In English Law, official guidance can state &quot;minor&quot; matters exempt from a statutory requirement -- but on what authority? I just noticed an oddity in some legal guidance published by the UK Government. The Party Wall Act states that certain works are covered by its requirements, including the requirement to give notice. However in apparent contradiction, official guidance documentation from gov.uk and local councils universally states that quite a wide range of minor works would be considered "so minor" as to not require this provision to be complied with. On the face of it, the statute itself doesn't make any provision for any kind of "de minimis" exception. And yet, it's black-and-white stated in the official government-published guidance. Where does the authority for such a statement come from (its source or principle in law), and what is its standing in UK law (i.e., could it be relied on as a matter of law and if so on what basis)? I'm sure such a strong statement wouldn't be included in official guidance without some kind of legal standing/authority, but if so, what exactly is it and how far does the underlying legal principle stretch, which underpins this statement/exception?
The starting point of any analysis has to begin with asking what the scope of the Act's application is i.e. what acts fall under its remit and what does not. The question is whether Parliament intended the Act to apply to ANY alteration to the structure, or only a certain class of acts. Clearly it is not the former. With the latter then in mind, statements like that you pointed out merely acknowledge that the Party Wall Act does not cover every single conceivable alteration to a shared structure, as that statement has to be viewed in its entire context. You have left out the second half of the statement that stipulates the core principle of the Act, which is that the Act only imposes the req to serve notice only if, generally, the alteration would cause much structural change or damage. The de minimis threshold can be inferred from the list of activities covered under section 2. Notice that the general character of the listed activities envisage acts which are atypical (in the sense of just drilling holes etc.). This can also be inferred from Parliament's intent in its drafting of the Act as a whole. Also, it might just be common sense.
Negligent patent infringement is — obviously — not a criminal matter, and will only become one of civil nature if a proper patent infringement notice, pursuant to 35 U.S. Code § 287(b)(2), et seq., is duly served on the infringer, and the infringement continues thereafter. (Although even in the absence of it is not legal, but no action is enforceable without) Therefore, as a practical matter, they couldn't — unless one continues with infringing conduct duly served proper notice on unless the infringement is done knowingly and willfully. Additionally, &quot;non-obvious&quot; is a term of art; its case-law description gives broad discretion to patent examiners, supervisory patent examiners, the PTAB as well as the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court — as the case stands — to decide what is &quot;obvious&quot; and what isn't. For example, there is no case law defined upper limit of how many piece of prior art may be considered together when arguing they, combined, would make a system, method or computer program product obvious. The limitations on this generally require, for e.g, that the combination have an objective; in the absence thereof, an applicant may argue that it would not have been obvious. Lastly, it is not everywhere where there is no exception for private use; the U.S. has no such exception though.
Is a response to a N5B section 21 accelerated claim required to be given on the dedicated form N11B? YES. Assuming this refers to an accelerated possession claim on property let on an assured shorthold tenancy in England then Rule 55.14 Civil Procedure Rules applies: A defendant who wishes to – (a) oppose the claim; or (b) seek a postponement of possession in accordance with rule 55.18, must file his defence within 14 days after service of the claim form. (2) The defence should be in the form set out in Practice Direction 55A. Practice Direction 55A, at Rule 1.5, states: [...) The defence must be in form N11, N11B, N11M or N11R, as appropriate. The use of must is well established in British law as meaning a non-optional obligation (unlike should). It is not, as far as I can see, defined by statute so the courts' convention is to use the normal meaning of the word by reference to the Oxford English Dictionary. The recently revised free online version has limited availability but the previous version merged with Dictionary.com which offers these examples: 1 to be obliged or bound to by an imperative requirement 2 to be under the necessity to; need to The use of must in Rule 1.5, by my reading, trumps the use of should in Rule 55.14 but Alice might be able to argue this apparent contradictory terminology as to why her case for her defence is submitted by letter rather than the prescribed form. What happens with this letter when it is received by the court...what happens with the case more generally? Does it get listed for a hearing? Do the contents of her letter reach or get considered by the judge? All that would be a matter for the court to decide and could go either way: a judge has the inherent power to deal with matters in his own court as he sees fit (within the limits of the law etc).
Any written communication is generally admissible Subject to all the normal rules for admissibility of course. For texts between you and a third party the major issue that springs to mind is relevance. As in, how are they relevant to the dispute between you and this man? If they are not, your lawyer should have objected to them on this basis, however, its too late now. I'm curious as to how he obtained these and whether it was done legally or not. Illegality will not affect their admissibility as the exclusionary rule doesn't apply to civil matters, however, it does speak to the gentleman's character.
That would likely be treated as a preamble. These have been held in some jurisdictions to not have any weight. For example, see Sherbrooke Community Centre v. Service Employees International Union, 2002 SKQB 101: The preamble to a contract is nothing more than an introduction to that about which the parties have actually agreed. It puts the agreement into context. It describes the goals of the agreement. It speaks to what went before and the spirit in which agreement was achieved. On the other hand, it does not contain any promises. It does not contain any restrictions or commitments. It could be removed entirely without in any way altering that which was agreed to and set out in specific terms. [...] this clause in the preamble does not create or eliminate rights or obligations Granted, the introductory phrase in your hypothetical clause is not literally a preamble, but it has the same characteristics cited in the above decision: &quot;it describes the goals&quot;, &quot;it does not contain any promises&quot;, &quot;it could be removed entirely without in any way altering that which was agreed to&quot;. If you wanted the clause to only take effect if toilets overflowed, use an alternative wording, like: Company B may not resell any products purchased from Company A at a discounted price in a manner that causes toilets to overflow.
You are referring to article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 which contains: Article 9 List of mandatory particulars In accordance with Articles 10 to 35 and subject to the exceptions contained in this Chapter, indication of the following particulars shall be mandatory: (...) (l) a nutrition declaration. In a comment you clarify that you are talking about wine. Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 contains: Article 16 Omission of certain mandatory particulars (...) Without prejudice to other Union provisions requiring a list of ingredients or a mandatory nutrition declaration, the particulars referred to in points (b) and (l) of Article 9(1) shall not be mandatory for beverages containing more than 1,2 % by volume of alcohol. As wine contains typically more than 1,2 % alcohol, a nutrition declaration is not required. See also Labelling of alcoholic beverages in the EU: some facts.
There is no legal requirement for an Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreement in England and Wales to be witnessed. Signatories to the agreement are legally free to have it witnessed. Some people may prefer it to be witnessed.
united-states Is a personal text (like a diary), submitted without the consent of the author, admissible evidence? Usually, it is admissible evidence. There is no legal right to keep your diary private. Production of a diary may be compelled by subpoena and admitted into evidence subject only to general considerations regarding whether particular entries in the diary are inadmissible for some other reason (e.g. lack of relevance, they recite the contents of an otherwise privileged discussion, they contain hearsay, they recite the terms of a settlement offer, the recite inadmissible prior act evidence, etc.). If the diary revealed information that could place the diarist at risk of criminal prosecution, the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination could arguably be claimed even in a civil case, but at the risk of an adverse inference to be drawn from that decision in civil matters. I haven't ever seen how that issue is resolved legally.