Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The courts have developed an apparent distinction between terms implied "in fact" and those implied "in law". Terms implied "in fact" are said to arise when they are "strictly necessary" to give effect to the "reasonable expectations of the parties". Terms implied "in law" are confined to particular categories of contract, particularly ...
However, under Federal Rule of Evidence 801 and the minority of U.S. jurisdictions that have adopted this rule, a prior inconsistent statement may be introduced as evidence of the truth of the statement itself if the prior statement was given in live testimony and under oath as part of a formal hearing, proceeding, trial, or deposition. [2]
A leading question is a question that suggests a particular answer and contains information the examiner is looking to have confirmed. [1] The use of leading questions in court to elicit testimony is restricted in order to reduce the ability of the examiner to direct or influence the evidence presented. Depending on the circumstances, leading ...
The promise must be real and unconditional. This doctrine rarely invalidates contracts; it is a fundamental doctrine in contract law that courts should try to enforce contracts whenever possible. Accordingly, courts will often read implied-in-fact or implied-in-law terms into the contract, placing duties on the promisor.
An implied assertion is a statement or conduct that implies a side issue surrounding certain admissible facts which have not necessarily complied within rules of relevance. There is varying opinion on whether hearsay evidence of implied assertions should be admissible in court to prove or justify the issue within contents.
Such a question is distinct from a question of fact, which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence as well as inferences arising from those facts. Answers to questions of law are generally expressed in terms of broad legal principles. They can be applied to many situations rather than particular circumstances or facts.
But before 1977, legislation to directly regulate unfair terms did not exist, [25] and jurisprudence on implied terms was underdeveloped. Even now, with one notable exception, [26] the courts have not accepted that they have any inherent jurisdiction to control unfair terms. It is only under legislation that authority appears to exist.
Ordinary words are given their ordinary meaning, technical terms are given their technical meaning, and local, cultural terms are recognized as applicable. The plain meaning rule is the mechanism that prevents courts from taking sides in legislative or political issues. [ 2 ]