...The Financial Accounting Standards Board, the guideline making association for sound accounting standards, has issued two guidelines influencing the charitable part. These models will have the most noteworthy effect on philanthropies in more than 20 years. The two guidelines are Financial Accounting Standard No. 116, managing commitments made & got, & Financial Accounting Standard No. 117, managing monetary articulation group. Agreeability with both models is needed for a considerable length of time completion December 31, 1995 & past, with a discretionary one year delay for little associations which are those with yearly consumptions under $1000000 & aggregate possessions short of what $5000000. The effect of FAS 116 & 117 is extensive to the point that all levels of operations at a charitable will be influenced - not only the bookkeeping office. For instance, advancement officers will need to know the accurate terms of commitments keeping in mind the end goal to accurately record them under the new norms, lawful help may be required to focus the best possible treatment for blessing trust additions & misfortunes, & machine support may be obliged to suit the new reporting prerequisites. The accompanying is an outline of the two new gauges. FAS 117 on Financial Statement Display:- A set of monetary proclamations ought to incorporate an accounting report, articulation of action, proclamation of money streams &, for intentional wellbeing & welfare...
Words: 1133 - Pages: 5
...Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations In this assignment we will cover the statute of limitations that govern medical malpractice. We will do such by identifying the statute of limitations placed on medical malpractice by Alabama and Massachusetts. We will discuss some of the similarities and differences between the two. The State of Alabama has very specific rules when it comes to the statute of limitations they impose on medical malpractice. In Alabama all actions against health-care providers must be filed within two years after the date of the injury occurred, or within six months of the date the injury was, or should have been, discovered. In no event may a suit be filed more than four years after the date of the act giving rise to the injury occurred. This limitations period applies to minors over four years of age. However, in the case of a minor under four years of age, that minor has until his or her eighth birthday to file a medical malpractice action In Massachusetts there are also certain statutes of limitations for medical malpractice that must be considered if filing a malpractice suit. All medical malpractice actions must be filed within seven years after the date of the act or omission giving rise to the injury with the exception of actiosn for a foreign object being left inside the body, in which case the limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the presence of the foreign object. For medical malpractice...
Words: 496 - Pages: 2
...Trust Equity & Fiduciary Relationship DELAY DEFEATS EQUITY Vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas subvenit INDEX OF AUTHORITY BIBLIOGRAPHY * Equity, Trusts and Specific Relief, B.M. Gandhi, 4th Edition, 2007 * Snell’s Principles of Equity, p. 33 * Frunk and Wagnalls Standard Hand Book. Fernald J.C, 1973 * Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, 2009 INDEX OF CASES * Allcard v Skinner (1887) 36 Ch D 145 * Lindsay Petroleum Co. v Hurd (1874) LR 5 PC * Nwakobi v Nzekwu 1964 WLR 1019 * Poole Corporation v. Moody, 1945 KB 250 * Smith v Clay 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 411 * Ramsden v Dyson 1866) LR 1 HL 129 * Willmot v Barber (1880) 15 Ch D 96 * Prince of Wales v Collom (1916) 2 KB 193 * Forbes v Rall AIR 1925 PC 146 * Jadunath v Chandra Bhushan (1858) 6 HL Cas 633 * Union of India v Kishorilal Bablani (1999( 1 SCC 48 * Chatrabhuj v Mansukhram AIR 1925 Bom 183 * DDA v Ravindra Mohan Aggarwal (1999) 3 SCC 172 * Thakur Bai v Laxmi Chand AIR 1990 Del 223 * Mahadav v Kalekar v State Bank of Hyderabad (1990) 4 SCC 174 * Gauri Shankar Gaur v State of UP (1994) 1 SCC 92 * Ratan Chandra v Union of India 1993 Supp 4 SCC 67 * Krishna Dev v Ram Piari AIR 1964 HP 34 * Raghavan Nair v State AIR 1956 Trav. Co 77 * Tannu Singh v State of UP AIR 1992 NOC 9 * P.K. Ramchandran v State of Kerala (1997) 7 SCC 556 * Pallav Sheth v Custodian (2001) 7 SCC 549 * Tilokchand Motichand...
Words: 2587 - Pages: 11
...Retention of HR records Revised July 2015 What are HR records? HR records include a wide range of data relating to individuals working in an organisation, for example, pay or absence levels, hours worked and trade union agreements. This information may be stored in a variety of media such as paper files and, increasingly, on computer databases. It is important for all organisations to maintain effective systems for storing HR data, both to ensure compliance with all relevant legislation (for example in respect of the minimum wage or working time regulations) as well to support sound personnel administration and broader HR strategy. Our factsheet on human capital has more details of how employee information can help identify the sort of HR or management interventions which will drive business performance. However, as detailed below, in the UK a complex regulatory regime governs the length of time for which HR records should be stored. The legal position Legislation There is a substantial and complex amount of legislation in the EU and UK that has an impact upon the retention of personnel and other related records in those regions. Examples of legislation dealing with particular categories of records are provided in the boxes below. Access, storage, format and destruction The Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) applies to most personnel records, whether held in paper, microform, or computerised format. Under the DPA data must not be kept any longer than is necessary for...
Words: 2032 - Pages: 9
...record The Disadvantages of an ADR • An ADR may not be suitable for everyone • If the ADR process is binding, the parties normally give up most court protections, including a decision by a judge or jury under formal rules of evidence and procedure, and review for legal error by an appellate court. • ADR may not be effective if it takes place before the parties have sufficient information to resolve the dispute. • The neutral may charge a fee for his or her services. If the dispute is not resolved through ADR, the parties may then have to face the usual and traditional costs, such as attorney's fees and expert fees. • Lawsuits must be brought within specified periods of time, known as Statutes of Limitations. Parties must be careful not to let a Statute of Limitation run while a dispute is in an ADR process...
Words: 280 - Pages: 2
...Kaplan University Statute to the Samantha Smith Slip and Fall Case Donna Barnes PA201-06 Statute: Ind. Code Ann. § 34-51-2-7 (West 2013). The statute states that action based on fault against a defendant or defendants maybe treated as a single party. It also states that the jury is to determine the percentage of fault the claimant, of the defendant of any non-party. If the percentage of fault to the claimant is greater than fifty percent of the total fault involved in the incident that caused the injury the jury shall return a verdict for the defendant. If the percentage of fault of the claimant is not greater than fifty percent of the total, the jury shall determine the total amount of damages the claimant would be entitled to recover if contributory fault were disregarded. The jury then multiples the percentage of fault of the defendant by the amount damages determined and then enters a verdict for the claimant in the amount of the product of that multiplication. Statement of Fact: Samantha filed a complaint in trial court alleging negligence on the part of the store and is seeking damages for injuries that she suffered from the fall. The store is saying that Samantha is just as much at fault as they are. The store claims that Samantha wasn’t paying attention to where she was walking and should have been able to avoid the fall. The store also claims that Samantha was distracted by her young son. Question presented: Is Samantha just as much at fault as...
Words: 886 - Pages: 4
...http://ogekazacharia.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/notes-on-delay-defeats-equity-equity.html Limitations Act Delay defeats equity: Laches is an unreasonable delay in enforcing a right. If there is an unreasonable delay in bringing proceedings the case may be disallowed in equity. Acquiescence is where one party breaches another's rights and that party doesn't take an action against them they may not be allowed to pursue this claim at a later stage. These may be used as defences in relation to equity cases. For a defence of laches courts must decide whether the plaintiff has delayed unreasonably in bringing forth their claim and the defence of acquiescence can be used if the actions of the defendant suggest that they are not going ahead with the claim so it is reasonable for the other party to assume that there is no claim. (Nelson v Rye 1996) http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/property-trusts/the-law-of-equity.php 1= MEANING : If one sleeps upon his rights, his rights will slip away from him and therefore, the maxim has been expressed in a rather different form, shouting to the passive, otiose and slothful that : ” equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent. ” Smith vs Clay (1767) ” a court of equity has always refused its aid to stale demands, where a party has slept upon his right and acquiesced for a great length of time. ” 2= Proviso : This maxim applies only when a claim is made to equitable relief. ( Clark and chapman vs hart 1858) ...
Words: 606 - Pages: 3
...0.5% the amount owed would be $7,866.60 {$5,619 + $2247.60 (5,619*0.05*8)} or could be up to a maximum of $16,857 {$5,619 + $11,238 (5,619*0.25*8)}. Also the IRS could impose an interest charge per day of 3%, as of the last interest table (interest change every 3 month). As for problem 1-47 the IRS can audit Dan tax return but they have to meet certain criteria. The IRS has a 3 year statute of limitation but there are 3 exceptions to that limitation: * The IRS has six years from the date a return is filed to audit a tax return and to assess additional tax if the taxpayer omits income that amounts to more than 25% of income that was reported on the tax return. * The IRS also has six years to audit a tax return and assess additional tax on income related to undisclosed foreign financial assets if the omitted income is more than $5,000. * The statute of limitations on audits and assessing additional tax remains open indefinitely if the taxpayer files a false or fraudulent tax return. Therefore the IRS can audit Dan 2010 tax return because it falls within the 3 year limitation. The IRS can also audit Dan 2008 because he failed to report $40,00 of income and that is more than 25% of his income in 2008( income of $60000*.25= $15,000) as for the 2003 tax return...
Words: 757 - Pages: 4
...Detrimental Reliance Detrimental Reliance occurs when someone takes action or fails to take action because of what appeared to be a promise made by another individual, without knowing if true or untrue. It is very similar to Promissory Estoppel in that the other party is "estopped" or legally prevented from denying liability, even though no formal contract was formed, because of its promise. An estoppel by representation [of fact] will arise between A and B if the following elements are made out. First, A makes a false representation of fact to B or to a group of which B was a member. [It is not necessary to demonstrate A knew that the representation was untrue.] Second, in making the representation, A intended or [in the alternatively,] knew that it was likely to be acted upon. Third, B, believing the representation, acts to its detriment in reliance on the representation. [It must have been reasonable to rely on the representation.] Fourth, A subsequently seeks to deny the truth of the representation. Fifth, no defense to the estoppel can be raised by A. (The Law of Waiver, Variation and Estoppel) Section 90 of the Restatement (Second) of the Law of Contracts reads, “Promise Reasonably Inducing Action or Forbearance: A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise...
Words: 2785 - Pages: 12
...The "Business Discussions" section's Question 1 on Page 117 How does discovery work? During discovery both the plaintiff and the defendant are called on to produce facts that are impertinent to the case. The lest expensive way to do this is through interrogatories in which the opposing party is given a series of questions to answer to the best of their knowledge. A more expensive way is when witnesses to the case are called in for a deposition and asked question to which that have to answer orally. Also, either party may ask for particular documents to be produced such as, warranties, contracts, receipts, etc., called request for production of documents. After one or all of these methods are used one of the parties may have a request for an admission to eliminate certain issues in the dispute and possibly come to an agreement that will avoid the case going to court. Can you be required to testify twice in a deposition and at trial? Yes a person can be required to testify twice in a deposition and at trial as long as the testimony they are given is not a repeat of what was already offered. Should you shred all documents you have a bout the case? You know that some of the documents will not put the firm in the best light. No, you should never shred any evidence. You should offer up any documents that is relevant to the case. You wonder what will happen at trial. Will it be like what you have seen on TV or in the movies? Real life court will be nothing...
Words: 535 - Pages: 3
...1. CITATION OF THE CASE Name: Tan Peng Quee v Shirley Kathreyn Yap. Feb. 22, 2012. C J Siew (S Y Chew with him) (Douglas Yee) Page 314 2. FACTS OF THE CASE The salient facts of the plaintiffs claim, as set out in her written submission is as follows: (a) The plaintiff went into a partnership named Eres Tu No. 2 Stable CET2") with two other partners namely a horse trainer named Malcolm and the defendant, who was Malcolm's nominee. This partnership was registered with the Malayan Racing Association ("MRA") which is the controlling body of Horse Racing in the Turf Clubs in Malaysia and Singapore; (b) The defendant was registered as the manager of ET2 with MRA and in such capacity; she received winnings won by ET2 horses during the period of 1994-2003; (c) Over the years, the plaintiff on a few occasions received from the defendant his 1/3 share of horses' winnings; (d) The partnership was dissolved in 2005. However, it was only sometime in 2009 that the plaintiff learnt from Malcolm that Malcolm had just found out that the defendant had collected about RM1,782,965.00 and that she had fraudulently concealed the truth of the matter and converted to her use all winnings received by her on trust for all the partners and which she had retained without accounting to all the partners; The defendant contends as follows: (i) The date of commencement of the plaintiff's cause of action must be the dates on which the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had failed to account and in...
Words: 1599 - Pages: 7
...process within the courts with regards to the doctrine of, “adverse possession”, in the UK. Rationale of Adverse Possession in England and Wales. The rationale of adverse possession in England and Wales is that; i. There must be a demarcation in reality on the recognition of claims of ownership of property title. ii. As land is finite and therefore a precious commodity then it should be used to its full potential. The common-law doctrine of adverse possession, gave rise to the ease of appropriation of land ownership by squatters/trespassers. In J.A Pye v Graham, Pye were dispossessed of their title to land via a HOL/Supreme court decision, Pye v Graham [2002] UKHL 30, based upon the legislation within LR Act 1925 and Limitations Act 1980. In particular section 75 of LR Act 1925 transferred the title of land to the factual possessor, (Graham) . In J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd v. The United Kingdom (Application No. 44302/02) 30 August 2007, Pye didn’t seek the recovery of the lost land but sought compensation from the UK government for lack of procedural protection which subsequently led to the loss of their property. Mummery LJ stated in the Appeal, Pye v Graham [2002] UKHL 30, that the extinction of the...
Words: 3303 - Pages: 14
............................. 1! LACHES IS AND SHOULD BE AN EQUITABLE DEFENSE ............ 2! LACHES IN AN AGE OF STATUTES OF LIMITATION ................... 8! A MIDDLE COURSE IN PETRELLA ......................................... 17! CONCLUSION ....................................................................... 18! I. INTRODUCTION The famous Martin Scorsese movie Raging Bull and an ancient doctrine of equity will make a joint appearance later this month at the U.S. Supreme Court. On January 21, 2014, the Court will hear arguments in Petrella v. Metro:Goldwyn:Mayer, Inc.1 The case involves copyright infringement claims about the movie, and about the extent to which those claims are barred by the doctrine of laches. Laches is a defense that was developed by courts of equity, and it is typically raised in cases where a plaintiff has delayed her suit without good reason. Petrella raises two big questions about how laches fits into contemporary American law. One is whether it applies to all claims or only to equitable ones.2 The other is how it is affected by a federal statute of limitations. Is laches displaced, on the theory that Congress has spoken by enacting the statute of limitations, so that it would violate the separation of powers for a court to substitute its own equitable doctrines? Or does laches remain and coexist with the statute of limitations on the theory that Congress legislates against the background of traditional equitable principles? * Assistant Professor, UCLA...
Words: 8584 - Pages: 35
...the interests were, or should have been, part of the transaction. The Trahans filed lawsuit in December of 2010 for the mineral intests more than 4 years later. The Mettlens filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that the lawsuit was time-barred by the applicable four year statute of limitation. The court found that the satute of limitations barred the Trahans lawsuit and judgment to the Mettlens. So the question is: is the four year limitation period applicable to the Trahans cause of action was tolled or otherwise rendered inapplicable by the facts and circumstances of the case and for how long. Rule: Discovery Rule for Fraudulent Concealment Analysis: The contract states that just after the description of the property the mineral, oil and gas and liquid that may be produced are products of the grantors. That there was no evidence of the Merrlens attempting to hinder the Trahans from reading the deed or that they attempted to hinder the Trahans Conclusion: It was found that the warranty deed conveying title to the Trahans contains a clear and unambiguous reservation of mineral rights. The discovery rule for fraudulent concealment tolls the running of the statute of limitations only until the plaintiff discovers the fraud or could have discovered the fraud through the exercise of reasonable diligence. With no evidence to suggest that the Mettlens engaged in any conduct to mislead the Trahans or from them reviewing the the warranty deed. Case Study Analysis...
Words: 709 - Pages: 3
...evidence, exclusive possession and open, notorious, continuous, and adverse use for a period of twenty-one years The doctrine of adverse possession protects one who has honestly entered and held possession in the belief that the land was his own, as well as one who knowingly appropriates the land of others for the purpose of acquiring title A grantee in a deed, who takes immediate and exclusive possession and control of a tract of land adjoining property conveyed by such deed, but which tract was omitted therefrom by mutual mistake, and who openly possesses and controls such tract of land continuously, exclusively and adversely for more than 21 years, becomes vested with title thereto In a case of adverse possession, the statute of limitations is tolled and, thus, the chain of continuity is broken, when the true holders of title cause the disputed property to be surveyed and, subsequently, inform the adverse claimants, through an agent of the true holders of title, that the property in question in fact belongs to the true holders of title Fences Regardless of who erected the fence, the fact that a party treated the land on one side of the fence as his own for the requisite time period established the adverse possession claim by clear and convincing...
Words: 280 - Pages: 2
