What is the difference between enacting and promulgating? What's the difference between promulgate and enact?
The differences are subtle in practice today as a result of technologies like the Internet. Enact means (according to Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition (1979), hard copy): To establish by law; to perform or effect; to decree. The common introductory formula in making statutory laws is, "Be it enacted." Promulgate means (according to the same source): To publish; to announce officially; to make public as important or obligatory. The formal act of announcing a statute or rule of court. In the context of the U.S. legislative process, a law is enacted at the moment when it is signed by the President or Governor after being duly passed by the legislative branch (or when it is adopted by the legislative branch in a veto override). It is promulgated when the public act is published either in physical book form, or electronically, for example, in an online official government website containing the laws that were enacted. These days the time gap between enacting a law and promulgating it is a matter of minutes or hours. Historically, the gap would have been a matter of days or weeks. For example, in Colorado, the legislative session ends in the first few days of the month of May, with all laws passed during the session signed or vetoed by mid-May, but (subject to certain exceptions) laws passed in that session are generally effective on July 1 of the same year. This reflected the assumption of the people who drafted that part of the state constitution that it could typically take up to about four to six weeks to promulgate the laws enacted in the legislative session.
You say the permission was "public", therefore I am going to assume that it cannot be argued that there was no agreement. There are two possibilities: If Company B has given consideration for the promise then there is a binding contract and Company A may be able to end it but could not seek redress for when it was in place. If there is no contract then the principle of promissory estoppel should have essentially the same effect. An agreement, including an IP licence, does not have to be in writing nor does it have to have any particular form.
It sounds less like bribery (where you give someone a benefit in exchange for an official act) than like extortion (where you threaten some harm in the absence of an act).
Let's say the trustee runs into a situation where the beneficiary demands some action, and the trustee thinks this action is a really, really bad idea. Then the trustee can either say "no". Or the trustee can say "yes" and be liable (so if the action is a really bad idea then the trustee won't do this). The trustee can NOT say "yes if you sign this paper that I'm not liable for the result of this action", because the job of the trustee is to protect the beneficiary and he wouldn't be doing that.
Contracts don’t have to be in writing Generally, there are specific exemptions. For example, in some jurisdictions, copyright transfers have to be in writing. Written contracts do not have to take any particular form Again, in general, some specific contracts may need to be in particular forms or explicitly deal with particular matters. Writing doesn’t mean ink on paper Of course, ink on paper is “writing” but so is an email, a text message, a Facebook post, a photo, a comic book. In law, writing simply means a semi-permanent record. Signatures are not required Unless, of course, they are in the specific circumstances. Your examples The plumber’s promise is both binding and unnecessary - the plumber is responsible for his own negligent acts and omissions even without such an agreement. On the other hand, if you promised not to hold him responsible, that promise would be binding. The designer’s agreement to transfer copyright is binding even where such agreements must be in writing because it is in writing. See What is a contract and what is required for them to be valid?
Why the highly formalized language of "Now comes..."? "NOW COMES" is traditional ("Comes Now" is actually more common even though it is even more formal and awkward), a bit like "WHEREAS" in contracts. Modern legal writing disfavors this wording in the first sentence of a legal document and I usually omit it unless I know that the judge is very old fashioned. These days, when a lawyer is in front of a court in person, the lawyers starts to speak about something by saying "May it please the court" (another traditional phase emphasizing deference to the fact that the judge can throw you in jail if you are rude without a trial in a courtroom). But, people used to say, "NOW COMES" instead and that phrase stuck in written form. Why the seemingly random capitalization? The capitalization is not completely correct in your example. Some people have the bad habit of capitalizing every word that they think is important, which is not proper in English. (For what it is worth, in German, all nouns are capitalized.) Petitioner should be capitalized because it is being used as a proper noun in lieu of someone's name. Court should be capitalized here because the rule is that the word Court is capitalized when you are talking about the court that you are in, but in lower case when you are talking about another court's rulings. Enter was improperly capitalized. Petitions is improperly capitalized. (In general, probably as a residual of the fact that English is a Germanic language, verbs are almost never capitalized unless they are defined terms or are the first word in a sentence.) Order is capitalized when it refers to a particular order that already exists, but should be in lower case here when it is referring to an order that is being requested in the future.
Because one is theft and the other is breach of contract Theft is taking someone’s property with the intent of permanently depriving them of it. It has always been a crime, in fact, it’s a toss up whether theft or murder was the first crime ever. Not giving someone something you lawfully owe them but that they never possessed is not theft because it lacks the dispossession aspect required of theft. That’s simply failing to pay a debt and that is just breach of contract. Now, there was a time, back in the nineteenth century when not paying your debts would land you in debtors prison but society moved on. Now, there are jurisdictions (australia) which are considering making wage theft, the deliberate and systemic underpayment of workers a crime. Perhaps society is moving on again?
Everything In the sense that it means every single legal claim that a person could or might have over or in the thing. Specifically, ”right” means a legal right that can arise in all sorts of ways, ”title” means legal ownership and ”interest” means both of the above plus anything else that may be related to the thing no matter how remote or esoteric.