Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In most cases the codified statutory form of cheating and the original common law offence are very similar, but there can be differences. For example, under English law it was held in R v Sinclair [2] that "[t]o cheat and defraud is to act with deliberate dishonesty to the prejudice of another person's proprietary right." However, at common law ...
The distinction between a mere "breach of contract" and the "offence of cheating" was a fine one. It depended upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by subsequent conduct, but this subsequent conduct was not the sole test.
Similarly, fraud may serve as a basis for a court to invoke its equitable jurisdiction. The remedies for fraud may include rescission (i.e., reversal) of a fraudulently obtained agreement or transaction, the recovery of a monetary award to compensate for the harm caused, punitive damages to punish or deter the misconduct, and possibly others. [6]
In law, fraud is an intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. Fraud can violate civil law or criminal law, or it may cause no loss of money, property, or legal right but still be an element of another civil or criminal wrong. [1]
By which we mean Princess Diana's brother, Charles Spencer, has been accused of cheating by his ex-wife Karen Spencer in explosive new legal documents. According to U.K. court documents seen by ...
Making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) is the common name for the United States federal process crime laid out in Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which generally prohibits knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements, or concealing information, in "any matter within the jurisdiction" of the federal government of the United States, [1] even by merely ...
"Cheating is cheating, because cheating is going against an agreement," therapist Rachel Wright said. It comes down to breaching a partner's trust. The difference between ethical non-monogamy and ...
But in R v Jones [1898] 1 QB 119, an English court found that it is neither larceny nor false pretences, but an offence under the Debtors Act 1869, of obtaining credit by fraud. [6] R v Danger [26] revealed a lacuna in the law. This was remedied by section 90 of the Larceny Act 1861. That section was replaced by section 32(2) of the Larceny Act ...