One company sues another company seeking damages for breach…
One company sues another company seeking damages for breach of contract under the common law. The defendant answers the complaint, denies any breach, and asserts a defense that has never before recognized as part of contract law. The defense is based on facts evidencing the plaintiff’s unethical conduct in the transaction and would result in a dismissal of the contract action if those facts were proven at trial. After considering the motions both parties filed on the legal issue of whether to allow such a defense to a contract, the court determines to permit the defense. The judge justifies its decision to allow the defense because: (1) the consistent custom of the business community has long acknowledged the facts alleged as an unethical business practice and has sought to deter it, (2) other courts in their opinions have allowed the defense based on the same bad conduct in other areas of law (outside of contract law), and (3) the consequences of allowing the defense would further the purpose of contract law by encouraging fairness in business transactions. Per the order listed above, the types of legal argument that the court used to justify its decision are:
One company sues another company seeking damages for breach…
Questions
One cоmpаny sues аnоther cоmpаny seeking damages for breach of contract under the common law. The defendant answers the complaint, denies any breach, and asserts a defense that has never before recognized as part of contract law. The defense is based on facts evidencing the plaintiff’s unethical conduct in the transaction and would result in a dismissal of the contract action if those facts were proven at trial. After considering the motions both parties filed on the legal issue of whether to allow such a defense to a contract, the court determines to permit the defense. The judge justifies its decision to allow the defense because: (1) the consistent custom of the business community has long acknowledged the facts alleged as an unethical business practice and has sought to deter it, (2) other courts in their opinions have allowed the defense based on the same bad conduct in other areas of law (outside of contract law), and (3) the consequences of allowing the defense would further the purpose of contract law by encouraging fairness in business transactions. Per the order listed above, the types of legal argument that the court used to justify its decision are:
One cоmpаny sues аnоther cоmpаny seeking damages for breach of contract under the common law. The defendant answers the complaint, denies any breach, and asserts a defense that has never before recognized as part of contract law. The defense is based on facts evidencing the plaintiff’s unethical conduct in the transaction and would result in a dismissal of the contract action if those facts were proven at trial. After considering the motions both parties filed on the legal issue of whether to allow such a defense to a contract, the court determines to permit the defense. The judge justifies its decision to allow the defense because: (1) the consistent custom of the business community has long acknowledged the facts alleged as an unethical business practice and has sought to deter it, (2) other courts in their opinions have allowed the defense based on the same bad conduct in other areas of law (outside of contract law), and (3) the consequences of allowing the defense would further the purpose of contract law by encouraging fairness in business transactions. Per the order listed above, the types of legal argument that the court used to justify its decision are:
One cоmpаny sues аnоther cоmpаny seeking damages for breach of contract under the common law. The defendant answers the complaint, denies any breach, and asserts a defense that has never before recognized as part of contract law. The defense is based on facts evidencing the plaintiff’s unethical conduct in the transaction and would result in a dismissal of the contract action if those facts were proven at trial. After considering the motions both parties filed on the legal issue of whether to allow such a defense to a contract, the court determines to permit the defense. The judge justifies its decision to allow the defense because: (1) the consistent custom of the business community has long acknowledged the facts alleged as an unethical business practice and has sought to deter it, (2) other courts in their opinions have allowed the defense based on the same bad conduct in other areas of law (outside of contract law), and (3) the consequences of allowing the defense would further the purpose of contract law by encouraging fairness in business transactions. Per the order listed above, the types of legal argument that the court used to justify its decision are:
One cоmpаny sues аnоther cоmpаny seeking damages for breach of contract under the common law. The defendant answers the complaint, denies any breach, and asserts a defense that has never before recognized as part of contract law. The defense is based on facts evidencing the plaintiff’s unethical conduct in the transaction and would result in a dismissal of the contract action if those facts were proven at trial. After considering the motions both parties filed on the legal issue of whether to allow such a defense to a contract, the court determines to permit the defense. The judge justifies its decision to allow the defense because: (1) the consistent custom of the business community has long acknowledged the facts alleged as an unethical business practice and has sought to deter it, (2) other courts in their opinions have allowed the defense based on the same bad conduct in other areas of law (outside of contract law), and (3) the consequences of allowing the defense would further the purpose of contract law by encouraging fairness in business transactions. Per the order listed above, the types of legal argument that the court used to justify its decision are:
One cоmpаny sues аnоther cоmpаny seeking damages for breach of contract under the common law. The defendant answers the complaint, denies any breach, and asserts a defense that has never before recognized as part of contract law. The defense is based on facts evidencing the plaintiff’s unethical conduct in the transaction and would result in a dismissal of the contract action if those facts were proven at trial. After considering the motions both parties filed on the legal issue of whether to allow such a defense to a contract, the court determines to permit the defense. The judge justifies its decision to allow the defense because: (1) the consistent custom of the business community has long acknowledged the facts alleged as an unethical business practice and has sought to deter it, (2) other courts in their opinions have allowed the defense based on the same bad conduct in other areas of law (outside of contract law), and (3) the consequences of allowing the defense would further the purpose of contract law by encouraging fairness in business transactions. Per the order listed above, the types of legal argument that the court used to justify its decision are:
One cоmpаny sues аnоther cоmpаny seeking damages for breach of contract under the common law. The defendant answers the complaint, denies any breach, and asserts a defense that has never before recognized as part of contract law. The defense is based on facts evidencing the plaintiff’s unethical conduct in the transaction and would result in a dismissal of the contract action if those facts were proven at trial. After considering the motions both parties filed on the legal issue of whether to allow such a defense to a contract, the court determines to permit the defense. The judge justifies its decision to allow the defense because: (1) the consistent custom of the business community has long acknowledged the facts alleged as an unethical business practice and has sought to deter it, (2) other courts in their opinions have allowed the defense based on the same bad conduct in other areas of law (outside of contract law), and (3) the consequences of allowing the defense would further the purpose of contract law by encouraging fairness in business transactions. Per the order listed above, the types of legal argument that the court used to justify its decision are:
One cоmpаny sues аnоther cоmpаny seeking damages for breach of contract under the common law. The defendant answers the complaint, denies any breach, and asserts a defense that has never before recognized as part of contract law. The defense is based on facts evidencing the plaintiff’s unethical conduct in the transaction and would result in a dismissal of the contract action if those facts were proven at trial. After considering the motions both parties filed on the legal issue of whether to allow such a defense to a contract, the court determines to permit the defense. The judge justifies its decision to allow the defense because: (1) the consistent custom of the business community has long acknowledged the facts alleged as an unethical business practice and has sought to deter it, (2) other courts in their opinions have allowed the defense based on the same bad conduct in other areas of law (outside of contract law), and (3) the consequences of allowing the defense would further the purpose of contract law by encouraging fairness in business transactions. Per the order listed above, the types of legal argument that the court used to justify its decision are:
One cоmpаny sues аnоther cоmpаny seeking damages for breach of contract under the common law. The defendant answers the complaint, denies any breach, and asserts a defense that has never before recognized as part of contract law. The defense is based on facts evidencing the plaintiff’s unethical conduct in the transaction and would result in a dismissal of the contract action if those facts were proven at trial. After considering the motions both parties filed on the legal issue of whether to allow such a defense to a contract, the court determines to permit the defense. The judge justifies its decision to allow the defense because: (1) the consistent custom of the business community has long acknowledged the facts alleged as an unethical business practice and has sought to deter it, (2) other courts in their opinions have allowed the defense based on the same bad conduct in other areas of law (outside of contract law), and (3) the consequences of allowing the defense would further the purpose of contract law by encouraging fairness in business transactions. Per the order listed above, the types of legal argument that the court used to justify its decision are:
One cоmpаny sues аnоther cоmpаny seeking damages for breach of contract under the common law. The defendant answers the complaint, denies any breach, and asserts a defense that has never before recognized as part of contract law. The defense is based on facts evidencing the plaintiff’s unethical conduct in the transaction and would result in a dismissal of the contract action if those facts were proven at trial. After considering the motions both parties filed on the legal issue of whether to allow such a defense to a contract, the court determines to permit the defense. The judge justifies its decision to allow the defense because: (1) the consistent custom of the business community has long acknowledged the facts alleged as an unethical business practice and has sought to deter it, (2) other courts in their opinions have allowed the defense based on the same bad conduct in other areas of law (outside of contract law), and (3) the consequences of allowing the defense would further the purpose of contract law by encouraging fairness in business transactions. Per the order listed above, the types of legal argument that the court used to justify its decision are:
One cоmpаny sues аnоther cоmpаny seeking damages for breach of contract under the common law. The defendant answers the complaint, denies any breach, and asserts a defense that has never before recognized as part of contract law. The defense is based on facts evidencing the plaintiff’s unethical conduct in the transaction and would result in a dismissal of the contract action if those facts were proven at trial. After considering the motions both parties filed on the legal issue of whether to allow such a defense to a contract, the court determines to permit the defense. The judge justifies its decision to allow the defense because: (1) the consistent custom of the business community has long acknowledged the facts alleged as an unethical business practice and has sought to deter it, (2) other courts in their opinions have allowed the defense based on the same bad conduct in other areas of law (outside of contract law), and (3) the consequences of allowing the defense would further the purpose of contract law by encouraging fairness in business transactions. Per the order listed above, the types of legal argument that the court used to justify its decision are:
One cоmpаny sues аnоther cоmpаny seeking damages for breach of contract under the common law. The defendant answers the complaint, denies any breach, and asserts a defense that has never before recognized as part of contract law. The defense is based on facts evidencing the plaintiff’s unethical conduct in the transaction and would result in a dismissal of the contract action if those facts were proven at trial. After considering the motions both parties filed on the legal issue of whether to allow such a defense to a contract, the court determines to permit the defense. The judge justifies its decision to allow the defense because: (1) the consistent custom of the business community has long acknowledged the facts alleged as an unethical business practice and has sought to deter it, (2) other courts in their opinions have allowed the defense based on the same bad conduct in other areas of law (outside of contract law), and (3) the consequences of allowing the defense would further the purpose of contract law by encouraging fairness in business transactions. Per the order listed above, the types of legal argument that the court used to justify its decision are:
One cоmpаny sues аnоther cоmpаny seeking damages for breach of contract under the common law. The defendant answers the complaint, denies any breach, and asserts a defense that has never before recognized as part of contract law. The defense is based on facts evidencing the plaintiff’s unethical conduct in the transaction and would result in a dismissal of the contract action if those facts were proven at trial. After considering the motions both parties filed on the legal issue of whether to allow such a defense to a contract, the court determines to permit the defense. The judge justifies its decision to allow the defense because: (1) the consistent custom of the business community has long acknowledged the facts alleged as an unethical business practice and has sought to deter it, (2) other courts in their opinions have allowed the defense based on the same bad conduct in other areas of law (outside of contract law), and (3) the consequences of allowing the defense would further the purpose of contract law by encouraging fairness in business transactions. Per the order listed above, the types of legal argument that the court used to justify its decision are:
One cоmpаny sues аnоther cоmpаny seeking damages for breach of contract under the common law. The defendant answers the complaint, denies any breach, and asserts a defense that has never before recognized as part of contract law. The defense is based on facts evidencing the plaintiff’s unethical conduct in the transaction and would result in a dismissal of the contract action if those facts were proven at trial. After considering the motions both parties filed on the legal issue of whether to allow such a defense to a contract, the court determines to permit the defense. The judge justifies its decision to allow the defense because: (1) the consistent custom of the business community has long acknowledged the facts alleged as an unethical business practice and has sought to deter it, (2) other courts in their opinions have allowed the defense based on the same bad conduct in other areas of law (outside of contract law), and (3) the consequences of allowing the defense would further the purpose of contract law by encouraging fairness in business transactions. Per the order listed above, the types of legal argument that the court used to justify its decision are:
One cоmpаny sues аnоther cоmpаny seeking damages for breach of contract under the common law. The defendant answers the complaint, denies any breach, and asserts a defense that has never before recognized as part of contract law. The defense is based on facts evidencing the plaintiff’s unethical conduct in the transaction and would result in a dismissal of the contract action if those facts were proven at trial. After considering the motions both parties filed on the legal issue of whether to allow such a defense to a contract, the court determines to permit the defense. The judge justifies its decision to allow the defense because: (1) the consistent custom of the business community has long acknowledged the facts alleged as an unethical business practice and has sought to deter it, (2) other courts in their opinions have allowed the defense based on the same bad conduct in other areas of law (outside of contract law), and (3) the consequences of allowing the defense would further the purpose of contract law by encouraging fairness in business transactions. Per the order listed above, the types of legal argument that the court used to justify its decision are:
One cоmpаny sues аnоther cоmpаny seeking damages for breach of contract under the common law. The defendant answers the complaint, denies any breach, and asserts a defense that has never before recognized as part of contract law. The defense is based on facts evidencing the plaintiff’s unethical conduct in the transaction and would result in a dismissal of the contract action if those facts were proven at trial. After considering the motions both parties filed on the legal issue of whether to allow such a defense to a contract, the court determines to permit the defense. The judge justifies its decision to allow the defense because: (1) the consistent custom of the business community has long acknowledged the facts alleged as an unethical business practice and has sought to deter it, (2) other courts in their opinions have allowed the defense based on the same bad conduct in other areas of law (outside of contract law), and (3) the consequences of allowing the defense would further the purpose of contract law by encouraging fairness in business transactions. Per the order listed above, the types of legal argument that the court used to justify its decision are:
One cоmpаny sues аnоther cоmpаny seeking damages for breach of contract under the common law. The defendant answers the complaint, denies any breach, and asserts a defense that has never before recognized as part of contract law. The defense is based on facts evidencing the plaintiff’s unethical conduct in the transaction and would result in a dismissal of the contract action if those facts were proven at trial. After considering the motions both parties filed on the legal issue of whether to allow such a defense to a contract, the court determines to permit the defense. The judge justifies its decision to allow the defense because: (1) the consistent custom of the business community has long acknowledged the facts alleged as an unethical business practice and has sought to deter it, (2) other courts in their opinions have allowed the defense based on the same bad conduct in other areas of law (outside of contract law), and (3) the consequences of allowing the defense would further the purpose of contract law by encouraging fairness in business transactions. Per the order listed above, the types of legal argument that the court used to justify its decision are:
One cоmpаny sues аnоther cоmpаny seeking damages for breach of contract under the common law. The defendant answers the complaint, denies any breach, and asserts a defense that has never before recognized as part of contract law. The defense is based on facts evidencing the plaintiff’s unethical conduct in the transaction and would result in a dismissal of the contract action if those facts were proven at trial. After considering the motions both parties filed on the legal issue of whether to allow such a defense to a contract, the court determines to permit the defense. The judge justifies its decision to allow the defense because: (1) the consistent custom of the business community has long acknowledged the facts alleged as an unethical business practice and has sought to deter it, (2) other courts in their opinions have allowed the defense based on the same bad conduct in other areas of law (outside of contract law), and (3) the consequences of allowing the defense would further the purpose of contract law by encouraging fairness in business transactions. Per the order listed above, the types of legal argument that the court used to justify its decision are:
Dаting with the Timescаle: When yоu use the timescаle, yоu are use relative and absоlute dates. For example, if you say that the first dinosaurs appeared in the Triassic period you are using relative time, but if you use give the date in 199.6 -145.6 MYA (millions of years) you are using absolute dates. So how can scientist obtain absolute dates for organism that have been deceased and fossilized for millions of years? They do this by measuring the amount of radioactive isotope in the rocks surrounding the fossils. This is called radiometric dating. Watch this video to see how radioactive dating is done: Carbon-14 Dating (For fossils older than carbon’s half-life will last, we can use other radioactive isotopes) Fossils: Fossils are traces of organisms that lived in the past. When fossils are found, they are analyzed to determine the age of the fossil. The absolute age of the fossil can be determined though radiometric dating and determining the layer of rock in which the fossil was found. Older layers are found deeper within the earth than newer layers. The age and morphologies (appearances) of fossils can be used to place fossils in sequences that often show patterns of changes that have occurred over time. This relationship can be depicted in an evolutionary tree, also known as a phylogenetic tree. The modern horse's larger size compared to its early ancestors is primarily the result of natural selection favoring traits that enhanced survival and efficiency in changing environments. As forests gave way to open grasslands, larger horses with longer legs could run faster to escape predators and cover more ground for grazing. Evolutionary adaptations supporting this increased size include skeletal changes like fused leg bones and single-toed hooves for efficient running, enlarged teeth for grinding tough grasses, and digestive system modifications such as an enlarged cecum for fermenting plant material. Cardiovascular and respiratory improvements, including a larger heart and increased lung capacity, support the energy demands of a bigger body. These adaptations collectively allowed horses to process more fibrous plant material efficiently, move swiftly across open terrain, and better defend against predators, all contributing to the success of larger body sizes in their evolving habitat. Screen Shot 2022-03-08 at 9.49.50 AM.pngFigure 2: Evolutionary history of the horse as told by the fossil record. CC BY NC SA Activity: Analyze the fossils below which belong to the modern-day horse, Equus, and its ancestors. Answer the questions.