Law in Action Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Law in Action - Case Study Example On the death of Patrice and she made no Will or testament, her two kids can be a representative of Patrice or if the husband or Joel is still alive, he could inherit the property provided that Patrice allows him to represent her. At this point, there can be no other choice than him if by the time of Patrice death the kids are still minor. If in case, they are old enough, Joel, being the person alive at that time can choose one of the kids to represent their mother. Joel had been Patrice civil partner for a time, though she is not ready to marry him, he can represent for her. If on the other hand Patrice marries Joel, he will represent her on her death for they were married any way, either civil or church wedding. If no disposition by will shall be made of any estate pur autre vie of a freehold nature, the same shall be chargeable in the hands of the heir, if it shall come to him by reason of special occupancy, as assets by descent as in the case of freehold land and see simple; and in case there shall be no special occupant of any estate pur autre vie, whether freehold or customary freehold, tenant right, customary or copyhold, or of any other tenure, and whether a corporeal or incorporeal hereditament, it shall go to the executor or administrator of the party that had the estate thereof by virtue of the grant; and if the same shall come to the executor or administrator either by reason of a special occupancy or by virtue of this Act, it shall be assets in his hands, and shall go and be applied and distributed in the same manner as the personal estate of the testator or intestate. The only legal estates now capable of subsisting in land being an estate in fee simple absolute or a term of yea rs absolute, estates pur autre vie can now only subsist in the equitable interest in land, legal life estates being abolished (Law of Property Act, 1925) (c. 20), section 1(1), (2), (3), Vol. 15 title Real Property, p.177) As to special occupancy, see section 1 (1) of the Administration of estates Act 1925 (c.23), Vol.8, entitled EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS, p 306, by virtue of which real estate to which a deceased person is entitled for an interest not ceasing on his death devolves from time to time on the personal representative of the deceased, in like manner as before the commencement of that Act chattels real devolved from time to time on the personal representative of a deceased person. In early times a married woman was incapable of a will. Her will of land was declared void by statute (Stat. (1542-3) 34 & 35, Hen. 8, c.5 (now repealed)) Her will of real property was equally invalid, not merely because marriage was a gift of real property to her husband, but because in the eye of the law the wife had no existence separate from that of her husband, and no separate contracting or disposing powers. In course of time,

Vicarious responsibility and uk law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4000 words

Vicarious responsibility and uk law - Essay Example ssing in details if there can be a convincing argument to justify the boundary English law sets between acts of employees for which the employer is liable and those for which the employee is liable. Personally, I think that the argument is two- way -traffic for instance, there is a convincing argument for there is a justifiable distinction highlighted which clarifies what the employer ought to do in order not to be held responsible. Therefore the employer just needs to read in between the lines to make sure that he plays save at all times. On the other hand, it can be said that there is no convincing argument given the fact that some concepts in the law states that the employer can be held responsible even though the employee is no longer working in the premises. To start with, there are so many employers who have little awareness that they can be liable for a range of actions or omissions which are committed by their employees especially in the course of their employment. These actions comprises of violent, bullying, discriminatory act, breach of copyright, being liberal and bullying among others. In addition, it is possible that the actions can be taken against the employer for the behaviors of even the third party the like of the clients and customers if they are controlled by the employer. Therefore there is a convincing argument because the law clearly stated the relationship or the link between the employer and the employee which makes the employer liable for the omissions or behaviors of the employee. On that note, when it comes to vicarious liability one can only have one key question which is whether the employee was acting in a personal capacity or in the course of their employment? More so, it is possible to also ask if the employ ers’ liability ends with the dismissal of the employee from the organization or if the employee leaves the organization. Nevertheless, the law states that actions can be taken against the employer even though the employee