Advice Changes Lives... Without proper
advice you may lose the maximum compensation you are entitled to.
Allow us to guide you through this maze
Start Your
Compensation Claim Online NOW...
Contact Information
Which Personal Injury does
it concern?
Name
Telephone Number
E-mail
All Email Addresses and
Telephone Numbers are kept private and confidential and not used for any
other purpose
We will contact you within
24 working hours. Although ... Depending on the time of day it maybe, we may
contact you within 10 minutes.
Best Regards, The
Injury Lawyers Team
*******************************
Informative Articles on
Legal Help and Advice
***** o0o *****
The Different Types of Solicitors
By Wendy Hearn
If you find yourself in a legal fix, or in need of help with a legal
problem, hiring a solicitor to help you get through it is probably the
right solution. Even legal problems that seem very straight forward may
end up having wide reaching implications. Only a person who's been trained
to deal with these situations in a professional context can give you good
advice on how to deal with them. Since there are many different legal
problems you may find yourself in, there are just as many different types
of solicitors. Specialist solicitors will have expertise in a particular
area, but may not be as well trained in others. Here are some basics about
the various types of solicitors.
Criminal Justice Lawyer
Criminal Lawyer
Many every day situations require the advice of someone who knows what to
do when it comes to the law. For instance, the simple act of buying
property requires a solicitor to help things go easily. If you get a
traffic violation that you don't feel was your fault, you might consult
someone about what to do next, and property suits also require the help of
a solicitor.
High Street Solicitors
When you first discover that you're in need of legal help, you'll probably
consult with a high street solicitor. These are generalist solicitors who
are equally trained in many different aspects of the legal code. They'll
either be able to help you directly, or recommend a specialist for you to
visit.
Property Solicitors
A property solicitor or conveyancing solicitor is the person you'll go to
if you're putting in an offer for a flat or a house. This person will be
able to make sure that everything is happening legally, and that you'll
end up with the property. Your property solicitor can also help make
things go a little more quickly and easily.
Criminal Justice Lawyer
Criminal Lawyer
Divorce Solicitors
While everyone wants to believe that marriage is forever, often it's not.
When a divorce is needed, you'll want to contact a divorce solicitor for
help. This person can help you get the important legal matters worked out,
divide up property, and achieve a fair settlement.
Injury Solicitors
If you've been injured in a situation that wasn't your fault, and would
like to seek compensation, talking to an injury solicitor might help. You
can get advice on what to do, and, if needed, file a suit against the
individual or company that's responsible for your injury.
Tax Solicitors
Business owners will be familiar with this type of solicitor. They're
there to help you deal with your taxes, and they know all there is to know
about the complicated UK tax system. If you want to stay on the good side
of Inland Revenue, contact a tax solicitor.
Commercial Solicitors
Another business related type, commercial solicitors specialise in
business disputes, contract arrangements, and similar legal matters.
People who want to start their own business and aren't sure what legal
papers need to be filed, those who need to dispute the actions of another
business, and people who need to draw up a contract can all make use of a
commercial solicitor.
Employment Solicitors
These solicitors help work with employees and employers to settle
disputes. Unfair dismissal cases are an example.
If you're looking for solicitors in Milton Keynes you'll find many and
when choosing Milton Keynes solicitors, there are many great ones to
choose from.
5 Steps to Hiring a Personal Injury Lawyer
By Diana Joseph
If you have suffered due to an accident, you can file a personal injury
claim to recover compensation for your losses. However, the process for
filing a claim may require complicated legal formalities. Hiring a lawyer
will relieve you of unnecessary hassles and ensure that you win a good
claim.
Criminal Justice Lawyer
Criminal Lawyer
True, a lawyer may greatly increase your chance of winning your claim.
However, professional legal services do not come cheap. How can you make
the right choice while hiring a personal injury lawyer? Here are five
steps to follow:
1. Look for specialization. Law is a diverse field and competent lawyers
are often experts in their specific areas of specialization. For your
case, you need to look for a lawyer who has experience with personal
injury claims.
2. Rely on testimonials. While local Yellow Pages will carry a long
listing of lawyers, there is no way you can be sure about their
credentials. The best way to find out about good lawyers is through
references from people, such as your friends and colleagues. This way you
will get unbiased opinions that you can trust.
3. Get inside information. Once you have shortlisted a few names, try to
get more information from within their professional circle. This is what
you need to ask: are these lawyers well connected and do they have a
reputation for winning the cases they take up?
4. Fix up an interview. Once you have decided on a personal injury lawyer
to handle your case, fix up an appointment with him. Discuss your case
with him and ask him for an assessment.
5. Negotiate a 'no win, no fee' contract. Always insist on a 'no win no
fee' contract. According to this, your lawyer can recover his fees from
your opponent, subject to your winning the claim. This way you do not have
to pay money to win your legitimate compensation.
Criminal Justice Lawyer
Criminal Lawyer
Diana Joseph has an in-depth knowledge in dealing with injury claims. She
has written numerous articles on injury claims issues, particularly those
involving car accident and other topics of claims.
The content and materials provided in this
web site are for informational and educational purposes only and are not
intended to supplement or comprise any precise facts, although we have
researched sufficiently for the facts and information to be reasonably
accurate. All content and materials including research papers,
case studies and testimonials summarizing facts have been done by
individuals working for this website. We cannot be held responsible for
any inaccuracies, as we have described that information is for educational
purposes and therefore maybe a few weeks old.
It's impossible to know who lurks behind a funny
nickname
On the whole, I can't complain too much about the readers who respond to my
column online. The great majority present their argument in more or less
temperate terms. Most of them take issue with my point of view, which is how it
should be. Many support their case with helpful and relevant information. So
far, so civilised - the correct use of a blog. A minority express their
opposition by way of abuse, very personal remarks and hysterical ranting, but
I've had it far easier than many of my colleagues. I seriously considered suing
one commenter for libel; I would have won, and English law, for purposes of
libel litigation, allows the real identity behind an online pseudonym to be
discovered.
It is that anonymity that's at the hub of a debate and vote that takes place in
the European Parliament tomorrow. An Estonian MEP, Marianne Mikko, is worried
that a growing number of blogs are written with "malicious intentions or hidden
agendas". She proposes that bloggers identify themselves and declare any
interests they have in the issue they're writing about. Her concerns should be
taken seriously. We, the readers of blogs, do not, and normally cannot, know who
lurks behind the funny nickname. We need more information about the writers so
that we can decide how seriously to take their opinions. Has she a personal
stake in whatever it is under discussion? Does he belong to a dodgy or extreme
campaigning body? Is she the sister of the owner of the restaurant she's
recommending? Does he bear a personal grudge? We don't know.
Coincidentally, last week, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the world wide web,
confessed to his own worries about the way his invention was being used to
dispense disinformation, conspiracy theories (that 9/11 was the work of the US
government, for example) and harmful ideas. He particularly mentioned the
spreading of the rumours that the MMR vaccine risked leading to autism in
children. Also, he said, "the thinking of cults can spread very rapidly and
suddenly a cult which was 12 people who had some deep personal issues suddenly
finds a formula which is very believable ... which you can imagine spreading to
thousands of people and being deeply damaging." His solution - systems that
would give a website a label of trustworthiness once it had proved the
reliability of its sources - was less convincing.
For the moment, the advantages of allowing virtually unrestricted access to the
net outweigh the undoubted negatives mentioned by Mikko and Berners-Lee. But
what's also clear is that more and more participants are abusing that freedom,
whether as bloggers or on websites. We may soon have to consider devising
controls on entry, though what form they'll take is not easy to envisage. It is
possible that we will find out, in five or 10 or 20 years, that, in the
internet, we have created a monster we cannot tame, whose capacity for doing
harm exceeds any good it once brought.
Listening to the BBC World Service news bulletin the other night I was told that
a sheet of music written by "the composer Mozart" had been discovered in a
library in France. This upset me for a quite a while. Did they really need to
tell listeners that Mozart was a composer? (The serious press here and the BBC
home channels didn't.) Would there be anyone so ignorant of Mozart's calling as
to require an explanation? I gave the World Service the benefit of the doubt.
After all, a large proportion of its listenership comes from countries not
steeped in the European classical music tradition. Still, its listeners are
intelligent and knowledgeable - they have chosen to tune in to one of the
highest-quality stations in the world - and I would have thought that, for them,
the greatest of the great, whether in history or still living, and in whatever
field of endeavour they exhibited their supremacy, would require no descriptive
noun.
There are not all that many in that category: Mozart and Beethoven, Mandela,
Einstein, Muhammad Ali, Shakespeare, perhaps a few more. It may be that the
World Service has noticed a trend, veering towards greater ignorance, and is
right to label even Mozart. Such a trend may be universal. I'm depressingly
conscious that, as surveys continue to show, British youth's knowledge of
important historical events and characters is abysmal; if they have so little
idea who Winston Churchill was, can we expect them to know Mozart? And why
should the youth of other countries fare better? Perhaps, quite soon, references
in the serious media to all the great figures will have to be explained.
At least the World Service didn't describe him as the "famous composer Mozart".
When I worked for the Times some years ago, it was forbidden to describe someone
as the "famous" (or "celebrated" or "well-known") writer, composer or whatever.
If they are genuinely famous, there is no need for the adjective; if they're
not, the adjective is a lie. I remember too that, until quite recently, you
could tell from the wording of a London Evening Standard billboard whether or
not someone who had just died was truly well-known. If it proclaimed "Famous
actor dies" you knew you probably hadn't heard of the deceased. A really famous
person would have his or her name in the huge letters of the billboard: "Lord
Olivier dies". The adjective "famous" would have been regarded as patronising.
Courtesy:
* Marcel Berlins
* The Guardian,
* Wednesday September 24 2008
Big is not
necessarily better
Courtesy: Marcel Berlins, The Guardian, September 2008
It is not often that prison officers are in total agreement with the
probation, prison reform and civil liberties lobbies about the best
way of dealing with criminals. But there they were, among the 34
signatories to last week's passionate letter to the Guardian, which
included just about every organisation with expertise of the prison
system. They agreed on one important issue. The government's plan to
build three large "Titan" prisons - each catering for some 2,500
prisoners - will just not work.
Jack Straw's hasty decision to proceed with the Titans followed the
recommendation of Lord Carter, whose inquiry into the future of the
prison system was widely criticised for being superficial, and based
on insufficient evidence. The virtually unanimous condemnation of the
plan comes in two parts. There is no need for more prison places,
because already too many convicted criminals are being sent to prison
- a proposition that has been put to the government again and again
and has the support of almost every knowledgeable organisation. There
is no dispute that long terms of imprisonment are justified for
violent and sexual offenders, but prisons are full of inmates who are
neither, who have not committed the worst kind of crimes, and who are
often suffering from mental conditions that prison exacerbates.
But even if the government's argument is accepted that more prisons
may be required, Titans are emphatically not the answer. Large is
inefficient and potentially dangerous, experience in other countries
shows. If new prisons are to be built, they should be relatively small
and localised.
Coincidentally, last week also saw publication of a report by
Professor Rod Morgan, former chairman of the Youth Justice Board and
one of the country's most respected criminologists, pointing to the
twin drawbacks of the dramatic increase in the use of police cautions
as an alternative to sending low-level offenders to be tried in the
courts. The policy was well meant, aimed at dealing with petty
criminals as quickly and cheaply as possible. But the police have been
criticised for using the caution on the wrong people and
unnecessarily, to enable them more easily to meet their targets for
apprehending criminals.
Morgan points to two consequences of the overuse of cautions. First,
they are too often being dished out to deal with not just small-time
crime and criminals, but more serious offences, including assaults and
other violent and thuggish behaviour, which deserve to end up in
court. Secondly, minor offenders, especially youths, are being given
police cautions, which criminalises them, when their behaviour should
have been dealt with informally.
So, at one end of the sentencing and punishment spectrum, we're
imprisoning too many offenders who ought not to be there and should be
handled by non-custodial methods. At the other end, we're issuing
cautions to people who ought to be treated more severely in the courts
and to others who ought not to be brought into the criminal justice
system at all. What a mess.
Bryant didn't ask
legal advice about job, official says - Philadelphia Inquirer
During an interview for his job at
the School of Osteopathic Medicine, former State Sen. Wayne Bryant
promised to vet his employment with the nonpartisan agency that gives
legal advice to lawmakers, according to John Crosbie, the man who
interviewed ...
Asphalt plant leads
council to seek legal advice - Newport News-Times
Road & Driveway Company’s asphalt
production plant, located at the corner of Harney Street and Highway
20 in Newport, could relocate to Toledo if owner Bob Wienert
successfully navigates through the permitting process. Wienert has
filed legal ...
Former Iowa official
Mills defends role - Chicago Tribune
IOWA CITY, Iowa - Former University
of Iowa General Counsel Marc Mills says he didn't supervise a much
maligned sexual assault investigation involving two former University
of Iowa football players. According to documents released by the
University ...
ABBEVILLE — After discussing
possible changes to a proposed Wilcox County Land Use Plan for about
an hour Tuesday, Commissioners here decided to seek advise from their
attorney. County leaders including Commission Chairman Lee
Hollingsworth ...
Equity release? Only
as a last resort, says Which? - Guardian Unlimited
Pensioners struggling to make ends
meet should only release value from their home as "a last resort",
according to the consumer group Which? As living costs rise, equity
release schemes - which typically let you borrow money against the
value of your ...
We have a selection of case studies,
examples, comments and frequently asked questions on related 'Conveyancing
Quotes' and 'Conveyancing' subjects.
CONVEYANCING
QUESTION:
Distinguish between and "offer" and an "invitation to treat".
ANSWER:
The first requisite of any contract is an agreement (consisting of an
offer and acceptance). At least two parties are required; one of them, the
offeror, makes an offer which the other, the offeree, accepts.
An offer therefore is an expression of willingness or a communication of a
proposal which shows an intention that the maker shall become legally
bound.
An offer is very specific, qualified and certain.
Such an offer is different from what is known as an "invitation to treat",
in contrast it is merely a communication where a party is merely inviting
offers, which he is then free to accept or reject.
There are many instances where invitations to treat are misconstrued as
offers, perfectly illustrated in this case:
Partridge v Crittenden
In this case the defendant advertised in a newspaper `Framble finch cocks
and hens 25 shillings each''. Offering a wild bird for sale is contrary to
the Protection of Birds Act. It was construed that this advertisement was
an invitation to treat, not an offer in contractual terms, and he was
acquitted.
CONVEYANCING
****************
QUESTION:
The importance of the
High Trees Case is this: during the 19th Century the Courts of
Common Law had laid down strict rules of law expressed in archaic terms
such as Consideration and Estoppel.
The High Trees case
helped to narrow that gap. Ever since the decision was given it has been
the subject of controversy per Lord Denning’s ‘The Discipline of Law’
(P197).
Critically examined this
statement?
ANSWER:
The basis of Common Law
is set by PRECEDENT, tweaked if necessary by statute but on the whole is
based upon the setting precedent of a previous case.
Consideration is
considered to be an ACT done in exchange for an element within a contract
such as a promise; this is done to validate the existence of the promise.
Consideration, as in the
question has been set by precedents now over 400 years old and notably
considered to be archaic. Yet these very old principals are still upheld
in cases today. Whilst the precedent is archaic the fundamental principle
is still current. If we take a look at the main definitions of
Consideration and the cases that illustrate their principle we can confirm
that Common Law and their precedents are archaic but still used in
adjudication today. If this area of law remains enforceable then only the
precedent remains archaic.
QUOTE: “The law of
contract is based upon the law merchant which established the principle
that the reasonable expectations of businessmen will be upheld. So the
court’s approach to contract law appears to reflect business
requirements.” This quote would appear to confirm that the basis of
contract law is archaic as almost ancient principles are still quoted in
modern texts.
Perhaps with the passage
of time it would seem prudent to tweak the older style of contract law;
but the foundations are so deep, the complexities of modernisation would
be immense.
As we look at the basic
principles of Consideration and Estoppel, we can note that archaic
precedents still stand firm in our modern courts.
Definition of
consideration;
The rule that
consideration must move from the promisee;
Tweddle v Atkinson (1861)
In this particular case a
third party to the contract tried to sue. It was held that Tweddle Junior
(the 3rd party) wasn’t a party to the contract.
However, we see that
under a new statute ‘Contracts (Rights of a 3rd Party) Act
1999’ we see that the very archaic nature of Tweddle v Atkinson, although
illustrating the nature of consideration, has been updated to allow a 3rd
party to sue.
