Teacher in St. Francis school District arrested for alleged sexual misconduct

WITI-TV, ST FRANCIS, wis.- A teacher in the st. Francis School District was arrested Tuesday night for alleged sexual misconduct. This, after a female student came forward to school administrators with the allegation.

According to statement by the St. Francis police Department, a female student told them the teacher inappropriately touched her while at school.

A letter was sent home with all student in the district Wednesday. Wednesday afternon, student at will have meeting by grade level with school administrators to make them awae of the situation and to let them know that counselors are available to them.

District amnisitrators say the accused teacher has been in the district seven to eight years.

He's on indefinite suspension.

Adil sayeed Roadshow

Do you remember Adil sayeed, the indian muslim teenage boy with a rich father, sleeping with two chinese girls, Alyssa and Jane lo ? You can find the scandal from limkwokWeng university in the internet.

The unrepentant Adil is at again. Now that no girls dare to be with him and get herself into instant internet stardom, Adil now resort to self exposure to satisfy his publicity need. Now he is spending more time open areas, roadsidw and construction sites. The gadgwts are there, but he gotta do it himself.

well, no wonder if he is actually flirting with the laws. i mean Syaiah Law, of course. If a muslim women can be caned for just boozing, what did the Syariah law got for a guy masturbating in the middle of the road with the latest gadget not found during the days of the founding of islam

Taylor v caldwell (1863) 3 B & S 826

Issues
1.Whether the agreement by the parties was a valid contract
2. Whether the music hall owners liable for the breach of the contract

Facts
Caldwell & Bishop owned Surrey Gardens & Music Hall, and agreed to rent it out to Taylor & Lewis for $100 a day. Taylor had planned to use the Music hall for four concerts and day evening fetes on Monday June17, Monday July 15, Monday August 5, and monday August 19, 1861. They were going yo provide a variety of extravagant entertainments including a singing performance by Sims Reeves, A thirty five to forty- piece military and quadrille band, al fresco entertainments, minstrels, fireworks and full illuminations, a ballet o divertissement, a wizard and Grecian statues, tight rope performances, rifle galleries, air gun shooting, Chinese and Parisian games, boats on the lake, and aquatic sports.

According to the contract the parties had signed, the defendants were to provide most od the British performers. Taylor & lewis agreed to pay one hundred pounds sterling in the evening of the day of each concert by a crossed cheque, and also to find and provide, at their own cost, all the necessary artistes for the concerts, including Mr. Sims Reeves. Then, on June 11, 1861, a week before the first concert was to be given, the music hall burned to the ground. The plaintiffs sued the music hall owners for breach of contract for failing to rent the music hall. there was no clause within the contract itself which allocated the risk to the underlying facilities, except for the phrase "God's will permitting" at the end of the contract.

Judgment
Judge Blackburn began his opinion by stating that the agreement between the parties was a contract, sedpite their use of the term "lease". Under the common law of property in England at the time, under a lease the lessee would obtain legal possession of the premises during the lease period, while the contract at issue in this case specified that legal possession would remain with the defents.

Blackburn reasoned that the rule of absolute liability only applied to positive, definite contract, not to those in which there was an express or implied condition underlying the contact. Black further reasoned that the continued existence of the music Hall in surrey Gardens was an implied condition essential for the fulfillment of the contract. The destruction of the music hall was the fault of neither party, and rendered the performance of thr contract by either party impossible. Blackburn cited the civil code of France the Roman law for the proposition that when the existence of a particular thing is essential to a contract , and the thing is destroyed by no fault of the party selling it, the parties are freed from obligation to deliver the thing. He further analogized to a situation in which a contract requring personal perfomace is made, and the party to perform dies, the party's executors are not held liable under English common law. Blackburn thus held that both parties were excued from their obligations under their contract.

HARRIS V NICKERSON (1873) LR 8 QB 286

Issues
1- wethwer the advertisment contituted a contract between both aprties
2- wether the adverstisment constituted an offer

Facts
The Defendant placed an advertisment in London papers that certain iteams, including brewing equipment and office furniture, would be placed up for action over there days in Bury St. Edmunds. The plaintiff obtained a commission to buy the office furniture and expended time andexpense to travel to Bury St. Edmunds to bid for the office furniture. On the third day. the lost for the office furniture were withdrawn. The plaintiss sued for loss of time and wxpense. The judgw at first instance found in favoure of the plaintiff.Leave was given to appeal to the High court.
The plaintiff submitted that the advertisment constituted a contract between themselves and the Defendant that the latter would sell the furniture according to the condition stated in the advertisement, and that accordingly the withdrawal of the of the furniture was a breach of contract. The defendant submitted the advertisement of a sale did not consitute a contarct that any particular lot or class of lots would actually be put up for sale.

Judgment
The court held unanimously that the advertiswment did not constitute an offer, but rather was a mere declaration of intent. Blackburn, J. foumded hos judgment on public policy grounds, calling it a "startling proposition" that" any one who advertises a sale by publishing an advertisement (would become) reponsilble to everybody who attends the sale for his cab hire or travelling expenses". Quain and archibald, JJ also drew public plicy arguments, emphasising that there existed no authority on which to base a decision that the Defendant be liable to indemnify all those who attended hos auction. The court uphelp the appeal.

Foakes v beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605

Issues
1- Whether there was a valid agreement between the parties John and Julia
2- Whther the respondent entitled to the amount given by the appellant

Facts
The appellant, John Weston Foakes, owed the respondent, Julia beer, a sum of $2,090 19s after a court judgment. Beer agreed that she would not take any action against Foakes for the amount owed if he would sign an agreement promising to pay an initial sum of $500 and pay $150 twice yearly until the whole amount was piad back. Foakes was in financial difficulty, and so Beer waived any interest on the amount owed. Foakes made the payments as agreed without any interest. But then Beer sued Foakes for the interest. The questiom was whether she was entiled to it, despite their agreement that he would not need to pay it.

Judgment
Queen's Bench

At trial, the court found in favour of Foakes. Watkin William J uphelp this decision, given the agreement between the two. Mathew J said,

" It is material to notice that by the agreement the debtor shall not bind himself to pay the creditor's nominee. That stipulation renders the document available as a security. Upon the authority of the decision, I think there was a bundant consideration for the agreement."

Court of appeal
Brett MR held, in a short judgment, that there was no consideration for the agreement. Lindley LJ and Fry LJ concurred without giving considered opinions.

House of Lords

The House of Lords (Earl of selborne LC, Lord Waston and Lord Fitzgerald) upheld the ruling of the court of Appeal in favour of Beer. They reasoned that though the agreement did not contemplate the interest owed, it could still be implied given an enforceable agreement.
However, the promise to pay a debt was deemed nit ti sufficient considerattion as there was no additional benefit moving from Foakes to Beer that was not already owed to her.

Adams v Lindsell [1818] EWHC KB J59

Issues
1. Whether there was a binding contract between both parties.
2. Whether the contract by the post can consider as a valid contract.

Facts
The case involved two parties in the sale of wool. On 2 September, the defendants wrote to the plaintiffs offering to sell them certain fleeces of wool and requiring an answer in the course of post. The defendants misdirected the letter so that the plaintiffs did not receive until 5 September. The plaintiffs posted their acceptance on the same day but it was not received until 9 September. meanwhile, on 8 September, the defendants, not having received an answer by 7 September as they has expected, sold the wool to someone else.

The defendants argued that there could not be a binding contract until the answer was actually received, and until then were free ro sell the wool to another buyer.

Judgment
Law J said that is that was true it would be impossible to complete any contract through the post; if the defendants were not bound by their offer until the answer was received, then the plaintiffs would not be bound until they had recevied word that the defendants had received their acceptance, and this could go indefinitely. instead it must be considered that the offerers were making the offer to the plaintiffs during every moment tha the letter was in the post.

Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571

Issues
1. Whether there was a valid contract betwwn the parties.
2. whether Mr balfour was under obligation to support his wife.

Facts
Mr Balfour was a civil engineer, and worked for the goverment as the director of Irrigaton in Ceylon (now sri lanka). Mrs balfour was living with him. In 1915, they both came back to England during Mr Balfour's leave. But Mrs Balfour got rheumatic arthritis. Her doctor advised her to stay, because a jungle climate was not conductive to her health. As Mr balfour's boat was about to set sail, he promised her $30 a month until he came back to Ceylon. They drifted apart, and Mr Balfour wrote saying it was better that they remain apart. In march 1918, Mr Balfour send him to keep up with the monthly $30 payments. In July got a decree nisi and in December she obtained an order for alimoney.

Judgment
At first instance, Sargant J held that Mr Balfour was under an obligation to support his wife the court of Appeal unanimously held that there was no enforceable agreement, although the depth of their reasoning differed. Warringyon LJ delivered hos opinion first, the core part being this passage (at 574-575)

" The matter really reduce itself to an absurdity when one considers it, because if we were to hold that there was a contract in this case we should have to hild that with regard to all the more or less trivial concerns of life where a wife, at the request of her husband, makes a promise to him, that is a promise which can be enforced in law. All i can say is that there is no such contract here, these two people never intended to make a bargin which could be enforced in lae . The husband expressed his intention to make this payment, and he promised to make it, and was bound in honour to continue it so long as he was in a position to do so. The wife on the other hand, so far as I can see, made on bargain at all. That is in my poinion sufficient to dispose if he case. "

Then Duke LJ gave his. he placed weight on the fact that the parties had not yet been divorced and that the promise had been made still whilst as husband and wife.

LAW OF CONTRACT

CASE 2

Due to a rampant robbery in which the robber used ski masks to cover their faces, the cyberjaya Authority issued a regulation that makes it illegal to swll ski masks. As a safety measure, the rule also makes it illegal for anyone to offer for sale the ski masks. In spite of this, messy has not cleared the ski masks from the shelves of hid sport equipment shop in cyberia. The authority officials came to know about this and later on charged messy under the new regulation. Advise messy according to contracts Act 1950mm and relevant decided case (S).

Issue:

whether (Messy) the owner not taking action on clearing the (Ski Masks) illegal goods and displaying them on the shelves of his shop in cyberia would amount to an offence committed ( offering an illegal item )

Authority used:

The contract Act 1950 , section 2 (a)

A proposal is made when a person:

1- signifies to another his willingness, to do or abstain doing anything.

2- with a view to obtain the assent of the other to such act or abstinence.

An offer must be distinguished from an invitation to treat. An invitation to treat is not a proposal therefore no binding obligation shall be taking in consideration. An invitation to treat is an offer to make an offer. there are a lot of kinds of ITT according to the given case it is an ITT (display of goods). When a good is dispalyed in a place no matter what it was no matter where it is, it is only an invitation to treat. once a customer picks the good then it implies the buyer is offering to buy the good. in this case displaying the ski masks on the shelves does not amount to offering any illegal item. It is simply just displayed

The case of fisher v. bell 1961 1 Qb 394

the keeper of a shop displayed a flick knife in the shop's window, the shop keeper was charged with an offence of offering to sell a flick-knife contrary to the offensive weapons Act (1959)

Lord Parker observed:

It is clear that, according to the ordinary law of contract , the display of an artical with a price on it in a shop window is merely an invitation to treat.

and the case of pharmaceutical society of great britain v. boot cash chemists 1952 2 all Er 456

A self-service shop sellnig drugs

court of appeal observed

No offence the defendant was not offering to sell drugs without supervision, the defendant was merely inviting the customer to choose items from the shelves and sale will take effect when the customer's offer to buy is accepted by the registered pharmacist as the counter

the advice to messy is to argue to the court that there was no offer, because displaying goods no matter what kind of items they were are merely an invitation to treat only...

NEW SAUDI LAW WOULD ALLOW WOMEN LAWYERS IN COURT .

saudi arabia's justics minister says his department is drafting a law that would allow female lawyers to argue legal cases in court fir the first time.

sheik Mohammed al-issa told reporters sarurday the bill will be issued in the coming days as part of the saudi king's "plan to develop the justics system".

The law would mark a major step for female lawyers in the kigdom. Currently, women law graduates can work in goverment offices and in court offices, but can not argue cases before court.

under the new law, women would be allowed to argue cases on child custody, divorce and other family-related issues.
women in saudi arabia are nearly totally segregated from men in public life.

depend on sharea law why the women doesn't have the right and to be allowed to argue in all kinds of cases in saudi arabia court ?

Drinking coffee a crime in saudi arabia ?

An American woman who was arrested and strip-searched by religious police in saudi arabia for drinking coffee at starbucks with a male colleague says she is determined to stay in the strict islamic kingdom to challenge its rules.


Yara, 37, went to the starbucks on monday with her business associate to get some work done and use the internet after a power failure shut down her office. While the two were sitting in the curtained-off family section of the starbucks, the country's bearded religious police entered and arrested her of being with a man other than her husband.

In saudi arabia, where social rules are based on fundamentalist interpretation of islamic text, interaction between men and weman is severely restricted. Additionally, the country does not have a unified legal system. instead, judes and local authorities rely on their individual interpretations of the koran.

Do u think we have an issue here ? and she deserve that or not ?

How is the drug law in Saudi Arabia ?

Saudi Arabia has one of the most liberal drug laws in the world. Considering drug addicts as patients needing medical attention, the law provides ample oppotunities for them to take treatment and avoid punishment. At the same time, drug smugglers and dealers are given sever penalty including the death sentence. Here is a summary of how the law deals the drug related offenses.

Narcotics smuggler: The severest punishment, for those who are involved in smuggling narcotics and brining narcotics in the kingdom is death.

Dealer: for the first time offernder, punishment is imprisonment, lashing or financial fine or all. For the repeat offenders, punishment is increased and the involved person may be sentenced to death.

Narcotics User: Narcotics user is jailed for two years and punished according to the judg's decision. A narcotics user who enrolls in the treatment is not questioned, but admitted into a specialized hospital. Saudi law treats narcotics addicts as patients who need treatment.

Special Treatment for students: The law excludes students from punishment and limited to disciplining and monitoring them. To benefit from this exclusion from punishment, the student must meet certain condition including:

• Full time student under 20 years of age.


• not involved in dealing and smuggling and other crime.


• not involved in serious road traffic accidents.

Saudi Court Orders 60 Lashes for 22-Year-Old Female Journalist; King Abdullah Waives the Sentence After Intense International Media Attention

The Associated press reported that a court in jeddah, saudi arabia sentenced Rozanna Al-Yami, a 22-year-old female journalist, to 60 lashes after she was charged with promoting a television program in which a Saudi man talked about sex. Ms. Yami said that she had worked as coordinator for the program "Blod Red Line" but had not worked on this particular episode. see 60 Lashed Ordered for Saudi Woman, N.Y Times, oct 25,2009,sec. 1, at 11. The prosecutor in that case had called for even harshed punishment.

The man in that television show, Mazen Abdul-Jawad, was a divorced Saudi father of four children. He was sentenced to five year in prison and 1,000 lashes. He had described having an active sex life and showed sex toys, which the station blurred. The New York times said that the program "scandalized this conservative country."

Three other men who appeared on the show were also convicted of discussing sex and were reportedly sentenced to two imprisonment and 300 lashes each.

(mew)

The program in question was broadcas in july on the lebanese satellite Channel LBC. The saudi government also closed down LBC's TWO offices in saudi arabia

1ST LESSON

1)When driving his car home in Georgetown, Ryan called and talked with his wife through his mobile phone without the use of hands-free device. While talking, he lost control over his car and eventually hit a walking pedestrian.
a)Is Ryan liable under civil or criminal law?
b)Should this case go to court, what will be Ryan’s right?
c)What should the pedestrian do to recover his injuries/loss?

a)criminal law
b)it should go to court and Ryan has the right to have a lawyer
c)he should take the matter to the police




2)•Geena runs an unregistered online investment portal from her home in KL where she managed to get people deposit money to her account.

•It was discovered that the investment was a scam and she attempted to flee with the money, only to be arrested in the airport by immigration officers because she held a fake passport.

a)Determine Geena’s liability: civil or criminal?
b)What law(s) and statutes you think Geena has violated?

a)criminal law
b)fraud