Can someone help me with thisWatch
My gut feeling on this is that as the contract that the first dealership was with John only they can only take action against John for breach, James is divorced from that agreement and had no way of knowing that the car had not been paid for by the first buyer and he was not a party to that agreement, like I said, that's just a feeling which could be wrong. I would if I were you go over the lectures on this module again because the foundation for answering these sorts of question is usually found within them.
Hate to be a pain but could anyone possibly throw some ideas at me/pointers for an essay im writing.
The jury, in determining whether an individual has acted dishonestly for (in relation to theft), should firstly consider whether the individual has acted dishonestly by the standards of "ordinary and honest" people
-if they find he has, then
they need to consider whether the individual himself must have realised what he was doing was by those standards- dishonest.”
Is this accurate in regards to the state of the law today? Should this be the case?
Thanks a lot either way.