What is multi-fold argument ? please can you explain with examples? What is multi-fold argument ? please can you explain with examples? Does multi-fold argument mean multiple stages of proof, where one ends at a stage if the stage is sufficient to prove what is to be proved ? for example, Is the below case a multi-fold argument ? The is a college C that has the following rules:- Students will not be allowed to enter college it they are late to college. Students will not be allowed to enter exam hall if they do not have the hall ticket. Students will not be allowed to given the exam question paper if they are not wearing formal shoes. Student S is late and is without his hall ticket, but is wearing formal shoes. The professor refuse to give him the exam question paper. When the professor is asked to explain his actions, he says the following:- S is late; and S does not the hall ticket; and even if S is allowed into the college, S would not be allowed in the hall because he does not have a hall ticket. Is the professor's explanation a multi-fold argument ? Tks in advance jo
A multi-fold argument is one that has multiple independent grounds upon which a decision can be reached. The distinction between such arguments and arguments based upon a single ground is important in the doctrine of collateral estoppel because it impacts which basis of a court decision can be considered judicially determined in a later lawsuit involving some of the same parties.
It says They shall not confer the right [[to attend any meeting of members] and [to exercise one vote for every share held]]. The elements joined by a conjunction such as "and" should be grammatically parallel. Since the part after the conjunction is an infinitive verb phrase, the thing to which is it joined by the conjunction should also be an infinitive verb phrase. However, it is normal in English to use "or" when joining elements in a negative statement. For example, if it is forbidden to sing and it is forbidden to dance, one could post a sign saying "no singing or dancing." If the sign said "no singing and dancing" it could be interpreted as a prohibition only on doing both at once. So the sentence should read They shall not confer the right to attend any meeting of members or to exercise one vote for every share held. Perhaps less ambiguous: They shall not confer the right to attend any meeting of members or the right to exercise one vote for every share held. But the drafting error is unlikely to change the meaning of the text, since it is fairly easy to identify it as a drafting error.
For instance, clients often ask them for an assessment of &quot;the chance of X going through&quot;. While clients can make it clear (in writing) that lawyers will not be held legally liable for giving &quot;pure advice&quot;, lawyers often still refuse to give any guidance (even when they clearly do have one in mind). I do this on a regular basis. This said, lawyers are ill equipped to evaluate cases in these terms, because they don't see a full and unbiased sample of cases that they study academically, because there are too many distinctions between cases to make apples to apples comparisons of them, and because most lawyers went into law because they don't like thinking about things in mathematical terms. Lawyers will not infrequently say that a case or argument is strong or weak, or very strong or virtually frivolous, but evaluating the strength of a case is difficult and there are good academic studies that show that lawyers systemically overestimate the strength of their own cases. So, humility about the likelihood of a particular outcome is a good professional norm to have in place. Basically, law contains lots of uncertainty and the known unknowns and unknown unknowns predominate over what is known, most of the time.
Law is more like sport than mathematics You don’t know how it will turn out until you play the game. If a case goes to trial it’s because at both sides believe they can win. Both sides probably have good reasons for their belief. At least one of them is wrong.
Is there such a phrase in jurisprudential or legal thought? In those instances it is common to say that the evidence is inconclusive. Accordingly, it is unavailing because that evidence does not prove the party's allegation.
We don't have a lot of details, but if you're in the United States, the answer is probably yes. There are rarely any meaningful rules of evidence in student misconduct cases, so pretty much anything can come in. There may be some small difference in the answer depending n whether you're dealing with a public university or private, but in either case, I can't think of any reason why they would not be able to introduce the evidence if they had it. If there's a question about its authenticity, I imagine that would just be up to the misconduct board to decide. If Person X says "Person Y sent this to me," and Person X seems credible, that's probably going to be enough.
Could the person on the stand refuse? Yes. The witness may refuse to read it aloud, which does not mean he cannot be compelled to do so. The witness may object on grounds you mention (prejudice) only if he is the defendant. Either way, the judge will make a decision on how that evidence is to be presented to the jury. Regardless of who reads the evidence, the witness may be ordered to answer the question of whether or not he authored that document. Defying that order could result in contempt of court or, depending on the context, the entry of an adverse inference.
“You put that, of course, respectfully?” You bet your ass Heydon is telling Newlands off. Knock down drag out fights in a courtroom are more subtle than in a barroom and the judge always wins. First we have the trivial issue that the barrister interrupted the commissioner while he was speaking! This is extreemly disrespectful and Heydon was pointing that out by calmly but sarcastically suggesting that the interruption should have started with “With respect ..,”. The clear implication that the interruption should not have happened at all. It doesn’t matter if you disagree with what the court is saying, you don’t interrupt, you wait for your opportunity to respond. You will be given it. That’s respect. More germanely, the barrister is in a tricky position. I don’t know what came before the video starts but it was clearly one Newlands did not expect but that Heydon thought was foreseeable. Newlands is trying to hide behind “I haven’t been instructed on that” but is having trouble because the client (or at least, the client’s representative) is in the room and can instruct him right now. Not being prepared in court is also disrespectful. At a rough guess, just the people you see in the video are costing somebody north of $10,000 per hour. You don’t show up for the big game, tell the coach you can’t play because you forgot your boots but that it’s not your fault. Particularly when the person standing behind you is holding your boots.