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.