Equivalent of the Austrian “bedingt” and “unbedingt” in English law What is the correct English legal translation of the words unbedingt and bedingt when referring to a court sentence? E.g.: Jemand wurde zu vier Monaten bedingt verurteilt. (Roughly: Sombeody was sentenced [bedingt] to four months.) I read this in reference to Austrian law; I’m not sure if it’s also applicable to Germany.
Bedingte Strafnachsicht (lit. conditional clemency) is an Austrian legal term, often referred to as bedingte (ant.: unbedingte) Strafe. Germans would call it auf Bewährung or ausgesetzt zur Bewährung. Details may differ, but the principle is the same. In legal English the whole concept is known as a suspended sentence.
(I am not your lawyer. I am not here to help you. If you are reading this because someone has died, please stop and instead read the Scottish Courts and Tribunals guide to dealing with a deceased's estate in Scotland, or contact a solicitor.) Yes, in general. Section 1 of the Wills Act 1963, which is in force in Scotland, specifies that "[a] will shall be treated as properly executed if its execution conformed to the internal law in force in the territory where it was executed." Furthermore, Section 4 states that "[t]he construction of a will shall not be altered by reason of any change in the testator’s domicile after the execution of the will." "Construction" here refers to interpreting the language and effect of the will. So if the will was validly executed in England, it should also be in force in Scotland, and a Scottish court will give it the same meaning it would have had under English law. Furthermore, the same rule of validity seems to apply in both England and Scotland: Wills Act 1837 section 9. There may be other Scottish laws affecting the disposition of the estate that differ from English law. Relevant statutes include Succession (Scotland) Act 1964, section 21A, which seems consistent with Wills Act 1963. (I am trained in U.S. rather than English or Scottish law; I'm trusting the accuracy of the UK's excellent online legislation archive for the proposition that the statutes cited are in force in Scotland. I haven't checked the case law for contrary interpretations.)
Here is an example: The Author agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the Journal and The University against any legal claim or action or expense of any nature arising from any claim of infringement of copyrights or proprietary rights resulting from publication of the manuscript or claims of libel, obscenity, unlawfulness or invasion of privacy arising out of anything contained in the manuscript as furnished by the Author. Suppose Author infringes the copyright of Jones, by copying large parts of it into Author's work. Author is now in legal trouble because he illegally copied stuff into his manuscript, but Journal is also in big (bigger) legal trouble, because it made many copies of Jones' word and sold them. Jones will now sue everybody, mostly the Journal (since Journal has money, and Author doesn't). Thanks to the indemnity clause, when Journal gets sued, all of the costs (of litigation and judgment) have to be born by Author. The primary purpose is to protect Journal from suits by third parties. Nothing can keep you from getting sued, but such a clause (theoretically) means that the person whom your contracting with has to cover the cost of his wrong-doing (assuming that he is not a turnip). The term "hold harmless" is there to guarantee that Author can't decide to sue Journal for publishing a libelous or infringing article. The functions are similar, but not totally the same: this and references therein could be interesting reading, by way of more details. He argues against using both terms, and instead you should use only "indemnify". In this case, the court said "When two words are used in a contract, the rule of construction is that the words have different meanings", which caused the court to assign distinct meanings to the words (which are typically used as though they mean the same thing), which doesn't seem to have been the original intent.
There is no legislation in Germany that explicitly states how long you have to wait in such a situation. First let's look what happened: According to your work contract, you are obligated to be available for work and follow the directions of your employer. Let's not go into nuances of the latter duty, because they depend on what type of work you are doing. Your employer is obligated to pay you if you fulfill your duties. What happened is called Annahmeverzug (default of acceptance) in German civil law (§ 615 BGB): Kommt der Dienstberechtigte mit der Annahme der Dienste in Verzug, so kann der Verpflichtete für die infolge des Verzugs nicht geleisteten Dienste die vereinbarte Vergütung verlangen, ohne zur Nachleistung verpflichtet zu sein. Er muss sich jedoch den Wert desjenigen anrechnen lassen, was er infolge des Unterbleibens der Dienstleistung erspart oder durch anderweitige Verwendung seiner Dienste erwirbt oder zu erwerben böswillig unterlässt. … English translation: If the person entitled to services is in default in accepting the services, then the party owing the services may demand the agreed remuneration for the services not rendered as the result of the default without being obliged to provide cure. However, he must allow to be credited against him what he saves as a result of not performing the services or acquires or wilfully fails to acquire through use of his employment elsewhere. … If your employer doesn't enable you to work, they have to pay you for your time. You don't have to make up that time. If you save money by not working or had the opportunity to earn money by other means1 during that time, this can be deducted from your pay. Now, the question is how you fulfill your duty of being available for work. This depends on the specifics and really can only be answered by a lawyer or court (and IANAL). You do not need to endure hardships but have to accept reasonable inconveniences. Thus, you can leave if waiting becomes more than an inconvenience (usually that will be caused by weather or by bodily functions). If you leave, you should still be available for work unless that becomes unreasonable, e.g., because you could use that time to earn money by other means. 1 Usually, it can be safely assumed that you don't have that opportunity. However, a daytaler might easily have that opportunity.
In the US, the details are determined at the state level. The term "abandonment" is used very broadly, and can include a situation where a parent leaves a child without making contact for a period of time (which may result in termination of parental rights, but not a punishment). "Abandonment" as it applies in Washington state is explained here. There is what is known as a "safe haven" law, which allows a newborn (under 72 hours old) to be transferred (anonymously) to a qualified recipient (health care employee, medic, etc.), and not be liable under the criminal laws. This does not include dumping the infant in the snow. Under RCW 9A.42.020, the parent would be guilty of criminal mistreatment in the first degree if their action "causes great bodily harm to a child or dependent person by withholding any of the basic necessities of life" (note that the law is not specific to children), and this is a class B felony. There are multiple grades of mistreatment, so if the action "creates an imminent and substantial risk of bodily injury" or "causes bodily injury or extreme emotional distress manifested by more than transient physical symptoms", this is 4th degree mistreatment, which is a misdemeanor. There are, in parallel fashion, laws against abandonment of a dependent starting at RCW 9A.42.060, punished as a class B felony down to a gross misdemeanor. The maximum penalty for a class B felony is $20,000 and 10 years in prison, and for a simple misdemeanor it is 90 days and $1,000. In case death results, the discussion could move to the homicide statutes. Homicide by abuse is when, with extreme indifference to human life, the person causes the death of a child or person under sixteen years of age, a developmentally disabled person, or a dependent adult, and the person has previously engaged in a pattern or practice of assault or torture of said child, person under sixteen years of age, developmentally disabled person, or dependent person. and this is a class A felony. If a person "recklessly causes the death of another person", this is manslaughter in the first degree (class A felony), but if it is "with criminal negligence", it is manslaughter in the second degree (a class B felony). Manslaughter charges are predicated on there not being an intent to kill. If the intent was to actually kill the child, this would be first degree homicide, where the punishment is life imprisonment. Additionally, first degree homicide can be found if "under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life, he or she engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to any person, and thereby causes the death of a person". State v. Edwards is a relevant case, where a person was charged with both second degree murder and homicide by abuse, and the issue came up that "extreme indifference to human life" is not a self-evident expression. It turns out that case law in Washington interprets this, as applied to first degree murder, as meaning "indifference to human life in general", not "indifference to the life of the specific victim". After a lengthy review of principles of judicial interpretation, the court upheld the trial court's refusal to give the first-degree murder definition of indifference, that is, it is up the the jury to decide what constitutes extreme indifference, for homicides other than 1st degree murder.
English common law has centuries of experience on this issue, and has developed some settled principles that are applied by the courts. Prior to 1925, references in contracts to months were interpreted as lunar months. There are 13 lunar months in a year. By section 61 of the Law of Property Act 1925, references in contracts to months are to be interpreted as calendar months, unless the context otherwise requires. Calendar months are counted from a specified date. It is not necessary to consider the period from the 1st of a month to, say, 31st (unless the notice period starts on 1st of a month). This contrasts with the usual understanding of calendar year, which tends to be thought of as the period from 1st January to 31st December. The “corresponding date rule” requires that one looks at the same date in the diary the relevant number of months ahead. Thus a period of 3 months from 20th April expires on 20th July. In the case of Dodds v Walker [1980] 1 WLR 1061, in the Court of Appeal, Templeman LJ said: "…if an act is authorised to be performed on any arbitrary day in any month of the year, then one month elapses on the corresponding day of the next month, provided that the day of the act itself is excluded from computation." In the same case, in the House of Lords, Lord Diplock said: "The corresponding date rule is simple. It is easy of application. …all that the calculator has to do is make in his diary the corresponding date in the appropriate subsequent month." In the same case, Templeman LJ clarified that if the period expired on a date that did not exist in a particular month (eg 31st February), then the period would expire on the last day of that month. Source
There is no such thing as &quot;EU&quot; law. Each member state has their own laws. In germany it is not forbidden to live together. The marriage certainly would not be legal here and I highly doubt the marriage would be recognized here if legalized somewhere else. But let's for the sake of the argument assume it would be. As soon as it gets into territory that marriage is made for, it would be highly illegal. Moving to a different country from Asia, the minor is highly dependent on their adult spouse for basically everything. Starting with mandatory health insurance, where you literally have to check the box &quot;a dependent of the adult&quot; in the adults insurance, to basic needs such as food, shelter, clothes, paying for school materials. Even in theory, with school being mandatory and laws against child labor, there is no way the child would not be depending on that adult. § 174 Abs. 1 StGB Sex mit Schutzbefohlenen (Personen unter 16 Jahren, die jemandem zur Erziehung, Ausbildung oder zur Betreuung in der Lebensführung anvertraut sind bzw. leibliche oder angenommene Kinder unter 18 Jahren) und Sex unter Missbrauch eines Abhängigkeitsverhältnisses ist verboten und wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu 5 Jahren bestraft. Translation: Sex with a protected person (a person under the age of 16 who is entrusted to someone for upbringing, education or persons under the age of 16 who are entrusted to the care of someone for upbringing, education, or life care, or natural or adopted children under the age of 18) and sex in abuse of a relationship of dependence in general is prohibited and is punishable by imprisonment for up to 5 years. That is if they agreed. If they don't, it's rape, plain and simple, regardless of marital status or other relationship and will, depending on circumstances, net you something between the 5 years above up to 15 years in prison. The difference between raping a spouse and raping someone outside of marriage has been abolished in 1997.
The saying &quot;non omne quod licet honestum est&quot; refers to dishonesty that is not punishable by law. Laws purportedly prohibits or penalizes only the dishonesty which tends to --or does-- disrupt peace and order. An example of legally harmless dishonesty is a scenario where you tell your neighbor his story is entertaining even though you think it is boring. By contrast, perjury is an example of harmful and punishable dishonesty because it tends to hinder the ascertainment of the truth and consequently the administration of justice. The meaning of &quot;Male nostro iure uti non debemus&quot; is that one should refrain from abusing his rights. Strictly speaking, the expression contradicts itself since abuse and right have opposite connotations: One's exercise of his right implies that he has not exceeded the scope thereof, whence it cannot be said that the person abused his right. In reality the expression refers to a person's acts or conduct which knowingly depart from the purpose for which the right was devised. The element of &quot;knowingly&quot; implies person's dishonesty insofar as he made an illegitimate use of his right. Note that two or more of the phrases you list have misspellings or are incomplete, which might be preventing you from finding their meaning. For instance, &quot;uti&quot; is missing in your post. Also the first phrase should read generationes, not generations.