that took place reflect the chief executive’s own personal influence on the organization’s culture.
Discrimination is discussed in the workplace during orientation and in meetings. An employer has lawyers available on some jobs but federal laws dislike job discrimination. Most company valued their employees and do not want this matter to hurt the company or the employee. Filing a claim is a lengthy process so John must have patients when dealing with the legal system and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. John understands that Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will assist him a counselor through this discrimination process. John will have a civil litigation processes he will go through. John employers may even dispute this claim but he can appeal it.
On March 1, 1966, the case of Miranda v. Arizona was argued in the Supreme Court, and was decided on June 13, 1966. The issue was that prior to the time of arrest and any interrogation of a person suspected of a crime, he/she must be told that he/she has: "the right to remain silent, the right to legal counsel, and the right to be told that anything he/she says can be used in court against" him/her.
Introduction Share capital is a very essential part of a company, listed or unlisted. Share capital can be of two types i.e. equity share capital or preferential share capital. The share capital of a company has to be subscribed by one or more persons. After the share of a company has been allotted to the subscribing members, the subscribers have no right over the money gone as proceeds of the shares subscribed. All that the shareholder has is the right to vote at the general meetings of the company or the right to receive dividends or right to such other benefits which may have been prescribed . The only option left with the shareholder in order to realize the price of the share is to transfer the share to some other person. But with the introduction of section 77A, 77AA, and 77B in the Companies Act, 1956 the shareholder can realize the price by selling directly to the company .
The Offence of Corruption Bribery Act 70. Any public servant who, with intent, to cause wrongful or unlawful loss to the Government, or to confer a wrongful or unlawful benefit, favour or advantage on
It is the liability of HR as well as the Company to stay compliance with state and federal laws that pertains to worker practices. A worker’s instruction manual is considered to be the basis of information that is used in management in order to assist managers so that they can steer clear of legal actions brought on via the workforce and outer entity (Davis V., 2009). An HR director should be conversant with not only the system of rules enforced through a set of institutions, but also with the company’s written contract and measures within handling members of a staff controversies and legal document used to begin a civil lawsuit. They have got to keep in mind that almost not a day goes by without reports of equal-opportunity related lawsuits at job (Dessler G., 2009), and these procedures can certainly be avoided.
Q ) ‘It seems to be as plain as can be that if all the objects are not ascertainable, then to distribute amongst the known object is to take a narrower class than the settler has directed and so to conflict with his intention.’ (Lord Guest (dissenting) in Mc Phail v Doulton (1970)).
Monopoly and Unfair Business Competition - Indonesian LawWhat is monopoly? Monopoly is the condition of market when there is only one provider of a particular service or product. The condition is very beneficial for the service providers because they have the freedom of lack market competitors. On the other hand, the customers did not have any variety for the available service or product and has to buy the service or product at the given facilities and cost. Similarly, a monopoly should be distinguished from a cartel (a form of oligopoly), in which several providers act together to coordinate services, prices or sale of goods.
The facts of this case are: Quebec never signed the Canadian Constitution. In the early 80s, the Parti Québécois won the majority vote of the Quebec Provincial Election. The party then held a referendum, asking Quebec’s citizens if they should ask for a mandate, and negotiate sovereignty for Quebec. The referendum resulted in a 60 - 40 defeat. The party was re-elected the next year, promising not to hold another referendum.