0
I'm not an attorney, but a contract goes into effect upon acceptance (plus, of course, proper notice to the offeror that the offeree has accepted the contract). Therefore, if a contract is declared void ab initio, that means it never existed (ergo, it rolls matters back to the point before acceptance). Thus, I would say it is not an enforceable promise. BUT I'm not an attorney... this is just my understanding of the law.
What else can I help you with?
What two types of precedent are there in doctrine of precedent?
binding(mandatory) precedent persuasive precedent
Who did the Mughal emperor set the precedent of being tolerant toward other religions?
The Mughal emperor Akbar is known for setting the precedent of being tolerant toward other religions. He promoted a policy of religious tolerance and integration, encouraging dialogue and acceptance among different faiths within the Mughal Empire.
An appeal to precedent is a type of?
an appeal to precedent is a type of an appeal to precedent is a type of
To what extent are precedent are binding or not binding?
it depends on how old the precedent is, how closely related is it to the case you are looking at and the difference between your precedent and crown/defense lawyer's precedent
Should you say set a precedence or precedent?
precedent
What term describes a ruling in an earlier legal case that is similar to a current case?
Precedent
What does it mean when a judge uses precedent to arrive at an opinion?
precedent
What types of precedent are there in the Doctrine of Precedent?
In the Doctrine of Precedent, there are primarily two types of precedent: binding precedent and persuasive precedent. Binding precedent refers to decisions made by higher courts that must be followed by lower courts within the same jurisdiction. Persuasive precedent, on the other hand, includes rulings from lower courts, courts in other jurisdictions, or obiter dicta, which are not obligatory but can influence a court's decision. These distinctions help maintain consistency and provide guidance in legal decision-making.
John Tyler's precedent?
William Henry Harrison died a month into his presidency, and so the vice president at the time, John Tyler, was sworn into office. This was the first time this had happened in US history, so he set the precedent. This is what we call John Tyler's precedent--having the vice president become the president in the event of the current president's death. Many years later in the 1960's, this precedent became doubtlessly constitutional with the ratification of the 25th amendment which basically sets the standards for succession to the Presidency and establishes procedures both for filling a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, as well as responding to Presidential disabilities.
How do you put precedent into a sentence?
This to a large extent sets a precedent for the rest of the exhibition
What is something done or said that becomes an example for others to follow?
Precedent
How do the laws differ from law?
Here, by the plural " laws" I assume that you mean the various, individual laws embodied in the forms of law, e.g., codes rules, regulations, and case law. The broader "law" on the other hand is the combination of all "laws" - it is the enforceable governmental norm that is always valid. "Code" (or statute) for example, is one source of law, and the various code provisions may be called "laws." Other "laws" in the United States are found in regulations (rules passed in response to code by administrative agencies, e.g., through notice and comment), and binding judicial precedent ("case law"). There's also the law that comes from the nation's founding document, like the United States Constitution. In practice, there is little difference between these sources of law. All of them can be binding and enforceable. However, there's also a hierarchy of the sources of law, which can change exactly how enforceable each one is. For example, the United States Code cannot overturn anything in the United States Constitution, and Agency Rules and Regulations cannot change anything in the United States Code. Finally, judicial precedent only seeks to clarify the impact and meaning of the Constitution, Code, and Regulations, and cannot change the Code itself unless it violates the Constitution, or the Regulations unless they violate the Code. The essential difference between "laws" and "law" then, is that "the law" is always valid and enforceable, whereas individual "laws" might be INVALID or UNENFORCEABLE (e.g., if a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional).
