Law School

Allodial title constitutes ownership of real property (land, buildings, and fixtures) that is independent of any superior landlord. Allodial title is related to the concept of land held "in allodium", or land ownership by occupancy and defense of the land.

Most property ownership in common law jurisdictions is fee simple. In the United States, the land is subject to eminent domain by federal, state and local government, and subject to the imposition of taxes by state and/or local governments, and there is thus no true allodial land. Some states within the U.S. (notably, Nevada and Texas) have provisions for considering land allodial under state law, and the term may be used in other circumstances. Land is "held of the Crown" in England and Wales and other jurisdictions in the Commonwealth realms. Some land in the Orkney and Shetland Islands, known as udal land, is held in a manner akin to allodial land in that these titles are not subject to the ultimate ownership of the Crown.

In France, while allodial title existed before the French Revolution, it was rare and limited to ecclesiastical properties and property that had fallen out of feudal ownership. After the French Revolution allodial title became the norm in France and other civil law countries that were under Napoleonic legal influences. In October 1854, the seigneurial system of Lower Canada, which had been ceded from France to Britain in 1763 at the conclusion of the Seven Years' War, was extinguished by the Seigneurial Tenures Abolition Act of October 1854, and a form similar to socage replaced it.

Property owned under allodial title is referred to as allodial land, allodium, or an allod. In the Domesday Book it is called alod. Historically, allodial title was sometimes used to distinguish ownership of land without feudal duties from ownership by feudal tenure which restricted alienation and burdened land with the tenurial rights of a landholder's overlord or sovereign.

In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act be undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offense). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability (unless, in some cases, it occurs before the parties have committed overt acts) but may reduce their sentence.

An unindicted co-conspirator, or unindicted conspirator, is a person or entity that is alleged in an indictment to have engaged in conspiracy, but who is not charged in the same indictment. Prosecutors choose to name persons as unindicted co-conspirators for a variety of reasons including grants of immunity, pragmatic considerations, and evidentiary concerns.

United States.

Conspiracy has been defined in the United States as an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions. A conspiracy does not need to have been planned in secret to meet the definition of the crime.

Conspiracy law usually does not require proof of specific intent by the defendants to injure any specific person to establish an illegal agreement. Instead, usually the law requires only that the conspirators have agreed to engage in a certain illegal act.

In most U.S. jurisdictions, for a person to be convicted of conspiracy, not only must he or she agree to commit a crime, but at least one of the conspirators must commit an overt act (the actus reus) in furtherance of the crime. However, in United States v Shabani the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this "overt act" element is not required under the federal drug conspiracy statute, 21 U.S.C. section 846.

The conspirators can be guilty even if they do not know the identity of the other members of the conspiracy.

Unconscionability is a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience. Typically, an unconscionable contract is held to be unenforceable because no reasonable or informed person would otherwise agree to it. The perpetrator of the conduct is not allowed to benefit, because the consideration offered is lacking, or is so obviously inadequate, that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract.

Unconscionability is determined by examining the circumstances of the parties when the contract was made, such as their bargaining power, age, and mental capacity. Other issues might include lack of choice, superior knowledge, and other obligations or circumstances surrounding the bargaining process. Unconscionable conduct is also found in acts of fraud and deceit, where the deliberate misrepresentation of fact deprives someone of a valuable possession. When a party takes unconscionable advantage of another, the action may be treated as criminal fraud or the civil action of deceit.

For the defense of unconscionability to apply, the contract has to have been unconscionable at the time it was made; later circumstances that make the contract extremely one-sided are irrelevant. There are generally no standardized criteria for determining unconscionability; it is a subjective judgment by the judge, not a jury, and is applied only when it would be an affront to the integrity of the judicial system to enforce such a contract. Upon finding unconscionability a court has a great deal of flexibility on how it remedies the situation. It may refuse to enforce the contract against the party unfairly treated on the theory that they were misled, lacked information, or signed under duress or misunderstanding; it may refuse to enforce the offending clause, or take other measures it deems necessary to have a fair outcome. Damages are usually not awarded.

Procedural unconscionability is seen as the disadvantage suffered by a weaker party in negotiations, whereas substantive unconscionability refers to the unfairness of terms or outcomes. Most often the former will lead to the latter, but not always. The existence of the procedural unconscionability without substantive unconscionability may be sufficient to set aside a contract, but the latter, by itself, may not. As with issues of consideration, the court's role is not to determine whether someone has made a good or bad bargain, but merely whether that party had the opportunity to properly judge what was best in their own interests.

Accord and satisfaction is a contract law concept about the purchase of the release from a debt obligation. It is one of the methods by which parties to a contract may terminate their agreement. The release is completed by the transfer of valuable consideration that must not be the actual performance of the obligation itself. The accord is the agreement to discharge the obligation and the satisfaction is the legal "consideration" which binds the parties to the agreement. A valid accord does not discharge the prior contract; instead it suspends the right to enforce it in accordance with the terms of the accord contract, in which satisfaction, or performance of the contract will discharge both contracts (the original and the accord). If the creditor breaches the accord, then the debtor will be able to bring up the existence of the accord in order to enjoin any action against him.

If a person is sued over an alleged debt, that person bears the burden of proving the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction.

A dignitary tort is a type of intentional tort where the cause of action is being subjected to certain kinds of indignities. Historically, this category of torts was often covered by the writ of trespass vi et armis.

Historically, the primary dignitary torts were battery, assault, and false imprisonment, as each claimed harm to a person's human dignity. A cause of action could be brought for battery, for example, even if no injury was done to the plaintiff, so long as the contact would be offensive to a reasonable person. Under modern jurisprudence the category of dignitary torts is more closely associated with secondary dignitary torts, most notably defamation (slander and libel), false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and alienation of affections. In some jurisdictions, the phrase is limited to those torts which do not require physical injury or threat of physical injury, limiting the class to only those secondary incidents.

The only non-intentional act classified as a dignitary tort is negligent infliction of emotional distress, although this is also sometimes classified as simply another form of negligence.

The right of publicity, sometimes referred to as personality rights, is the right of an individual to control the commercial use of one's identity, such as name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal identifiers. It is generally considered a property right as opposed to a personal right, and as such, the validity of the right of publicity can survive the death of the individual (to varying degrees depending on the jurisdiction).

Classification.

Personality rights are generally considered to consist of two types of rights: the right of publicity, or the right to keep one's image and likeness from being commercially exploited without permission or contractual compensation, which is similar (but not identical) to the use of a trademark; and the right to privacy, or the right to be left alone and not have one's personality represented publicly without permission. In common law jurisdictions, publicity rights fall into the realm of the tort of passing off. United States jurisprudence has substantially extended this right.

A commonly cited justification for this doctrine, from a policy standpoint, is the notion of natural rights and the idea that every individual should have a right to control how their right of publicity is commercialized by a third party, if at all. Often, though certainly not always, the motivation to engage in such commercialization is to help propel sales or visibility for a product or service, which usually amounts to some form of commercial speech (which in turn receives the lowest level of judicial scrutiny).

History.

Constitutional.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution (the "Taxing and Spending Clause"), specifies Congress's power to impose "Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises", but Article 1, Section 8 requires that, "Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

The Constitution specifically stated Congress' method of imposing direct taxes, by requiring Congress to distribute direct taxes in proportion to each state's population "determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons". It has been argued that head taxes and property taxes (slaves could be taxed as either or both) were likely to be abused, and that they bore no relation to the activities in which the federal government had a legitimate interest. The fourth clause of section 9 therefore specifies that, "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Taxation was also the subject of Federalist No. 33 penned secretly by the Federalist Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym Publius. In it, he asserts that the wording of the "Necessary and Proper" clause should serve as guidelines for the legislation of laws regarding taxation. The legislative branch is to be the judge, but any abuse of those powers of judging can be overturned by the people, whether as states or as a larger group.

The courts have generally held that direct taxes are limited to taxes on people (variously called "capitation", "poll tax" or "head tax") and property. All other taxes are commonly referred to as "indirect taxes," because they tax an event, rather than a person or property per se. What seemed to be a straightforward limitation on the power of the legislature based on the subject of the tax proved inexact and unclear when applied to an income tax, which can be arguably viewed either as a direct or an indirect tax.

Early federal income taxes.

The first income tax suggested in the United States was during the War of 1812. The idea for the tax was based on the British Tax Act of 1798. The British tax law applied progressive rates to income. The British tax rates ranged from 0.833% on income starting at £60 to 10% on income above £200. The tax proposal was developed in 1814. Because the treaty of Ghent was signed in 1815, ending hostilities and the need for additional revenue, the tax was never imposed in the United States.

In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, Congress imposed the first federal income tax in U.S. history through passage of the Revenue Act of 1861. The act created a flat tax of three percent on incomes above $800 ($23,000 in current dollar terms). This taxation of income reflected the increasing amount of wealth held in stocks and bonds rather than property, which the federal government had taxed in the past. The Revenue Act of 1862 established the first national inheritance tax and added a progressive taxation structure to the federal income tax, implementing a tax of five percent on incomes above $10,000. Congress later further raised taxes, and by the end of the war, the income tax constituted about one-fifth of the revenue of the federal government. To collect these taxes, Congress created the Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue within the Treasury Department. The federal income tax would remain in effect until its repeal in 1872.

In property law, alienation is the voluntary act of an owner of some property to dispose of the property, while alienability, or being alienable, is the capacity for a piece of property or a property right to be sold or otherwise transferred from one party to another. Most property is alienable, but some may be subject to restraints on alienation.

In England under the feudal system, land was generally transferred by subinfeudation, and alienation required license from the overlord. When William Blackstone published Commentaries on the Laws of England between 1765-1769, he described the principal object of English real property laws as the law of inheritance, which maintained the cohesiveness and integrity of estates through generations and thus secured political power within families. In 1833, Justice Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States linked landowners' jealous watchfulness of their rights and spirit of resistance in the American Revolutionary War with the system of American institutions which recorded and clarified land title and expanded landed markets. Other early American legal commentators who praised the simple and relatively inexpensive conveyancing system in the new United States included Zaphaniah Swift, Daniel Webster and James Kent.

Some objects are now regarded as being incapable of becoming property and thus termed inalienable, such as people and body parts.

Aboriginal title is one example of inalienability (save to the Crown) in common law jurisdictions. A similar concept is non-transferability, such as tickets. Rights commonly described as a license or permit are generally only personal and are not assignable. However, they are alienable in the sense that they can generally be surrendered.

An estate in land is an interest in real property that is or may become possessory. It is a type of personal property and encompasses land ownership, rental and other arrangements that give people the right to use land. This is distinct from sovereignty over the land, which includes the right to government and taxation.

This should be distinguished from an "estate" as used in reference to an area of land, and "estate" as used to refer to property in general.

In property law, the rights and interests associated with an estate in land may be conceptually understood as a "bundle of rights" because of the potential for different parties having different interests in the same real property.

An attempt to commit a crime occurs if a criminal has an intent to commit a crime and takes a substantial step toward completing the crime, but for reasons not intended by the criminal, the final resulting crime does not occur. Attempt to commit a particular crime is a crime, usually considered to be of the same or lesser gravity as the particular crime attempted. Attempt is a type of inchoate crime, a crime that is not fully developed. The crime of attempt has two elements, intent and some conduct toward completion of the crime.

One group of theories in criminal law is that an attempt to commit an act occurs when a person comes dangerously close to carrying out a criminal act, and intends to commit the act, but does not commit it. The person may have carried out all the necessary steps (or thought they had) but still failed, or the attempt may have been abandoned or prevented at a late stage. The attempt must have gone beyond mere planning or preparation, and is distinct from other inchoate offenses such as conspiracy to commit a crime or solicitation of a crime. There are many specific crimes of attempt, such as attempted murder, which may vary by jurisdiction. Punishment is often less severe than would be the case if the attempted crime had been carried out. Abandonment of the attempt may constitute a not guilty defense, depending partly on the extent to which the attempt was abandoned freely and voluntarily. Early common law did not punish attempts; the law of attempt was not recognized by common law until the case of b. Rex v Scofield in 1784.

The essence of the crime of attempt in legal terms is that the defendant has failed to commit the actus reus (the Latin term for the "guilty act") of the full offense, but has the direct and specific intent to commit that full offense. The normal rule for establishing criminal liability is to prove an actus reus accompanied by a mens rea ("guilty mind") at the relevant time (see concurrence and strict liability offenses as the exception to the rule).

The actus reus (guilty act) of attempted crime.

Whether the actus reus of an attempt has occurred is a question of fact for the jury to decide after having heard the judge's instructions regarding the law. The common law precedent is used to distinguish between acts that were merely preparatory and those sufficiently proximate or connected to the crime. However, sometimes it is hard to draw the line between those acts which were merely preparatory, and those that went and executed a plan, will always go through a series of steps to arrive at the intended conclusion. Some aspects of the execution of the act will be too remote or removed from the full offense. Examples are watching the intended victim over a period of time to establish the routines and traveling to a store to buy necessary tools and equipment. But the closer to the reality of committing the offense the potential wrongdoer moves, the greater the social danger they become. This is a critical issue for the police who need to know when they can intervene to avert the threatened harm by arresting the person. This is a difficult policy area. On the one hand, the state wishes to be able to protect its citizens from harm. This requires an arrest at the earliest possible time. But, most states recognize a principle of individual liberty that only those people who actually choose to break the law should be arrested. Since the potential wrongdoer could change their mind at any point before the crime is committed, the state should wait until the last possible minute to ensure that the intention is going to be realized.

The doctrine of impracticability in the common law of contracts excuses performance of a duty, where the said duty has become unfeasibly difficult or expensive for the party who was to perform.

Impracticability is similar in some respects to the doctrine of impossibility because it is triggered by the occurrence of a condition which prevents one party from fulfilling the contract. The major difference between the two doctrines is that while impossibility excuses performance where the contractual duty cannot physically be performed, the doctrine of impracticability comes into play where performance is still physically possible, but would be extremely burdensome for the party whose performance is due. Thus, impossibility is an objective condition, whereas impracticability is a subjective condition for a court to determine.

Typically, the test U.S. courts use for impracticability is as follows (with a few variations among different jurisdictions):

1.    There must be an occurrence of a condition, the nonoccurrence of which was a basic assumption of the contract.

2.    The occurrence must make performance extremely expensive or difficult.

3.    This difficulty was not anticipated by the parties to the contract (note: some jurisdictions require that there be no measure within the contract itself to allocate risk between the parties).

An illegal agreement under the common law of contract, is one that the court will not enforce because the purpose of the agreement is to achieve an illegal end. The illegal end must result from performance of the contract itself. The classic example of such an agreement is a contract for murder.

The illegality of a contract depends on (1) the law of the country governing the contract, and (2) the law of the place of performance. Different rules will apply depending on the law of the relevant country(ies).

However, a contract that requires only legal performance on the part of each party, such as the sale of packs of cards to a known gambler, where gambling is illegal, will nonetheless be enforceable. A contract directly linked to the gambling act itself, such as paying off gambling debts (see proximate cause), however, will not meet the legal standards of enforceability. Therefore, an employment contract between a blackjack dealer and a speakeasy manager, is an example of an illegal agreement and the employee has no valid claim to his anticipated wages if gambling is illegal under that jurisdiction.

Clean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine, unclean hands doctrine, or dirty hands doctrine, is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy because the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands". The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands". This is a matter of protocol, characterized by A P Herbert in Uncommon Law by his fictional Judge Mildew saying (as Herbert says, "less elegantly"), "A dirty dog will not have justice by the court".

A defendant's unclean hands can also be claimed and proven by the plaintiff to claim other equitable remedies and to prevent that defendant from asserting equitable affirmative defenses. In other words, 'unclean hands' can be used offensively by the plaintiff as well as defensively by the defendant. Historically, the doctrine of unclean hands can be traced as far back as the Fourth Lateran Council.

"He who comes into equity must come with clean hands" is an equitable maxim in English law.

Trover cases in the United States.

Trover is the name of the action which lay, at common law, for the recovery of damages for the conversion of personal property in his possession, usually involving chattels held in bailment. Although the old forms of action have been abolished or disappeared under modern civil procedure in the United States, the common law action for conversion still exists in fact, if not in form. (Extensive case law is reviewed.) 

A person who purchases personal property from one not authorized to sell the chattel may be held liable for the conversion of the article. This is regardless of the fact that the purchaser was honestly mistaken, or acted innocently, in good faith and without knowledge of the seller's lack of authority to make the sale. This rule also holds in cases where the purchaser takes possession of the goods, mixes them with his own property, holds them to his own use, refuses to surrender possession on demand, disposes of the goods to a third person by sale, lease or bailment or in general exercises rights of ownership as to the property purchased in denial of the real owner's rights after knowledge of the rights of the true owner.

Deaderick v Oulds, 1887.

In the 1887 case of Deaderick v Oulds, the Supreme Court of Tennessee ruled on a case of trover. The defendant, Oulds, cut 800 walnut logs, branded them with the letter "D", then proceeded to float them down a river with the intention of recovering them downstream. Sometime later, Oulds found an unmarked log among his other marked logs which had peculiar cracks at one end. He floated the unmarked log down the river, and it washed up on an island owned by the plaintiff, Deaderick, who then claimed the log as his in trover or replevin. The Tennessee court quoted the English case of Bridges v Hawkesworth where the plaintiff, being in the shop of the defendant, picked up a parcel containing bank notes. The defendant, at the request of the finder, took charge of the notes, to hold for the owner. After three years, no one had come forth to claim them. The defendant shop owner refused to deliver them to the plaintiff. The court held the defendant shop owner liable in trover for the notes.

The Tennessee Supreme Court observed it is essential in cases of trover, that the property must be found; it must at the time when the finder came upon it, to have been in such a situation as to clearly indicate that it was lost. It cannot have been placed there by the original owner who lost it by carelessness or forgetfulness, where it was later found by someone else. In such cases, the owner of the premises where the property is found is treated as a quasi-bailee (i.e. he holds the property for the original owner), and he may maintain trover against the finder. Since the log was not intentionally laid by the (unknown) owner on the land of the plaintiff (Deaderick), and hence he was not a quasi-bailee for the owner, he cannot hold against the superior right of the defendant (Oulds) arising out of his prior possession and earlier finding of the log. Judgment for ownership of the log was to the defendant Oulds.

Tax collection and examinations

Tax returns

Individuals (with income above a minimum level), corporations, partnerships, estates, and trusts must file annual reports, called tax returns, with federal and appropriate state tax authorities. These returns vary greatly in complexity level depending on the type of filer and complexity of their affairs. On the return, the taxpayer reports income and deductions, calculates the amount of tax owed, reports payments and credits, and calculates the balance due.

Federal individual, estate, and trust income tax returns are due by April 15 for most taxpayers. Corporate and partnership federal returns are due two and one half months following the corporation's year end. Tax exempt entity returns are due four and one half months following the entity's year end. All federal returns may be extended, with most extensions available upon merely filing a single page form. Due dates and extension provisions for state and local income tax returns vary.

Income tax returns generally consist of the basic form with attached forms and schedules. Several forms are available for individuals and corporations, depending on complexity and nature of the taxpayer's affairs. Many individuals are able to use the one page Form 1040-EZ, which requires no attachments except wage statements from employers (Forms W-2). Individuals claiming itemized deductions must complete Schedule A. Similar schedules apply for interest (B), dividends (B), business income (C), capital gains (D), farm income (F), and self-employment tax (SE). All taxpayers must file those forms for credits, depreciation, AMT, and other items that apply to them.

Electronic filing of tax returns may be done for taxpayers by registered tax preparers.

If a taxpayer discovers an error on a return, or determines that tax for a year should be different, the taxpayer should file an amended return. These returns constitute claims for refund if taxes are determined to have been overpaid.

The IRS, state, and local tax authorities may examine a tax return and propose changes. Changes to tax returns may be made with minimal advance involvement by taxpayers, such as changes to wage or dividend income to correct errors. Other examination of returns may require extensive taxpayer involvement, such as an audit by the IRS. These audits often require that taxpayers provide the IRS or other tax authority access to records of income and deductions. Audits of businesses are usually conducted by IRS personnel at the business location.

Changes to returns are subject to appeal by the taxpayer, including going to court. IRS changes are often first issued as proposed adjustments. The taxpayer may agree to the proposal, or may advise the IRS why it disagrees. Proposed adjustments are often resolved by the IRS and taxpayer agreeing to what the adjustment should be. For those adjustments to which agreement is not reached, the IRS issues a 30-day letter advising of the adjustment. The taxpayer may appeal this preliminary assessment within 30 days within the IRS.

The Appeals Division reviews the IRS field team determination and taxpayer arguments, and often proposes a solution that the IRS team and the taxpayer find acceptable. Where agreement is still not reached, the IRS issues an assessment as a notice of deficiency or 90-day letter. The taxpayer then has three choices: file suit in United States Tax Court without paying the tax, pay the tax and sue for refund in regular court, or pay the tax and be done. Recourse to court can be costly and time-consuming, but is often successful.

A license is an official permission or permit to do, use, or own something (as well as the document of that permission or permit).

A license is granted by a party (licensor) to another party (licensee) as an element of an agreement between those parties. In the case of a license issued by a government, the license is obtained by applying for it. In the case of a private party, it is by a specific agreement, usually in writing (such as a lease or other contract). The simplest definition is "A license is a promise not to sue," because a license usually either permits the licensed party to engage in an activity which is illegal, and subject to prosecution, without the license (for example, fishing, driving an automobile, or operating a broadcast radio or television station), or it permits the licensed party to do something that would violate the rights of the licensing party (for example, make copies of a copyrighted work), which, without the license, the licensed party could be sued, civilly, criminally, or both.

In particular, a license may be issued by authorities, to allow an activity that would otherwise be forbidden. It may require paying a fee or proving a capability (or both). The requirement may also serve to keep the authorities informed on a type of activity, and to give them the opportunity to set conditions and limitations.

A licensor may grant a license under intellectual property laws to authorize a use (such as copying software or using a patented invention) to a licensee, sparing the licensee from a claim of infringement brought by the licensor. A license under intellectual property commonly has several components beyond the grant itself, including a term, territory, renewal provisions, and other limitations deemed vital to the licensor.

Term: many licenses are valid for a particular length of time. This protects the licensor should the value of the license increase, or market conditions change. It also preserves enforceability by ensuring that no license extends beyond the term of the agreement.

Territory: a license may stipulate what territory the rights pertain to. For example, a license with a territory limited to "North America" (Mexico, United States and Canada) would not permit a licensee any protection from actions for use in Japan.

Again, a shorthand definition of license is "a promise by the licensor not to sue the licensee". That means without a license any use or exploitation of intellectual property by a third party would amount to copying or infringement. Such copying would be improper and could, by using the legal system, be stopped if the intellectual property owner wanted to do so.

Intellectual property licensing plays a major role in business, academia and broadcasting. Business practices such as franchising, technology transfer, publication and character merchandising entirely depend on the licensing of intellectual property. Land licensing (proprietary licensing) and IP licensing.

An inchoate offense, preliminary crime, inchoate crime or incomplete crime is a crime of preparing for or seeking to commit another crime. The most common example of an inchoate offense is "attempt". "Inchoate offense" has been defined as the following: "Conduct deemed criminal without actual harm being done, provided that the harm that would have occurred is one the law tries to prevent."

Intent.

Every inchoate crime or offense must have the mens rea of intent or of recklessness, typically intent. Absent a specific law, an inchoate offense requires that the defendant have the specific intent to commit the underlying crime. For example, for a defendant to be guilty of the inchoate crime of solicitation of murder, he or she must have intended for a person to die.

Attempt, conspiracy, and solicitation all require mens rea.

On the other hand, committing an offense under the US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act merely requires "knowing", that is, recklessness. Facilitation also requires "believing", yet another way of saying reckless.

Intent may be distinguished from recklessness and criminal negligence as a higher mens rea.

Proof of intent.

Specific intent may be inferred from circumstances. It may be proven by the doctrine of "dangerous proximity", while the Model Penal Code requires a "substantial step in a course of conduct".

Merger doctrine.

The doctrine of merger has been abandoned in many jurisdictions in cases involving a conspiracy, allowing an accused to be convicted of both conspiracy and the principal offense. However, an accused cannot be convicted of either attempt or solicitation and the principal offense.

In contract law, impossibility is an excuse for the nonperformance of duties under a contract, based on a change in circumstances (or the discovery of preexisting circumstances), the nonoccurrence of which was an underlying assumption of the contract, that makes performance of the contract literally impossible.

For example, if Ebenezer contracts to pay Erasmus £100 to paint his house on October 1, but the house burns to the ground before the end of September, Ebenezer is excused from his duty to pay Erasmus the £100, and Erasmus is excused from his duty to paint Ebenezer's house; however, Erasmus may still be able to sue under the theory of unjust enrichment for the value of any benefit he conferred on Ebenezer before his house burned down.

The parties to a contract may choose to ignore impossibility by inserting a hell or high water clause, which mandates that payments continue even if completion of the contract becomes physically impossible.

In common law, for the defense of "impossibility" to be raised performance must not merely be difficult or unexpectedly costly for one party, there must be no way for it to actually be accomplished; however, it is beginning to be recognized that "impossibility" under this doctrine can also exist when the contemplated performance can be done but only at an excessive and unreasonable cost, i.e., commercial impracticability. On the other hand, some sources see "impossibility" and impracticability as being related but separate defenses.

The English case that established the doctrine of impossibility at common law is Taylor v Caldwell.

Frustration of purpose, in law, is a defense to enforcement of a contract. Frustration of purpose occurs when an unforeseen event undermines a party's principal purpose for entering into a contract such that the performance of the contract is radically different from performance of the contract that was originally contemplated by both parties, and both parties knew of the principal purpose at the time the contract was made. Despite frequently arising as a result of government action, any third party or even nature can frustrate a contracting party's primary purpose for entering into the contract. The concept is also called commercial frustration.

For example, if Joe gets a mortgage for a new home, suppose after three years, the home is destroyed, through no fault of Joe's. Without a hell or high water clause, Joe might be exempt from the remainder of the mortgage, as the principal purpose of the contract, to have a home to live in, has been compromised. However, he might still have a foreclosure on his credit rating.

Frustration of purpose is often confused with the closely related doctrine of impossibility. The distinction is that impossibility concerns the duties specified in the contract, but frustration of purpose concerns the reason a party entered into the contract. An example is if entrepreneur Emily leases space from landlord Larry so that she can open a restaurant that serves only Tibetan Speckled Lizard meat. If the city rezones the property to forbid commercial uses or if the property is destroyed by a tornado, both Larry and Emily are excused from performing the contract by impossibility.

Trover (/ˈtroʊvər/) is a form of lawsuit in common-law countries for recovery of damages for wrongful taking of personal property. Trover belongs to a series of remedies for such wrongful taking, its distinctive feature being recovery only for the value of whatever was taken, not for the recovery of the property itself (see replevin).

Overview.

Although actions in trover can be traced to the time of Bracton, and later Edward I of England, it became more clearly defined later during the reign of Henry VI of England, 1422 thru 1461 and 1470 thru 1471. Action in trover became a mature legal doctrine during the reign of Elizabeth I of England, 1558–1603.

Early trover cases involved the keeping or taking of a bailment by the bailee (the person charged to hold the property with "ordinary care"). Others concerned the use of lost chattels found by another and determining who was the real owner. Early on, there was difficulty in dealing with situations where chattels held by a bailee were used by a third party. Examples could be sheep, horses, farm goods, grains or other chattels left in the care of a person who was required to exercise ordinary care. If negligence led to damages, an action could be had. A third person might use the chattel, returning it in a damaged condition. The early common law had some difficulty in dealing with this kind of situation. This led to expansions of actions in trover.

The theory of trover was that the defendant, by "converting" the chattel to his own use, had appropriated the plaintiff's property, for which he was required to make compensation. The plaintiff was not required to accept the chattel when it was tendered back to him. He could recover damages for the full value of the chattel at the time and place of conversion. The effect was that the defendant was compelled to buy the chattel at a forced sale, carried out by means of an action in trover.

Trover actions frequently concerned the finding of lost property. It could also involve cargo on ships, such as those lost at sea and later found. Trover often involved cases in which the only "most correct" owner could be determined. For instance, if an envelope of bank notes or currency were to be found, the court would attempt to identify the true owner, but this would often prove to be impossible. In that case, the finder would be the next best owner and be considered the rightful possessor. Trover cases have been described as "finders keepers, losers weepers" cases.

Trover damages came to be measured by the market value of the object, not necessarily its replacement cost if it were new. Sometimes, compensation for deprivation of use and compensation for other losses naturally and proximately caused by the wrongful taking could be added. Case law results are mixed. The plaintiff could also recover interest that would have been earned by the money value of the object and any expense (except attorney's fees) incurred in attempting to recover the object. If the taker sold the object for more than its market value, the plaintiff could receive the higher price. However, selling the chattel could change the action to that of a true conversion which was a form of theft. If the taker had made improvements on the object (for example, repainted it), the value of such improvements are not deducted from the plaintiff's recovery unless the taking was by mistake.

Taxable income.

Income tax is imposed as a tax rate times taxable income. Taxable income is defined as gross income less allowable deductions. Taxable income as determined for federal tax purposes may be modified for state tax purposes.

Gross income.

The Internal Revenue Code states that "gross income means all income from whatever source derived," and gives specific examples. Gross income is not limited to cash received, but "includes income realized in any form, whether money, property, or services." Gross income includes wages and tips, fees for performing services, gain from sale of inventory or other property, interest, dividends, rents, royalties, pensions, alimony, and many other types of income. Items must be included in income when received or accrued. The amount included is the amount the taxpayer is entitled to receive. Gains on property are the gross proceeds less amounts returned, cost of goods sold, or tax basis of property sold.

Certain types of income are exempt from income tax. Among the more common types of exempt income are interest on municipal bonds, a portion of Social Security benefits, life insurance proceeds, gifts or inheritances, and the value of many employee benefits.

Gross income is reduced by adjustments and deductions. Among the more common adjustments are reductions for alimony paid and IRA and certain other retirement plan contributions. Adjusted gross income is used in calculations relating to various deductions, credits, phase outs, and penalties.

Business deductions.

Most business deductions are allowed regardless of the form in which the business is conducted. Therefore, an individual small business owner is allowed most of the same business deductions as a publicly traded corporation. A business is an activity conducted regularly to make a profit. Only a few business-related deductions are unique to a particular form of business-doing. The deduction of investment expenses by individuals, however, has several limitations, along with other itemized (personal) deductions.

The amount and timing of deductions for income tax purposes is determined under tax accounting rules, not financial accounting ones. Tax rules are based on principles similar in many ways to accounting rules, but there are significant differences. Federal deductions for most meals and entertainment costs are limited to 50% of the costs (with an exception for tax year 2021, 

The amount and timing of deductions for income tax purposes is determined under tax accounting rules, not financial accounting ones. Tax rules are based on principles similar in many ways to accounting rules, but there are significant differences. Federal deductions for most meals and entertainment costs are limited to 50% of the costs (with an exception for tax year 2021.

Bailment is a legal relationship in common law, where the owner transfers physical possession of personal property ("chattel") for a time, but retains ownership. The owner who surrenders custody to a property is called the "bailor" and the individual who accepts the property is called a "bailee". The bailee is the person who possesses the personal property in trust for the owner for a set time and for a precise reason and who delivers the property back to the owner when he or she has accomplished the purpose that was initially intended.

General.

Bailment is distinguished from a contract of sale or a gift of property, as it only involves the transfer of possession and not its ownership. To create a bailment, the bailee must both intend to possess, and actually physically possess, the bailable chattel. Although a bailment relationship is ordinarily created by contract, there are circumstances where lawful possession by the bailee creates a bailment relationship without an ordinary contract, such as an involuntary bailment. A bailment relationship between the bailor and bailee is generally less formal than a fiduciary relationship.

In addition, unlike a lease or rental, where ownership remains with the lessor but the lessee is allowed to use the property, the bailee is generally not entitled to the use of the property while it is in his possession. However, a lease of personal property is the same as a bailment for hire, where the bailee gains the right to use the property.

A common example of bailment is leaving one's car with a valet. Leaving a car in an unattended parking garage, however, is typically a lease or license of a parking space rather than a bailment, as the garage does not take possession of (i.e. exercise dominion or control over) the car. However, bailments arise in many other situations, including terminated leases of property, warehousing (including store-it-yourself), or in carriage of goods.

Governing law.

In the United States, bailments are frequently governed by statute. For example, the UCC regulates personal property leases. State bailment for hire statutes may also regulate the rights and duties of parties in the bailment relationship.

Bailment is a typical common law concept, although similar concepts exists in civil law.

Purposes.

There are three types of bailments, based on the purpose of the relationship:

1. for the benefit of the bailor and bailee

2. for the sole benefit of the bailor; and

3. for the sole benefit of the bailee.

Examples.

A bailment for the mutual benefit of the parties is created when there is an exchange of performances between the parties (e.g. a bailment for the repair of an item when the owner is paying to have the repair accomplished).

A bailor receives the sole benefit from a bailment when a bailee acts gratuitously (e.g. the owner leaves the precious item such as a car or a piece of jewelry in the safekeeping of a trusted friend while the owner is traveling abroad without any agreement to compensate the friend).

A bailment is created for the sole benefit of the bailee when a bailor acts gratuitously (e.g., the loan of a book to a patron, the bailee, from a library, the bailor).

A misdemeanor is any "lesser" criminal act in some common law legal systems. Misdemeanors are generally punished less severely than more serious felonies, but theoretically more so than administrative infractions (also known as minor, petty, or summary offences) and regulatory offences. Typically, misdemeanors are punished with monetary fines or community service.

Distinction between felonies and misdemeanors.

A misdemeanor is considered a crime of lesser seriousness, and a felony one of greater seriousness. The maximum punishment for a misdemeanor is less than that for a felony under the principle that the punishment should fit the crime. One standard for measurement is the degree to which a crime affects others or society. Measurements of the degree of seriousness of a crime have been developed.

In the United States, the federal government generally considers a crime punishable with incarceration for not more than one year, or lesser penalty, to be a misdemeanor. All other crimes are considered felonies. Many states also employ the same or a similar distinction.

The distinction between felonies and misdemeanors has been abolished by several common law jurisdictions, notably the UK and Australia. These jurisdictions have generally adopted some other classification (in the UK the substance of the original distinction remains, only slightly altered): in the Commonwealth nations of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, the crimes are divided into summary offenses and indictable offenses. The Republic of Ireland, a former member of the Commonwealth, also uses these divisions.

In some jurisdictions, those who are convicted of a misdemeanor are known as misdemeanants (as contrasted with those convicted of a felony who are known as felons). Depending on the jurisdiction, examples of misdemeanors may include: petty theft, prostitution, public intoxication, simple assault, disorderly conduct, trespass, shoplifting, vandalism, reckless driving, indecent exposure, and possession of cannabis for personal use.

A summary offense or petty offense is a violation in some common law jurisdictions that can be proceeded against summarily, without the right to a jury trial and/or indictment (required for an indictable offence). In the law of the United States, petty offenses are typically those that carry the lightest maximum penalty.

United States.

In law of the United States, "there are certain minor or petty offenses that may be proceeded against summarily, and without a jury" These include criminal citations. Any offense that is punishable by the controlling law for more than six months of imprisonment must have some means for a jury trial. Some states, such as California, provide that all defendants are entitled to a jury trial (irrespective of the nature of their offenses). Some states provide that in all cases the defendant may demand a jury trial.

Under section 316 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a person convicted of a petty offense can be naturalized as a citizen of the United States.

Contempt of court is considered a prerogative of the court, as "the requirement of a jury does not apply to contempts committed in disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command entered in any suit or action brought or prosecuted in the name of, or on behalf of, the United States" There have been criticisms over the practice. In particular, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote in a 1964 dissent, "It is high time, in my judgment, to wipe out root and branch the judge-invented and judge-maintained notion that judges can try criminal contempt cases without a jury."

In common law jurisdictions, a misrepresentation is an untrue or misleading  statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party to enter into a contract. The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well (or instead of rescission).

The law of misrepresentation is an amalgam of contract and tort; and its sources are common law, equity and statute. In England and Wales, the common law was amended by the Misrepresentation Act 1967. The general principle of misrepresentation has been adopted by the United States and other former British colonies, for example India.

Representation and contract terms.

A "representation" is a pre-contractual statement made during negotiations. If a representation has been incorporated into the contract as a term, then the normal remedies for breach of contract apply. Factors that determine whether or not a representation has become a term include:

The relative expertise of the parties.

The reliance that one party has shown on the statement.

The reassurances given by the speaker.

The customary norms of the trade in question.

The representation forms the basis of a collateral contract.

Otherwise, an action may lie in misrepresentation, and perhaps in the torts of negligence and deceit also. Although a suit for breach of contract is relatively straightforward, there are advantages in bringing a parallel suit in misrepresentation, because whereas repudiation is available only for breach of condition, rescission is prima facie available for all misreps, subject to the provisions of s.2 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, and subject to the inherent limitations of an equitable remedy.

Replevin or claim and delivery (sometimes called revendication) is a legal remedy, which enables a person to recover personal property taken wrongfully or unlawfully, and to obtain compensation for resulting losses.

Etymology.

The word "replevin" is of Anglo-Norman origin and is the noun form of the verb "replevy". This comes from the Old French replevir, derived from plevir ("to pledge"), which is derived from the Latin replegiare ("to redeem a thing taken by another").

Nature.

In The Law of Torts, John Fleming has written:

From medieval times, there has also come down to us a summary process, known as replevin, by which a man out of whose possession goods have been taken may obtain their return until the right to the goods can be determined by a court of law. Replevin arose out of the need of a turbulent society to discourage resort to self-help and although for a long time primarily used in disputes about distress between landlord and tenant, it was gradually expanded to cover all cases of allegedly wrongful dispossession. If the plaintiff wanted return of his chattel in specie, replevin was a more appropriate remedy than either trespass or trover in which only damages could be recovered. Restoration of the property is, of course, only provisional, pending determination of title.

In common law, several types of action existed with respect to deprivation of possession (being subdivided into the wrongful taking of chattels and the unjust detention of them, even where the original taking was lawful):

 In the case of wrongful taking:

A writ of replevin was available only for an unlawful taking in the nature of a wrongful distress, where restitution could be made for the goods wrongfully taken (being in the nature of a redelivery of the pledge or the thing taken in distress) with damages for the loss sustained by such action. As distrained goods are in the custody of the law, any attempt to take them back by force without a writ of replevin could be contested by writ of rescous or de parco fracto, with a remedy in damages.

A writ of trespass vi et armis was available in the taking of goods, with a remedy in damages.

An action of trover and conversion was available for the non-forcible taking of goods, with a remedy in damages.

·         In the case of unjust detention:

Replevin lay to recover goods still held after a tender of amends.

Detinue lay to recover lent goods where the holder refused to return them to the owner. However, the defendant was allowed to exculpate himself by oath, so this action was displaced by that of trover and conversion.

At common law, the ordinary action for the recovery of goods wrongfully taken was originally one of detinue, but no means of immediate recovery was possible until the action was tried. Replevin arose to deal with the matter of the illegal distress of goods for rent or damage feasant, in order to procure their restoration to the owner. Illegal distress has been held to occur where:

1. no relationship of landlord and tenant exists at all,

2. there is no demise at a fixed rent,

3. no rent is due, or nondue to the person who has distrained,

4. goods have been released before the distress, or tendered before the impounding,

5. the entry was illegal, or

6. things privileged from distress (for example, neither goods nor chattel) have been seized.

Replevin will not lie where if any part of the rent claimed was due, but this defense is not effective where the only rent claimed by the landlord is not recoverable by distress.

It has been held that replevin applies to any wrongful taking of goods and chattel.

Income taxes in the United States are imposed by the federal government, and most states. The income taxes are determined by applying a tax rate, which may increase as income increases, to taxable income, which is the total income less allowable deductions. Income is broadly defined. Individuals and corporations are directly taxable, and estates and trusts may be taxable on undistributed income. Partnerships are not taxed (with some exceptions in the case of Federal income taxation), but their partners are taxed on their shares of partnership income. Residents and citizens are taxed on worldwide income, while nonresidents are taxed only on income within the jurisdiction. Several types of credits reduce tax, and some types of credits may exceed tax before credits. An alternative tax applies at the federal and some state levels.

In the United States, the term "payroll tax" usually refers to FICA taxes that are paid to fund Social Security and Medicare, while "income tax" refers to taxes that are paid into state and federal general funds.

Most business expenses are deductible. Individuals may also deduct a personal allowance (exemption) and certain personal expenses, including home mortgage interest, state taxes, contributions to charity, and some other items. Some deductions are subject to limits.

Capital gains are taxable, and capital losses reduce taxable income to the extent of gains (plus, in certain cases, $3,000 or $1,500 of ordinary income). Individuals currently pay a lower rate of tax on capital gains and certain corporate dividends.

Taxpayers generally must self assess income tax by filing tax returns. Advance payments of tax are required in the form of withholding tax or estimated tax payments. Taxes are determined separately by each jurisdiction imposing tax. Due dates and other administrative procedures vary by jurisdiction. April 15 following the tax year is the last day for individuals to file tax returns for federal and many state and local returns. Tax as determined by the taxpayer may be adjusted by the taxing jurisdiction.

A treasure trove is an amount of money or coin, gold, silver, plate, or bullion found hidden underground or in places such as cellars or attics, where the treasure seems old enough for it to be presumed that the true owner is dead and the heirs undiscoverable. An archeological find of a treasure trove is known as a hoard. The legal definition of what constitutes a treasure trove and its treatment under law vary considerably from country to country, and from era to era.

The term is also often used metaphorically. Collections of articles published as a book are often titled Treasure Trove, as in A Treasure Trove of Science. This was especially fashionable for titles of children's books in the early-and mid-20th century.

The law of treasure trove in the United States varies from state to state, but certain general conclusions may be drawn. To be a treasure trove, an object must be of gold or silver. Paper money is also deemed to be a treasure trove since it previously represented gold or silver. On the same reasoning, it might be imagined that coins and tokens in metals other than gold or silver are also included, but this has yet to be clearly established. The object must have been concealed for long enough so it is unlikely that the true owner will reappear to claim it. The consensus appears to be that the object must be at least a few decades old.

A majority of state courts, including those of Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Oregon and Wisconsin, have ruled that the finder of the treasure trove is entitled to it. The theory is that the English monarch's claim to treasure trove was based on a statutory enactment which replaced the finder's original right. When this statute was not re-enacted in the United States after its independence, the right to treasure trove reverted to the finder.

In Idaho and Tennessee courts have decided that the treasure trove belongs to the owner of the place where it was found, the rationale being to avoid rewarding trespassers. In one Pennsylvania case, a lower court ruled that the common law did not vest treasure trove in the finder but in the sovereign, and awarded a find of $92,800 cash to the state. However, this judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on the basis that it had not yet been decided if the law of treasure trove was part of Pennsylvania law. The Supreme Court deliberately refrained from deciding the issue.

Finds of money and lost property are dealt with by other states through legislation. These statutes usually require finders to report their finds to the police and transfer to their custody the objects. The police then advertise the finds to try to locate their true owner. If the objects remain unclaimed for a specified period of time, title in them vests in the finders. New Jersey vests buried or hidden property in the landowner, Indiana in the county, Vermont in the town, and Maine in the township and the finder equally. In Louisiana, French codes have been followed, so half of a found object goes to the finder and the other half to the landowner. The position in Puerto Rico, the laws of which are based on civil law, is similar.

Finders who are trespassers generally lose all their rights to finds, unless the trespass is regarded as "technical or trivial".

A felony is traditionally considered a crime of high seriousness, whereas a misdemeanor is regarded as less serious. The term "felony" originated from English common law (from the French medieval word "félonie") to describe an offense that resulted in the confiscation of a convicted person's land and goods, to which additional punishments including capital punishment could be added; other crimes were called misdemeanors. Following conviction of a felony in a court of law, a person may be described as a felon or a convicted felon.

Some common law countries and jurisdictions no longer classify crimes as felonies or misdemeanors and instead use other distinctions, such as by classifying serious crimes as indictable offenses and less serious crimes as summary offenses.

In the United States, where the felony/misdemeanor distinction is still widely applied, the federal government defines a felony as a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. If punishable by exactly one year or less, it is classified as a misdemeanor. The classification is based upon a crime's potential sentence, so a crime remains classified as a felony even if a defendant convicted of a felony receives a sentence of one year or less. Individual states may classify crimes by other factors, such as seriousness or context.

In some civil law jurisdictions, such as Italy and Spain, the term delict is used to describe serious offenses, a category similar to common law felony. In other nations, such as Germany, France, Belgium, and Switzerland, more serious offenses are described as crimes, while misdemeanors or delicts (or délits) are less serious. In still others (such as Brazil and Portugal), crimes and delicts are synonymous (more serious) and are opposed to contraventions (less serious).

Overview.

Classification by subject matter.

Felonies may include but are not limited to the following:

Murder.

Aggravated assault or battery.

Manslaughter (unintentional killing of another).

Animal cruelty.

Arson.

High speed chase.

Burglary.

Robbery/Extortion.

Tax evasion.

Fraud.

Cybercrime.

Identity theft.

The manufacture, sale, distribution, or possession with intent to distribute certain types or quantities of illegal drugs.

In some jurisdictions, the possession of certain types of illegal drugs for personal use.

Grand larceny or grand theft, for example, larceny or theft above a certain statutorily established value or quantity of goods.

Vandalism on federal property.

Impersonation of a law enforcement officer with intention of deception.

Treason.

Rape/sexual assault.

Kidnapping.

Obstruction of justice.

Perjury.

Copyright infringement.

Child pornography.

Forgery.

Threatening an official (police officer, judge).

Blackmail.

Driving under the influence (certain DUI cases involving bodily injury and/or death. In some jurisdictions property damage over a certain amount elevates a DUI charge to a felony as well).

In contract law, a mistake is an erroneous belief, at contracting, that certain facts are true. It can be argued as a defense, and if raised successfully can lead to the agreement in question being found void ab initio or voidable, or alternatively an equitable remedy may be provided by the courts. Common law has identified three different types of mistake in contract: the 'unilateral mistake', the 'mutual mistake' and the 'common mistake'. The distinction between the 'common mistake' and the 'mutual mistake' is important.

Another breakdown in contract law divides mistakes into four traditional categories: unilateral mistake, mutual mistake, mistranscription, and misunderstanding.

The law of mistake in any given contract is governed by the law governing the contract. The law from country to country can differ significantly. For instance, contracts entered into under a relevant mistake have not been voidable in English law since Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris (International) Ltd (2002).

Examples.

Mistake can be:

Mistake of law, or,

Mistake of fact

Mistake of law: when a party enters into a contract, without the knowledge of the law in the country, the contract is affected by such mistakes, but it is not void. The reason here is that ignorance of law is not an excuse. However, if a party is induced to enter into a contract by the mistake of law then such a contract is not valid.

Illustration: Harjoth and Danny make a contract grounded on the erroneous belief that a particular debt is barred by the Indian law of Limitation; the contract is not voidable.

Mistake of fact: Where both the parties enter into an agreement are under a mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is voidable.

Explanation: An erroneous opinion as to the value of the thing which forms the subject matter of the agreement is not to be deemed a mistake as to a matter of fact.

Illustration: Lady found a stone and sold it as a topaz for $1 ($25 today). It was a raw uncut diamond worth $700 (today $17,000). The contract is not voidable. There was no mistake because neither party knew what the stone was.

Anti-illustration: A sells a cow to B for $80 because it is infertile. The cow is actually pregnant and worth $1000. The contract is void.

In tort law, detinue is an action to recover for the wrongful taking of personal property. It is initiated by an individual who claims to have a greater right to their immediate possession than the current possessor. For an action in detinue to succeed, a claimant must first prove that he had better right to possession of the chattel than the defendant and second that the defendant refused to return the chattel once demanded by the claimant.

Detinue allows for a remedy of damages for the value of the chattel, but unlike most other interference torts, detinue also allows for the recovery of the specific chattel being withheld.

History.

Historically, detinue came in two forms: "detinue sur bailment" and "detinue sur trover".

In detinue sur bailment, the defendant is in a bailment relationship with the claimant and either refuses to return the chattel or else has negligently or intentionally lost or destroyed it. The onus is on the bailee to prove that the loss of the chattel was not his or her fault.

In detinue sur trover, the defendant can be any individual in possession of the chattel who refuses to return it to the claimant. A defendant could be a finder or a thief or any innocent third party, and the claimant need only have a better right to possession.

Early writs and forms of action were exceptionally narrow in scope. This is reflective of the basic conservatism of the common law courts in the middle and late medieval period. This was in contrast with the courts of equity which were creative in producing novel writs for many new fact situations. Compensation in those days was usually not in money, which was rare, but in land, livestock, or furnishings, as these were the typical measures of wealth. What the plaintiff wanted back was the land, cattle or even coins lent. Maitland suggests that in the earliest time the writ of debt seems almost to have been designed to recover identical coins.

The early writ of detinue was specifically designed for recovery of a chattel wrongfully detained, but not an action to recover loss due to a chattel being harmed while the defendant had it.

Two facts marked the early common law actions. They were defective because of the wide field which was excluded. They were also defective because the plaintiff might well think himself entitled to a remedy, but by reason of the procedure found that he went away empty. The defendant to a writ of debt or detinue might bring others with him who would swear that his denial of the claim was true. This was technically called his "wage of law" or "wager of law". It was enough to dispose of the plaintiff's claim. A common way to escape all writs, even the writ of right, as well as debt and detinue was to claim sickness. If the jury found him in bed with his boots off, the custom was to delay the writ for a year and a day.

The U.S. generation-skipping transfer tax (the "GST tax") imposes a tax on both outright gifts and transfers in trust to or for the benefit of unrelated persons who are more than 37.5 years younger than the donor or to related persons more than one generation younger than the donor, such as grandchildren. These people are known as "skip persons." In most cases where a trust is involved, the GST tax will be imposed only if the transfer avoids incurring a gift or estate tax at each generation level.

Assume, for example, a donor transfers property in a trust for the donor's child and grandchildren and that during the child's lifetime, the trustee may distribute income among the child and grandchildren in accordance with their needs. Assume further that the trust instrument provides that the remaining principal of the trust will be distributed outright to the grandchildren following the child's death. If the trust property is not subject to estate tax at the child's death (by reason of a general power of appointment), a GST tax will be imposed when the child dies. This is called a "taxable termination." In that case, the trustee is responsible for filing a GST tax return and paying the tax. On the other hand, a "taxable distribution" occurs if the trustee distributes income or principal to a grandchild before the trust terminates.  In that case, the beneficiary is responsible for paying the tax. These taxable events are sometimes overlooked by people who may be unaware of the existence of the tax or its application to their situation.

The first version of the tax (1976).

The first version of the generation-skipping transfer tax was introduced in 1976. That version attempted to impose a generation-skipping tax exactly equal to the estate or gift tax that was avoided. In the above example, the Executor of the child's Will would have had to determine the estate tax, if any, the child's estate owed without regard to the existence of the trust. Then the Trustee of trust would have to use the child's Federal Estate Tax Return as the basis for recomputing the child's estate tax liability as if the trust property had been part of the child's estate.

Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property are categories of the common law of property which deals with personal property or chattel which has left the possession of its rightful owner without having directly entered the possession of another person. Property can be considered lost, mislaid or abandoned depending on the circumstances under which it is found by the next party who obtains its possession.

There is an old saying that possession is nine-tenths of the law, perhaps dating back centuries. This means that in most cases, the possessor of a piece of property is its rightful owner without evidence to the contrary. More colloquially, this may be called finders, keepers. The contradiction to this principle is theft by finding, which may occur if conversion occurs after finding someone else's property.

The rights of a finder of such property are determined in part by the status in which it is found. Because these classifications have developed under the common law of England, they turn on nuanced distinctions. The general rule attaching to the three types of property may be summarized as: A finder of property acquires no rights in mislaid property, is entitled to possession of lost property against everyone except the true owner, and is entitled to keep abandoned property. This rule varies by jurisdiction.

Lost property.

Property is generally deemed to have been lost if it is found in a place where the true owner likely did not intend to set it down, and where it is not likely to be found by the true owner. At common law, the finder of a lost item could claim the right to possess the item against any person except the true owner or any previous possessors.

The underlying policy goals to these distinctions are to (hopefully) see that the property is returned to its true original owner, or "title owner." Most jurisdictions have now enacted statutes requiring that the finder of lost property turn it in to the proper authorities; if the true owner does not arrive to claim the property within a certain period of time (this is defined by the Torts Act 1977 as 3 months from the date of finding), the property is returned to the finder as his own, or is disposed of. In Britain, many public businesses have a dedicated Lost Property Office (LPO), which in the United States would be called a lost and found, where lost property can be reported and reclaimed free of charge.

Many exceptions may be applied at common law to the rule that the first finder of lost property has a superior claim of right over any other person except the previous owner. For example, a trespasser's claim to lost property which he finds while trespassing is generally inferior to the claim of the respective landowner. As a corollary to this exception, a landowner has superior claim over a find made within the non-public areas of his property, so if a customer finds lost property in the public area of a store, the customer has superior claim to the lost property over that of the store-owner, but if the customer finds the lost property in the non-public area of that store, such as an area marked "Employees Only," the store-owner will have superior claim, as the customer was trespassing when he found it.

Under criminal law, a principal is any actor who is primarily responsible for a criminal offense. Such an actor is distinguished from others who may also be subject to criminal liability as accomplices, accessories or conspirators.

The legal principle of vicarious liability applies to hold one person liable for the actions of another when engaged in some form of joint or collective activity.

History.

Before the emergence of states which could bear the high costs of maintaining national policing and impartial court systems, local communities operated self-help systems to keep the peace and to enforce contracts. Until the thirteenth century, one of the institutions that emerged was an involuntary collective responsibility for the actions committed by one of the groups. This was formalized into the community responsibility system (CRS) which was enforced by a fear of loss of community reputation and of retaliation by the injured community if the appropriate compensation was not paid. In some countries where the political system supported it, collective responsibility was gradually phased out in favor of individual responsibility. In Germany and Italy, collective systems were in operation as late as the sixteenth century.

While communities were relatively small and homogeneous, CRS could work well, but as populations increased and merchants began to trade across ever wider territories, the system failed to match the emerging societies' needs for more personal accountability and responsibility. In England, Henry the 1st allowed London to opt out of the CRS and to appoint a sheriff and justices in 1133, and between 1225 and 1232, Henry the 3rd assured the merchants of Ypres that none of them "will be detained in England nor will they be partitions for another's debts".

Nevertheless, the idea of imposing liability on another despite a lack of culpability never really disappeared and courts have developed the principle that an employer can incur liability for the acts and omissions of an employee if committed by the employee in the course of employment and if the employer has the right to control the way in which the employee carries out his or her duties (respondeat superior). The imposition of vicarious liability in these circumstances has been justified on the following grounds:

Exercise of control: If penalties are serious enough, it is assumed that rational employers will take steps to ensure that employees avoid injuring third parties. On the other hand, rational employers may choose to rely on independent contractors for risky operations and processes.

Risk spreading: Many consider it socially preferable to impose the cost of an action on a person connected to it, even if a degree removed, rather than on the person who suffered injury or loss. This principle is also sometimes known as the "deep pocket" justification.

Internalizing the social costs of activities: The employer usually (though not always) passes on the cost of compensating injury or loss to the customers and clients. As a result, the private cost of the product or service will better reflect its social cost.

These justifications may work against one another. For example, insurance will increase the ability to do risk spreading, but will reduce incentives for the exercise of control.

 In contract law, an integration clause, merger clause, (sometimes, particularly in the United Kingdom, referred to as an entire agreement clause)  is a clause in a written contract which declares that contract to be the complete and final agreement between the parties. It is often placed at or towards the end of the contract. Any pre-contractual material which the parties wish to be incorporated into the contract need to be assembled with it or explicitly referred to in the contractual documentation.

Effect.

A contract that has such a clause may be deemed an integrated contract, and any previous negotiations in which the parties to the contract had considered different terms will be deemed superseded by the final writing. However, many modern cases have found merger clauses to be only a rebuttable presumption.

In the United States, the existence of such a term is normally not conclusive proof that no varied or additional conditions exist with respect to the performance of the contract beyond those that are in the writing but instead is simply evidence of that fact.

In Personnel Hygiene Services Ltd v Mitchell, an England and Wales Court of Appeal case where there were two distinct contractual relationships between the parties, a service agreement superseded by a compromise agreement, and a separate share purchase agreement, it was held that the entire agreement provisions in the compromise agreement annulled the service agreement but the share purchase agreement remained intact.

Contra proferentem (Latin: "against  offeror"), also known as "interpretation against the draftsman", is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.

Overview.

The doctrine is often applied to situations involving standardized contracts or where the parties are of unequal bargaining power, but is applicable to other cases. The doctrine is not, however, directly applicable to situations where the language at issue is mandated by law, as is often the case with insurance contracts and bills of lading.

The reasoning behind this rule is to encourage the drafter of a contract to be as clear and explicit as possible and to take into account as many foreseeable situations as it can. Eric Posner claimed: "The contra proferentem rule, for example, might encourage the drafter to be more explicit and to provide more details about obligations. This may reduce the chance that the other party will misunderstand the contract; it also may facilitate judicial interpretation of the contract.” Uri Weiss claimed: "The Contra Proferentem rule motivates the less risk-averse drafter to refrain from manipulating the other side by making the contract unclear. Thus, the two parties can agree that the less risk-averse side will formulate the contract, thus reducing the cost of the transaction. Without this rule, there might be a moral hazard problem".

Copyright infringement (at times referred to as piracy) is the use of works protected by copyright without permission for a usage where such permission is required, thereby infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works. The copyright holder is typically the work's creator, or a publisher or other business to whom copyright has been assigned. Copyright holders routinely invoke legal and technological measures to prevent and penalize copyright infringement.

Copyright infringement disputes are usually resolved through direct negotiation, a notice and take down process, or litigation in civil court. Egregious or large-scale commercial infringement, especially when it involves counterfeiting, is sometimes prosecuted via the criminal justice system. Shifting public expectations, advances in digital technology and the increasing reach of the Internet have led to such widespread, anonymous infringement that copyright-dependent industries now focus less on pursuing individuals who seek and share copyright-protected content online, and more on expanding copyright law to recognize and penalize, as indirect infringers, the service providers and software distributors who are said to facilitate and encourage individual acts of infringement by others.

Estimates of the actual economic impact of copyright infringement vary widely and depend on other factors. Nevertheless, copyright holders, industry representatives, and legislators have long characterized copyright infringement as piracy or theft – language which some U.S. courts now regard as pejorative or otherwise contentious.

Terminology.

The terms piracy and theft are often associated with copyright infringement. The original meaning of piracy is "robbery or illegal violence at sea", but the term has been in use for centuries as a synonym for acts of copyright infringement. Theft, meanwhile, emphasizes the potential commercial harm of infringement to copyright holders. However, copyright is a type of intellectual property, an area of law distinct from that which covers robbery or theft, offenses related only to tangible property. Not all copyright infringement results in commercial loss, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that infringement does not easily equate with theft.

This was taken further in the case MPAA v Hotfile, where Judge Kathleen M Williams granted a motion to deny the MPAA the usage of words whose appearance was primarily "pejorative". This list included the word "piracy", the use of which, the motion by the defense stated, serves no court purpose but to misguide and inflame the jury.

A gift tax is a tax imposed on the transfer of ownership of property during the giver's life. The United States Internal Revenue Service says that a gift is "Any transfer to an individual, either directly or indirectly, where full compensation (measured in money or money's worth) is not received in return."

When a taxable gift in the form of cash, stocks, real estate, or other tangible or intangible property is made, the tax is usually imposed on the donor (the giver) unless there is a retention of an interest which delays completion of the gift. A transfer is "completely gratuitous" when the donor receives nothing of value in exchange for the given property. A transfer is "gratuitous in part" when the donor receives some value but the value of the property received by the donor is substantially less than the value of the property given by the donor. In this case, the amount of the gift is the difference.

In the United States, the gift tax is governed by Chapter 12, Subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code. The tax is imposed by section 2501 of the Code. For the purposes of taxable income, courts have defined a "gift" as the proceeds from a "detached and disinterested generosity." Gifts are often given out of "affection, respect, admiration, charity or like impulses."

Generally, if an interest in property is transferred during the giver's lifetime (often called an inter vivos gift), then the gift or transfer would not be subject to the estate tax. In 1976, Congress unified the gift and estate tax regimes, thereby limiting the giver's ability to circumvent the estate tax by giving during his or her lifetime. Some differences between estate and gift taxes remain, such as the effective tax rate, the amount of the credit available against tax, and the basis of the received property.

There are also types of gifts which will be included in a person's estate, such as certain gifts made within the three-year window before death and gifts in which the donor retains an interest such as gifts of remainder interests that are not either qualified remainder trusts or charitable remainder trusts. The remainder interest gift tax rules impose the tax on the transfer of the entire value of the trust by assigning a zero value to the interest retained by the donor.

Accession has different definitions depending upon its application.

In property law, it is a mode of acquiring property that involves the addition of value to property through labor or the addition of new materials. For example, a person who owns a property on a river delta also takes ownership of any additional land that builds up along the riverbank due to natural deposits or manmade deposits.

In commercial law, accession includes goods that are physically united with other goods in such a manner that the identity of the original goods is not lost. In English common law, the added value belongs to the original property's owner. For example, if the buyer of a car has parts added or replaced and the buyer then fails to make scheduled payments and the car is repossessed, the buyer has no right to the new parts because they have become a part of the whole car.

In modern common law, if the property owner allows the accession through bad faith, the adder of value is entitled to damages or title to the property. If the individual who adds value to the owner's chattel (personal property) is a trespasser or does so in bad faith, the owner retains title and the trespasser cannot recover labor or materials. The owner of the chattel may seek conversion damages for the value of the original materials plus any consequential damages. Alternatively, the owner may seek replevin (return of the chattel). However, the owner may be limited to damages if the property has changed its nature by accession. For example, if a finder discovers a gemstone and in good faith believes it to be abandoned and then cuts it and integrates it into a work of art, the true owner may be limited to recovery of damages for the value of the gemstone but not of the final art piece by way of replevin. The remedies and application of the law vary by legal jurisdiction.

Roman accession.

Accession might also be (from Latin accedere, to go to, approach), in law, a method of acquiring property adopted from Roman law, by which, in things that have a close connection with or dependence on one another, the property of the principal draws after it the property of the accessory, according to the principle, accessio cedet principali.

Accession may take place either in a natural way, such as the growth of fruit or the pregnancy of animals, or in an artificial way. The various methods may be classified as:

 Land to land by accretion or alluvion.

Moveables to land or fixtures.

Moveables to moveables.

Moveables added to by the art or industry of man.

Corporate liability, also referred to as liability of legal persons, determines the extent to which a company as a legal person can be held liable for the acts and omissions of the natural persons it employs and, in some legal systems, for those of other associates and business partners.

Since corporations and other business entities are a major part of the economic landscape, corporate liability is a key element in effective law enforcement for economic crimes. A 2016 mapping of 41 countries’ corporate liability systems shows wide variations in approaches to liability and that corporate liability is a dynamic area of legal innovation and evolution.

The term legal person refers to a business entity (often a corporation, but possibly other legal entities, as specified by law) that has both legal rights (for instance, the right to sue) as well as legal obligations. Because, at a public policy level, the growth and prosperity of society depends on the business community, governments must carefully tailor the extent and ways that each permitted form of business entity can be held liable.

Important design elements of corporate liability systems include jurisdiction, successor liability, related and unrelated entities as a source of liability, sanctions and mitigating factors.

Poorly designed or non-existent corporate liability systems can make it impossible to enforce laws effectively and can lead to profound injustices for individuals or entities seeking accountability and redress for wrongdoing.

Nature of corporate liability.

Countries can base their corporate liability systems in criminal or non-criminal law (that is, administrative or civil law) or in both. They can also enact legislation that creates liability for legal persons in specific areas of law (for example, covering health and safety, and product safety issues). Under this approach, the wording of a statutory offense specifically attaches liability to the corporation as the principal or joint principal with a human agent.

Generally, countries’ approaches to this issue reflect long-standing and diverse legal traditions. For example, Australia and Canada anchor their corporate liability systems in criminal law, while the German and Italian systems are based in administrative law. Some jurisdictions use criminal and civil systems in parallel, thereby expanding options for pursuing legal accountability for legal persons and for making political judgments on when to use the criminal law in order to maximize the impact of those cases that are prosecuted. The United States’ system of corporate liability is an example of one that incorporates both criminal and civil law elements.

A standard form contract (sometimes referred to as a contract of adhesion, a leonine contract, a take-it-or-leave-it contract, or a boilerplate contract) is a contract between two parties, where the terms and conditions of the contract are set by one of the parties, and the other party has little or no ability to negotiate more favorable terms and is thus placed in a "take it or leave it" position.

While these types of contracts are not illegal per se, there exists a potential for unconscionability. In addition, in the event of an ambiguity, such ambiguity will be resolved contra proferentem, for example, against the party drafting the contract language.

Theoretical issues.

There is much debate on a theoretical level whether, and to what extent, courts should enforce standard form contracts.

On one hand, they undeniably fulfill an important role of promoting economic efficiency. Standard form contracting reduces transaction costs substantially by avoiding the need for buyers and sellers of goods and services to negotiate the details of a sale contract each time the product is sold.

On the other hand, there is the potential for inefficient, and even unjust, terms to be accepted by signatories to these contracts. Such terms might be seen as unjust if they allow the seller to avoid all liability or unilaterally modify terms or terminate the contract. These terms often come in the form of, but are not limited to, forum selection clauses and mandatory arbitration clauses, which can limit or foreclose a party's access to the courts; and also liquidated damages clauses, which set a limit to the amount that can be recovered or require a party to pay a specific amount. They might be inefficient if they place the risk of a negative outcome, such as defective manufacturing, on the buyer who is not in the best position to take precautions.

Defenses.

In a conversion suit, it is no defense to claim that the defendant was not negligent or that the defendant acquired the plaintiff's property through the plaintiff's unilateral mistake, or that the defendant acted in complete innocence and perfect good faith.

The following are traditional defenses to an action in conversion:

Abandonment. Abandonment of the property before it was taken by the defendant is a complete defense.

Authority of law. A conversion cannot occur if it is done by authority of law, a court order or valid process.

Consent or approbation. Consent by the plaintiff can be either express or implied.

Delay in bringing action. Statutes of limitations are defined by legislative jurisdiction. Some cases are based on "reasonable knowledge". Paintings purchased from a third person became the subject of an action in conversion, even though the incident had occurred 30 years prior. The action accrued based on when the plaintiff reasonably knew or should have known the identity of the possessor of the converted paintings. See also the doctrine of laches.

Fraud of the plaintiff. Conveying property to a third person for purposes of evading creditors is a complete defense to a subsequent action in conversion.

interest of defendant. If the defendant has ownership or partial ownership to the property, it cannot be converted. Cases revolve around the specific facts concerning ownership.

Value of property. A provisional defense can be made if the property converted has no value. Nevertheless, it is well established that it is not necessary for property to have a commercial value in order to maintain an action in conversion. This argument can be used to mitigate damages.

Writings. A bill or debt obligation can be converted. However, if it has been paid or otherwise satisfied, then it has neither value nor existence in the eyes of the court.

Nonexistence or lack of identity of property. Something that was not in existence at the time of the alleged conversion cannot be converted.

Privilege. Finders of lost property may be entitled to use or ownership if the real owner cannot be identified. This is an overlap into the rules of trover.

Unlawful and illegal acts. Unlawful contracts, illegal ownership and illegal activities on the part of the plaintiff can be a defense to an action in conversion. A counterfeit coin cannot be converted, nor can a note issued in an illegal manner.

Waiver, ratification and estoppel. An action in conversion can be dismissed if the right to treat the action has been waived by the plaintiff.

By receipt of proceeds of a sale. Accepting the proceeds of a sale of the converted property is a defense against further action.

By accepting return of goods. Once the owner accepts the converted property back, he or she is generally precluded from any further action.

Felony - A crime carrying a penalty of more than a year in prison. 

A felony is traditionally considered a crime of high seriousness, whereas a misdemeanor is regarded as less serious. The term "felony" originated from English common law (From the French medieval word "félonie") to describe an offense that resulted in the confiscation of a convicted person's land and goods, to which additional punishments including capital punishment could be added; other crimes were called misdemeanors. Following conviction of a felony in a court of law, a person may be described as a felon or a convicted felon. 

Excise tax types.

The effective federal excise tax rate for different household income groups (2007). The effective tax rate equals total federal excise taxes paid during the year divided by total comprehensive income, including estimated values of Medicare and health benefits, food stamps, employment taxes on employers, imputed corporate income tax, and other non-taxable items. Excise taxes are 0.7% of all federal taxes collected.

For purposes of the U.S. Constitution, an excise tax can be broadly defined as any indirect tax (usually, a tax on an event). In this sense, an excise means any tax other than: (1) a property tax or ad valorem tax by reason of its ownership; (2) a tax per head tax or capitation tax by being present (very rare in the United States).

In this broad sense, income taxes, value added taxes (VATs), sales taxes, and transfer taxes are examples of other excise taxes, but are typically not called excise taxes (in the United States) because of the different ways they are imposed. In the United States, essentially the only taxes called excise taxes are the taxes on quantities of enumerated items (whiskey, wine, tobacco, gasoline, tires, etc.). Other taxes on certain events may technically be considered excise taxes in the broad sense, but may or may not be collected under the name "excise tax" where the term is used in a different, more narrow sense.

In the more narrow sense, taxes denominated as "excise" taxes are usually taxes on events, such as the purchase of a quantity of a particular item like gasoline, diesel fuel, beer, liquor, wine, cigarettes, airline tickets, tires, trucks, etc. These taxes are usually included in the price of the item, not listed separately like sales taxes usually are. To minimize tax accounting complications, the excise tax is usually imposed on quantities like gallons of fuel, gallons of wine or drinking alcohol, packets of cigarettes, etc. and are usually paid initially by the manufacturer or retailer.

The burdens of excise taxes are often passed on to the consumer who eventually consumes the product. The price for which the item is eventually sold is not generally considered in calculating the amount of the excise tax.

An example of a state of being tax is an ad valorem property tax—which is not an excise. Customs or tariffs are based on the property (usually imported goods) as a state of being or ad valorem taxes and are also typically not called excise taxes. Excise taxes are collected by producers and retailers and paid to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or other state and/or local government tax collection agency. Historical federal excise tax collections to 1945 are listed in the Historical Statistics of the United States and more recent federal excise tax data is listed in the White House historical tables.

An excise is imposed on listed specific taxable events or products and is usually not collected or paid directly by the consumer. Excise taxes are collected by the producer or retailer and paid to the IRS, state or local tax agency. The producer can usually pass at least some of the burden of the excise tax to the consumer, the amount of which is added to the price of the product when it is sold. The degree to which consumers and producers will share the burden, called tax incidence, depends upon the price elasticities of supply and demand. Often sales taxes are collected as a percentage of the cost of the product including its excise tax—a tax on a tax.

The right of conquest is a right of ownership to land after immediate possession via force of arms. It was recognized as a principle of international law that gradually deteriorated in significance until its proscription in the aftermath of World War II following the concept of crimes against peace introduced in the Nuremberg Principles. The interdiction of territorial conquests was confirmed and broadened by the UN Charter, which provides in article 2, paragraph 4, that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." Although civil wars continued, wars between established states have been rare since 1945. Nations that have resorted to the use of force since the Charter came into effect have typically invoked self-defense or the right of collective defense.

The discovery doctrine, also called doctrine of discovery, is a concept of public international law expounded by the United States Supreme Court in a series of decisions, most notably Johnson v M'Intosh in 1823. Chief Justice John Marshall explained and applied the way that colonial powers laid claim to lands belonging to foreign sovereign nations during the Age of Discovery. Under it, European Christian governments could lay title to non-European Christian territory on the basis that the colonizers traveled and "discovered" said territory. The doctrine has been primarily used to support decisions invalidating or ignoring aboriginal possession of land in favor of modern governments, such as in the 2005 case of Sherrill v Oneida Nation.

The 1823 case was the result of collusive lawsuits where land speculators worked together to make claims to achieve a desired result. John Marshall explained the Court's reasoning. The decision has been the subject of a number of law review articles and has come under increased scrutiny by modern legal theorists.

Complicity is the participation in a completed criminal act of an accomplice, a partner in the crime who aids or encourages (abets) other perpetrators of that crime, and who shares with them an intent to act to complete the crime. A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of a crime if they purpose the completion of a crime, and toward that end, if that person solicits or encourages the other person, or aids or attempts to aid in planning or committing the crime, or has legal duty to prevent that crime but fails to make an effort to prevent it properly.

Unlike attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy, which are crimes in and of themselves, complicity is not itself a crime but is a way of committing a crime. It also differs from an attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy in that it always depends on that crime having been completed (for example, it is never inchoate). Complicity does not require causation of the crime, merely participating in the commission of the crime. In cases where one is complicit because of a failure to act when one has a duty to act to prevent a crime, complicity differs from omission in that liability for complicity arises from the related to other perpetrators, whereas liability for omission arises from a duty relationship to the victim. 

Common law traditionally distinguished between a "principal" perpetrator who is primarily responsible for a crime and an "accessory" perpetrator who is less responsible. However, modern approaches abandon this distinction, and "a person is legally accountable for the conduct of another when he is an accomplice of the other person in the commission of the crime".

For two persons to be complicit in a crime that does not involve negligence, they must share the same criminal intent; "there must be a community of purpose, partnership in the unlawful undertaking". An accomplice "is a partner in the crime, the chief ingredient of which is always intent". In crimes not involving negligence, there should be evidence that an accomplice had knowledge of the intention of their partner.

Non est factum (Latin for "it is not  deed") is a defense in contract law that allows a signing party to escape performance of an agreement "which is fundamentally different from what he or she intended to execute or sign." A claim of non est factum means that the signature on the contract was signed by mistake, without knowledge of its meaning. A successful plea would make the contract void ab initio.

The parol evidence rule is a rule in the Anglo-American common law that governs what kinds of evidence parties to a contract dispute can introduce when trying to determine the specific terms of a contract. The rule also prevents parties who have reduced their agreement to a final written document from later introducing other evidence, such as the content of oral discussions from earlier in the negotiation process, as evidence of a different intent as to the terms of the contract. The rule provides that "extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to vary a written contract". The term "parol" derives from the Anglo-Norman French parol or parole, meaning "word of mouth" or "verbal", and in medieval times referred to oral pleadings in a court case.

The rule's origins lie in English contract law, but has been adopted in other common law jurisdictions; however there are now some differences between application of the rule in different jurisdictions. For instance, in the US, a common misconception is that it is a rule of evidence (like the Federal Rules of Evidence), but that is not the case; whereas in England it is indeed a rule of evidence.

The supporting rationale for this is that since the contracting parties have reduced their agreement to a single and final writing, extrinsic evidence of past agreements or terms should not be considered when interpreting that writing, as the parties had decided to ultimately leave them out of the contract. In other words, one may not use evidence made prior to the written contract to contradict the writing.

Overview.

The rule applies to parol evidence, as well as other extrinsic evidence (such as written correspondence that does not form a separate contract) regarding a contract. If a contract is in writing and final to at least one term (integrated), parol or extrinsic evidence will generally be excluded.  However, there are a number of exceptions to this general rule, including for partially integrated contracts, agreements with separate consideration, to resolve ambiguities, or to establish contract defenses.

To take an example, Carl agrees in writing to sell Betty a car for $1,000, but later, Betty argues that Carl earlier told her that she would only need to pay Carl $800. The parol evidence rule would generally prevent Betty from testifying to this alleged conversation because the testimony ($800) would directly contradict the written contract's terms ($1,000).

The precise extent of the rule varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. As a preliminary or threshold issue, the court may first determine if the agreement was in fact totally reduced to a written document or (in US terminology) fully "integrated". In the case of State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Heath Outdoor Pty Ltd McHugh J held the parol evidence rule has 'no operation until it is first determined' that all the terms of the contract are in writing. This threshold question applies even in those jurisdictions that apply a very strong form of the parol evidence rule, called the "Four Corners Rule".

Acts constituting conversion.

An action for conversion does not rest on knowledge or intent of the defendant. The act constituting "conversion" must be an intentional act, but does not require wrongful intent, and is not excused by care, good faith, or lack of knowledge. Fraudulent intent is not an element of conversion. The defendant is answerable for the conversion, no matter how good his intentions were, or how careful he has been, or how apparently well-founded was his belief that his tortious act was right. The existence of probable cause does not preclude liability. A person may be liable for conversion even though he was reasonably mistaken in thinking the facts to be such as would give him a legal right to the goods.

There are cases in which the defendant does not clearly appropriate the property to his own use, and in which the question whether there is a conversion therefore depends on the intent of the defendant either express or implied.

In general.

Conversion, being a wrongful act, cannot spring from the exercise of a legal right. Such acts include the right of execution on a legal judgment or contesting rights under a contract. The general rule is that there is no conversion until some act is done which is a denial or violation of the plaintiff's dominion over or rights in the property. To constitute a conversion of a chattel, there must be an unauthorized assumption of the right to possession or ownership. The act must have the essence of a tort.

Depriving owner of possession.

The exercise of ownership over property may take a number of forms. All that is required is that the defendant exercise control over the chattel in a manner inconsistent with the plaintiff's right of possession. The gist of a conversion is not the acquisition of the property by the wrongdoer, but the wrongful deprivation of another's property which the owner is entitled to possess.

Receipt of property.

A person who accepts the possession of personal property from one not authorized to transfer it may be regarded as a converter. The Restatement (Second) of Torts is in accord with this concept, stating that one who receives possession of a chattel from another with the intent to acquire for himself or a third person a proprietary interest in the chattel which the other has not the power to transfer is subject to liability for conversion to a third person then entitled to the immediate possession of the chattel.

United States v Texas was United States Supreme Court case that involved the Texas Heartbeat Act (also known as Senate Bill 8 or SB8), a state law that bans abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, typically six weeks into pregnancy. A unique feature of the Act, and challenges to it, is the delegation of enforcement to any and all private individuals who are authorized by the Act to file civil actions against abortion providers who violate it, and aiders and abetters, while state and local officials are prohibited from doing so. The Act is stated by its opponents to go against the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v Wade, which bans states from regulating abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy in favor of the woman's right to privacy guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

As one of several challenges to the law, the Supreme Court within United States v Texas will consider and decide whether the federal government has standing and the right to sue Texas for injunctive and declaratory relief to stop enforcement of the Act through private civil litigation in the Texas judicial system. The case was fast-tracked by the Court and heard on November 1, 2021, alongside Whole Woman's Health v Jackson, which was brought by abortion providers and allies as a pre-enforcement challenge to the constitutionality of the Texas Heartbeat Act under the U.S. constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in a per curiam decision in December 2021 that the writ of certiorari was improvidently granted and dismissed the case.

Background.

Texas passed the Texas Heartbeat Act in May 2021, with the bill to go into effect on September 1, 2021. One of several heartbeat bills in the country, Texas's bill banned abortion once "cardiac activity" in an embryo can be detected, typically after six weeks of pregnancy. Because of the potential conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v Wade in that states could not regulate abortions during the first trimester (three months) of pregnancy in the interest of the right of privacy for women, the Texas Heartbeat Act does not allow the state to enforce the ban, but instead gives power to any interested party to sue anyone that performs an illegal abortion or supports that, and seek statutory damages of at least $10,000 in courts.

District Court.

On September 6, 2021, United States Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that the Justice Department (DOJ) will protect abortion seekers under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. On September 8, 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Biden administration plans to sue Texas on the basis that the Act "illegally interferes with federal interests".

Excise tax in the United States is an indirect tax on listed items. Excise taxes can be and are made by federal, state, and local governments and are not uniform throughout the United States. Some excise taxes are collected from the producer or retailer and not paid directly by the consumer, and as such often remain "hidden" in the price of a product or service, rather than being listed separately.

Federal excise taxes and revenues.

Federal excise taxes raised $98.3 billion in fiscal year 2015 or 3% of total federal tax revenue.

Fuel.

Excise taxes on fuel raised $37.4 billion in fiscal year 2015. These fuel taxes raised 90% of the Highway Trust Fund (18.4¢ for gasoline and 24.4¢ for diesel fuel per gallon).

Airport & airway trust fund.

Excise taxes dedicated to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund raised $14.3 billion in fiscal year 2015. 90% of the excise tax revenue comes from taxing passenger air fares and the remaining 10% comes from air cargo and aviation fuel taxes.

Affordable Care Act excise taxes.

Excise taxes for the Affordable Care Act raised $16.3 billion in fiscal year 2015. $11.3 billion was an excise tax placed directly on health insurers based on their market share. The ACA was going to impose a 40% "Cadillac tax" on expensive employer sponsored health insurance but that was postponed until 2018, and later further postponed and eventually repealed before its rollout on December 20, 2019. Annual excise taxes totaling $3 billion were levied on importers and manufacturers of prescription drugs. An excise tax of 2.32% on medical devices and a 10% excise tax on indoor tanning services are applied as well. The same budget bill that repealed the Cadillac tax also repealed the medical device tax for all sales occurring after December 31.

Tobacco.

Excise taxes on tobacco raised $14.5 billion in fiscal year 2015. The tax equals about $1 per 20-pack of cigarettes.

Alcohol.

Excise taxes on alcoholic beverages raised $9.6 billion in fiscal year 2015.

Cannabis.

In 2020, state and local governments earned over $3 billion in tax revenue from cannabis taxes.

In common law, a deed is any legal instrument in writing which passes, affirms or confirms an interest, right, or property and that is signed, attested, delivered, and in some jurisdictions, sealed. It is commonly associated with transferring (conveyancing) title to property. The deed has a greater presumption of validity and is less rebuttable than an instrument signed by the party to the deed. A deed can be unilateral or bilateral. Deeds include conveyances, commissions, licenses, patents, diplomas, and conditionally powers of attorney if executed as deeds. The deed is the modern descendant of the medieval charter, and delivery is thought to symbolically replace the ancient ceremony of livery of seisin.

The traditional phrase signed, sealed and delivered refers to the practice of seals; however, attesting witnesses have replaced seals to some extent. Agreements under seal are also called contracts by deed or specialty; in the United States, a specialty is enforceable without consideration. In some jurisdictions, specialties have a liability limitation period of double that of a simple contract and allow for a third party beneficiary to enforce an undertaking in the deed, thereby overcoming the doctrine of privity. Specialties, as a form of contract, are bilateral and can therefore be distinguished from covenants, which, being also under seal, are unilateral promises.

Requirements.

At common law, to be valid and enforceable, a deed must meet several requirements:

It must state on its face that it is a deed, using wording like "This Deed..." or "executed as a deed".

It must indicate that the instrument itself conveys some privilege or thing to someone.

The grantor must have the legal ability to grant the thing or privilege, and the grantee must have the legal capacity to receive it.

It must be executed by the grantor in presence of the prescribed number of witnesses, known as instrumentary witnesses (this is known as being in solemn form).

In some jurisdictions, a seal must be affixed to it. Originally, affixing seals made persons parties to the deed and signatures optional, but seals are now outdated in most jurisdictions, so the signatures of the grantor and witnesses are primary.

It must be delivered to, (delivery), and, in some jurisdictions, accepted by the grantee, (acceptance).

Conditions attached to the acceptance of a deed are known as covenants. A deed indented or indenture is one executed in two or more parts according to the number of parties, which were formerly separated by cutting in a curved or indented line known as the chirograph. A deed poll is one executed in one part, by one party, having the edge polled or cut even, and includes simple grants and appointments.

Under the English common law, an accomplice is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even if they take no part in the actual criminal offense. For example, in a bank robbery, the person who points the gun at the teller and demands the money is guilty of armed robbery. Anyone else directly involved in the commission of the crime, such as the lookout or the getaway car driver, is an accomplice, even if in the absence of an underlying offense keeping a lookout or driving a car would not be an offense.

An accomplice differs from an accessory in that an accomplice is present at the actual crime, and could be prosecuted even if the main criminal (the principal) is not charged or convicted. An accessory is generally not present at the actual crime, and may be subject to lesser penalties than an accomplice or principal.

At law, an accomplice has lesser guilt than the person he or she is assisting, is subject to lesser prosecution for the same crime, and faces the smaller criminal penalties. As such, the three accomplices to the bank robbery above can also to a degree be found guilty of armed robbery even if only one stole money.

The fairness of the doctrine that the accomplice is still guilty has been subject to much discussion, particularly in cases of capital crimes. Accomplices have been prosecuted for felony murder even if the actual person who committed the murder died at the crime scene or otherwise did not face capital punishment.

In jurisdictions based on the common law, the concept of an accomplice has often been heavily modified by statute, or replaced by new concepts entirely.

United States.

Aiding and abetting is a provision in United States criminal law, for situations where it cannot be shown the party personally carried out the criminal offense, but where another person may have carried out the illegal act(s) as an agent of the charged, working together with or under the direction of the charged party, who is an accessory to the crime.

It is derived from the United States Code (USC), section two of title 18:

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States is punishable as a principal.

(b) Whoever knowingly and willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed. by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

Where the term "principal" refers to any actor who is primarily responsible for a criminal offense.

An accomplice was often referred to as an abettor. This term is not in active use in the United States, having been replaced by accomplice.

The statute of frauds is the requirement that certain kinds of contracts be memorialized in writing, signed by the party to be charged, with sufficient content to evidence the contract.

The term statute of frauds comes from an Act of the Parliament of England passed in 1677 (authored by Lord Nottingham assisted by Sir Matthew Hale, Sir Francis North and Sir Leoline Jenkins. and passed by the Cavalier Parliament), the title of which is An Act for Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries. Many common law jurisdictions have made similar statutory provisions, while a number of civil law jurisdictions have equivalent legislation incorporated into their civil codes. The original English statute itself may still be in effect in a number of Canadian provinces, depending on the constitutional or reception statute of English law, and any subsequent legislative developments.

Application.

The statute of frauds typically requires a signed writing in the following circumstances:

Contracts in consideration of marriage. This provision covers prenuptial agreements.

Contracts that cannot be performed within one year. However, contracts of indefinite duration do not fall under the statute of frauds regardless of how long the performance actually takes.

Contracts for the transfer of an interest in land. This applies not only to a contract to sell land but also to any other contract in which land or an interest in it is disposed, such as the grant of a mortgage or an easement.

Contracts by the executor of a will to pay a debt of the estate with his own money.

Contracts for the sale of goods totaling $500.00 or more.

Contracts in which one party becomes a surety (acts as guarantor) for another party's debt or other obligation.

In an action for specific performance of a contract to convey land, the agreement must be in writing to satisfy the statute of frauds. The statute is satisfied if the contract to convey is evidenced by a writing or writings containing the essential terms of a purchase and sale agreement and signed by the party against whom the contract is to be enforced. If there is no written agreement, a court of equity can specifically enforce an oral agreement to convey only if the part performance doctrine is satisfied. In most jurisdictions, part performance is proven when the purchaser pays the purchase price, has possession of the land, and makes improvements on the land, all with the permission of the seller. No jurisdiction is satisfied by payment of the purchase price alone.

Under common law, the statute of frauds also applies to contract modifications. For example, in an oral agreement for the lease of a car for nine months, immediately after taking possession, the lessor then decides that he really likes the car and makes an oral offer to the lessee to extend the term of the lease by an additional six months. Although neither agreement alone comes under the statute of frauds, the oral extension modifies the original contract to make it a fifteen-month lease (nine months plus the additional six), thereby bringing it under the statute as the contract now exceeds twelve months in duration. In theory, the same principle works in reverse as well, such that an agreement to reduce a lease from fifteen months to nine months would not require a writing. However, many jurisdictions have enacted statutes that require a writing for such situations.

Conversion is an intentional tort consisting of "taking with the intent of exercising over the chattel an ownership inconsistent with the real owner's right of possession". In England & Wales, it is a tort of strict liability. Its equivalents in criminal law include larceny or theft and criminal conversion. In those jurisdictions that recognize it, criminal conversion is a lesser crime than theft/larceny.

Examples of conversion include: 1) Alpha cuts down and hauls away trees on land s/he knows is owned by Beta, without permission or privilege to do so; and 2) Gamma takes furniture belonging to Delta and puts it into storage, without Delta's consent (and especially if Delta does not know where Gamma put it). A common act of conversion in medieval times involved bolts of cloth that were bailed for safekeeping, which the bailee or a third party took and made clothes for their own use or for sale.

Many questions concerning joint ownership in enterprises such as a partnership belong in equity, and do not rise to the level of a conversion. Traditionally, a conversion occurs when some chattel is lost, then found by another who appropriates it to his own use without legal authority to do so. It has also applied in cases where chattels were bailed for safekeeping, then misused or misappropriated by the bailee or a third party.

Conversion, as a purely civil wrong, is distinguishable from both theft and unjust enrichment. Theft is obviously an act inconsistent with another's rights, and theft will also be conversion. But not all conversions are thefts because conversion requires no element of dishonesty. Conversion is also different from unjust enrichment. If one claims an unjust enrichment, the person who has another's property may always raise a change of position defense, to say they have unwittingly used up the assets they were transferred. For conversion, there always must be an element of voluntarily dealing with another's property, inconsistently with their rights.

Debate.

The estate tax is a recurring source of contentious political debate and political football. Generally the debate breaks down between a side which opposes any tax on inheritance, and another which considers it good policy.

Arguments in support.

Proponents of the estate tax argue that large inheritances (currently those over $5 million) are a progressive and fair source of government funding. Removing the estate tax, they argue, favors only the very wealthy and leaves a greater share of the total tax burden on working taxpayers. Proponents further argue that campaigns to repeal the tax rely on public confusion about the estate tax and about tax policy more generally. William Gale and Joel Slemrod give three reasons for taxing at the point of inheritance in their book Rethinking Estate and Gift Taxation. "First, the probate process may reveal information about lifetime economic well-being that is difficult to obtain in the course of enforcement of the income tax but is nevertheless relevant to societal notions of who should pay tax. Second, taxes imposed at death may have smaller disincentive effects on lifetime labor supply and saving than taxes that raise the same revenue (in present value terms) but are imposed during life. Third, if society does wish to tax lifetime transfers among adult households, it is difficult to see any time other than death at which to assess the total transfers made."

While death may be unpleasant to contemplate, there are good administrative, equity, and efficiency reasons to impose taxes at death, and the asserted costs appear to be overblown.

— William Gale and Joel Slemrod

The process of adverse possession would require a thorough analysis if private property is taken by eminent domain, after which control is given to a private corporation (such as a railroad), and then abandoned.

Where land is registered under a Torrens title registration system or similar, special rules apply. It may be that the land cannot be affected by adverse possession (as was the case in England and Wales from 1875 to 1926, and as is still the case in the state of Minnesota) or that special rules apply.

Adverse possession may also apply to territorial rights. In the United States, Georgia lost an island in the Savannah River to South Carolina in 1990, when South Carolina had used fill from dredging to attach the island to its own shore. Since Georgia knew of this yet did nothing about it, the U.S. Supreme Court (which has original jurisdiction in such matters) granted this land to South Carolina, although the Treaty of Beaufort (1787) explicitly specified that the river's islands belonged to Georgia.

Squatter's rights.

Most cases of adverse possession deal with boundary line disputes between two parties who hold clear title to their property. The term "squatter's rights" has no precise and fixed legal meaning. In some jurisdictions the term refers to temporary rights available to squatters that prevent them, in some circumstances, from being removed from property without due process. For example, in England and Wales reference is usually to section 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. In the United States, no ownership rights are created by mere possession, and a squatter may only take possession through adverse possession if the squatter can prove all elements of an adverse possession claim for the jurisdiction in which the property is located.

An accessory is a person who assists in, but does not actually participate in, the commission of a crime. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:

The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").

If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals (see common purpose). The test to distinguish a joint principal from an accessory is whether the defendant independently contributed to causing the actus reus rather than merely giving generalized and/or limited help and encouragement.

Elements.

In some jurisdictions, an accessory is distinguished from an accomplice, who normally is present at the crime and participates in some way. An accessory must generally have knowledge that a crime is being committed, will be committed, or has been committed. A person with such knowledge may become an accessory by helping or encouraging the criminal in some way. The assistance to the criminal may be of any type, including emotional or financial assistance as well as physical assistance or concealment.

Relative severity of penalties.

The punishment tariff for accessories varies in different jurisdictions, and has varied at different periods of history. In some times and places accessories have been subject to lesser penalties than principals (the persons who actually commit the crime). In other accessories are considered the same as principals in theory, although in a particular case an accessory may be treated less severely than a principal. In some times and places accessories before the fact (for example, with knowledge of the crime before it is committed) have been treated differently from accessories after the fact (for example, those who aid a principal after a crime has been committed, but had no role in the crime itself). Common law traditionally considers an accessory just as guilty as the principal(s) in a crime, and subject to the same penalties. Separate and lesser punishments exist by statute in many jurisdictions.

In contract law, an illusory promise is one that courts will not enforce. This is in contrast with a contract, which is a promise that courts will enforce. A promise may be illusory for a number of reasons. In common law countries this usually results from failure or lack of consideration (see also consideration under English law).

Illusory promises are so named because they merely hold the illusion of contract. For example, a promise of the form, "I will give you ten dollars if I feel like it," is purely illusory and will not be enforced as a contract.

It is a general principle of contract law that courts should err on the side of enforcing contracts. Parties entering into the arrangement presumably had the intention of forming an enforceable contract, and so courts generally attempt to follow this intention.

A promise conditioned upon an event within the promisor's control is not illusory if the promisor also "impliedly promises to make reasonable effort to bring the event about or to use good faith and honest judgment in determining whether or not it has in fact occurred."

Methods of finding potentially illusory contracts enforceable include:

Implied-in-law "good faith" terms.

Implied-in-fact terms.

Bargaining for a chance.

Implied-in-law "good faith" terms.

Many contracts include "satisfaction clauses", in which a promisor can refuse to pay if he isn't subjectively satisfied with the promisee's performance. Strictly speaking, this is an illusory promise, since the promisor has no actual legal burden to pay if he chooses not to. However, courts will generally imply in law that the promisor must act in good faith and reject the deal only if he is genuinely dissatisfied. As another example, if a contract promises a promisee a certain percentage of the proceeds of a promisor's business activities, this is illusory, since the promisor doesn't have to do anything: any percentage of zero is zero. However, courts may find that the promisor made an implied promise to use reasonable efforts to try to make money, and cite him for breach of contract if he does absolutely nothing. The UCC. in contracts exclusive to both sides requires "best efforts" in such contracts. This may be read to be the same as a good faith effort, but is seen by some courts as a higher duty.