COVENANT (Canon - Law)

Question 1

δῐᾰθήκη

Answer 1

COVENANT - WILL

δῐᾰθήκη • (diathḗkē) f (genitive δῐᾰθήκης); first declension
Noun
testament, will (legal document)
covenant.

Question 2

συγγρᾰφοδῐᾰθήκη

Answer 2

CONTRACT

συγγρᾰφοδῐᾰθήκη • (sungraphodiathḗkē) f (genitive συγγρᾰφοδῐᾰθήκης); first declension
Noun
A contract with marriage settlement.

From συγγραφή (“writing down”) +‎ διαθήκη ( “contract”).

συγγραφή • (sungraphḗ) f (genitive συγγραφῆς); first declension
Non
writing or noting down
writing, book, especially in prose
mark in the eye.
From συγγράφω +‎ -η
-η  (forms action nouns from verbs)

Question 3

Lex loci delicti commissi

Answer 3

The lex loci delicti commissi is the Latin term for “law of the place where the delict [tort] was committed”[1] in the conflict of laws.

Question 4

Choice of Law

Answer 4

Choice of law is a procedural stage in the litigation of a case involving the conflict of laws when it is necessary to reconcile the differences between the laws of different legal jurisdictions, such as sovereign states, federated states (as in the US), or provinces. The outcome of this process is potentially to require the courts of one jurisdiction to apply the law of a different jurisdiction in lawsuits arising from, say, family law, tort or contract. The law which is applied is sometimes referred to as the “proper law.”

Question 5

Forum non conveniens

Answer 5

Forum non conveniens (Latin for “forum not agreeing”) (FNC) is a (mostly) common law legal doctrine whereby courts may refuse to take jurisdiction over matters where there is a more appropriate forum available to the parties. As a doctrine of the conflict of laws, forum non conveniens applies between courts in different countries and between courts in different jurisdictions in the same country. Forum non conveniens is not applicable between counties or federal districts within a state.

Question 6

Comity

Answer 6

In law, comity is “a practice among different political entities (as countries, states, or courts of different jurisdictions)” involving the “mutual recognition of legislative, executive, and judicial acts.”

Comity derives from the Latin comitas, courtesy, from cemis, friendly, courteous.

The doctrine of international comity has been described variously “as a choice-of-law principle, a synonym for private international law, a rule of public international law, a moral obligation, expediency, courtesy, reciprocity, utility, or diplomacy. Authorities disagree as to whether comity is a rule of natural law, custom, treaty, or domestic law. Indeed, there is not even agreement that comity is a rule of law at all.”[3] Because the doctrine touches on many different principles, it is regarded as “one of the more confusing doctrines evoked in cases touching upon the interests of foreign states.”[4]

Question 7

Conflict of Laws

Answer 7

Conflict of laws concerns relations across different legal jurisdictions between natural persons, companies, corporations and other legal entities, their legal obligations and the appropriate forum and procedure for resolving disputes between them. Conflict of laws especially affects private international law,[1][2][3] but may also affect domestic legal disputes e.g. determination of which state law applies in the United States, or where a contract makes incompatible reference to more than one legal framework.

the court will apply the law of the forum (lex fori) to all procedural matters (including the choice of law rules); and
it counts the factors that connect or link the legal issues to the laws of potentially relevant states and applies the laws that have the greatest connection, e.g. the law of nationality (lex patriae) or the law of habitual residence (lex domicilii). (See also ‘European Harmonization Provisions’: “The concept of habitual residence is the civil law equivalent of the common law test of lex domicilii”.) The court will determine the plaintiffs’ legal status and capacity. The court will determine the law of the state in which land is situated (lex situs) that will be applied to determine all questions of title. The law of the place where a transaction physically takes place or of the occurrence that gave rise to the litigation (lex loci actus) will often be the controlling law selected when the matter is substantive, but the proper law has become a more common choice.[4]

Question 8

Nationality

Answer 8

Nationality is a legal relationship between an individual person and a state.[1] Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person and affords the person the protection of the state. What these rights and duties are varies from state to state.[2]

By custom and international conventions, it is the right of each state to determine who its nationals are.[3] Such determinations are part of nationality law. In some cases, determinations of nationality are also governed by public international law—for example, by treaties on statelessness and the European Convention on Nationality.

Question 9

Citizenship

Answer 9

Citizenship is the status of a person recognized under the custom or law as being a legal member of a sovereign state or belonging to a nation.

A person may have multiple citizenships. A person who does not have citizenship of any state is said to be stateless, while one who lives on state borders whose territorial status is uncertain is a border-lander.[1]

Nationality is often used as a synonym for citizenship in English[2] – notably in international law – although the term is sometimes understood as denoting a person’s membership of a nation (a large ethnic group).[3] In some countries, e.g. the United States, the United Kingdom, nationality and citizenship can have different meanings (for more information, see Nationality versus citizenship).

Question 10

Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood)

Answer 10

Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood) is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having one or both parents who are citizens of the state. Children at birth may automatically be citizens if their parents have state citizenship or national identities of ethnic, cultural, or other origins.[1] Citizenship can also apply to children whose parents belong to a diaspora and were not themselves citizens of the state conferring citizenship.[citation needed] This principle contrasts with jus soli (Latin: right of soil).[2]

Question 11

Jus soli (right of the soil)

Answer 11

Jus soli (English: /dʒʌs ˈsoʊlaɪ/; Latin pronunciation: [juːs ˈsɔ.liː]), meaning “right of the soil”,[1] commonly referred to as birthright citizenship in the United States, is the right of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship.[2]

Question 12

diaspora

Answer 12

A diaspora (/daɪˈæspərə/)[1] is a scattered population whose origin lies in a separate geographic locale.[2][3] In particular, diaspora has come to refer to involuntary mass dispersions of a population from its indigenous territories, most notably the expulsion of Jews from the Land of Israel (known as the Jewish diaspora) and the fleeing of Greeks after the fall of Constantinople.

Question 13

Set-Off

Answer 13

In law, set-off or netting are legal techniques applied between persons with mutual rights and liabilities, replacing gross positions with net positions.[1][2] It permits the rights to be used to discharge the liabilities where cross claims exist between a plaintiff and a respondent. The result being that the gross claims of mutual debt produces a single, net claim.[3] The net claim is known as a net position. In other words, a set-off is the right of a debtor to balance mutual debts with a creditor. In bookkeeping terms, set-offs are also known as reconciliations.[citation needed] To determine a set-off, simply subtract the smaller debt from the larger.

Any balance remaining due either of the parties is still owed, but the remainder of the mutual debts has been set off. The power of net positions is to reduce credit exposure, also holding regulatory capital requirement and settlement advantages, which contributes to market stability. In regard to the financial market, net positions are vital.[4]

Question 14

Sui Juris

Answer 14

In civil law, the phrase sui juris indicates legal competence — the capacity to manage one’s own affairs

Question 15

In Personam

Answer 15

In personam is a Latin phrase meaning “directed toward a particular person”. In a lawsuit in which the case is against a specific individual, that person must be served with a summons and complaint to give the court jurisdiction to try the case, and the judgment applies to that person and is called an “in personam judgment”.

In personam is distinguished from in rem, which applies to property or “all the world” instead of a specific person. This technical distinction is important to determine where to file a lawsuit and how to serve a defendant. In personam means that a judgment can be enforceable against the person wherever he/she is. On the other hand, if the lawsuit is to determine title to property (in rem) then the action must be filed where the property exists and is only enforceable there.[1]

Question 16

In Rem Jurisdiction

Answer 16

In rem jurisdiction

(“power about or against ‘the thing’”

is a legal term describing the power a court may exercise over property (either real or personal) or a “status” against a person over whom the court does not have in personam jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction in rem assumes the property or status is the primary object of the action, rather than personal liabilities not necessarily associated with the property.

Within the U.S. federal court system, jurisdiction in rem typically refers to the power a federal court may exercise over large items of immoveable property, or real property, located within the court’s jurisdiction.

The most frequent circumstance in which this occurs in the Anglo-American legal system is when a suit is brought in admiralty law against a vessel to satisfy debts arising from the operation or use of that vessel.

Within the American state court systems, jurisdiction in rem may refer to the power the state court may exercise over real property or personal property or a person’s marital status.

State courts have the power to determine legal ownership of any real or personal property within the state’s boundaries.

A “right in rem” or a “judgment in rem”
(binds the world) as opposed to rights and judgments inter partes which only bind those involved in their creation.

Question 17

Inter-Partes

Answer 17

The term inter partes is the Latin for “between the parties”.

It can be distinguished from in rem, referring to a legal action whose jurisdiction is based on
(the control of property), or…

(ex parte) referring to a legal action that is by a single party.

Question 18

Ex-Parte

Answer 18

Ex parte /ˌɛks ˈpɑːrtiː/ is a Latin legal term meaning “from (by or for) [the/a] party.”

From the party.
By the party.
For the party.

An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the controversy to be present.

Ex Parte means…
a legal proceeding brought by one person
in the (absence) of and (without representation)
or (notification) of other parties.

It is also used more loosely to refer to
(improper unilateral contacts)
with a court, arbitrator, or represented party
“without notice” to the other party or counsel for that party.

Question 19

Writ

Answer 19

ORDER

The complainant simply applied to the court for the writ most relevant to his complaint to be sent to the wrongdoer, which ordered him under royal authority to attend a royal court to answer for his actions.

The development was part of the establishment of a Court of Common Pleas, for dealing with commonly made complaints by subjects of the crown, for example: “someone has damaged my property”.

The obtaining of a writ became necessary, in most cases, to have a case heard in one of the Royal Courts, such as the King’s Bench or Common Pleas.

Some franchise courts, especially in the Counties Palatine, had their own system of writs which often reflected or anticipated the common law writs.

The writ was “served” on (delivered in person to) the wrongdoer and acted as a command that he should appear at a specified time and date before the court specified in the writ, or it might command some other act on the part of the recipient.

In common law, a writ…
Anglo-Saxon gewrit,
Latin breve,
is a formal written order issued by a body with administrative or judicial jurisdiction; in modern usage, this body is generally a court.

Warrants, prerogative writs, and subpoenas are common types of writ, but many forms exist and have existed.

The writ was a unique development of the Anglo-Saxon monarchy, and consisted of a brief administrative order, authenticated (innovatively) by a seal.
Written in the vernacular, they generally made a land grant, or conveyed instructions to a local court.

In the beginning, writs were the document issued by the King’s Chancellor against a landowner whose vassal complained to the King about an injustice, after a first summon by the sheriff to comply had been deemed fruitless.

William the Conqueror took over the system unchanged, but was to extend it in two ways:

1st. .. writs became mainly framed in Latin, not Anglo-Saxon;
2nd. .. they covered an increasing range of royal commands and decisions.

Writs of instruction continued to develop under his immediate successors, but it was not until Henry the Second that writs became available for purchase by private individuals seeking justice, thus initiating a vast expansion in their role within the common law.

Writs could take two main forms,

1. ‘open’ (patent) for all to read, and
2. ‘letters close’ for one or more specified individuals alone.

Question 20

Possessory Interest

Answer 20

possessory interest, a temporary, qualified property in the things of which the mere possession is delivered to a person.

Question 21

Conservatorship

Answer 21

Conservatorship is a legal concept in the United States. A guardian or a protector is appointed by a judge to manage the financial affairs and/or daily life of another due to physical or mental limitations, or old age.

A person under conservatorship is a “conservatee,” a term that can refer to an adult.

A person under guardianship is a “ward,” a term that can also refer to a minor child.

The conservator may be only of the “estate” (financial affairs), but may be also of the “person,” wherein the conservator takes charge of overseeing the daily activities, such as health care or living arrangements of the conservatee. A conservator of the person is more typically called a legal guardian.

Question 22

Crown Ward

Answer 22

Foster children in Canada are known as permanent wards, (crown wards in Ontario).

A ward is someone, in this case a child, placed under protection of a legal guardian and are the legal responsibility of the government.

Question 23

In Loco Parentis

Answer 23

The term in loco parentis, Latin for “in the place of a parent” refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent.

Question 24

Parens Patriea

Answer 24

Parens patriae is Latin for “parent of the nation” (lit., “parent of the fatherland”).

In law, it refers to the public policy power of the state to intervene against an abusive or negligent parent, legal guardian, or informal caretaker, and to act as the parent of any child or individual who is in need of protection.

For example, some children, incapacitated individuals, and disabled individuals lack parents who are able and willing to render adequate care, thus requiring state intervention.

Question 25

Non Compos Mentis

Answer 25

The Latin non compos mentis translates as... "of unsound mind": nōn ("not") prefaces compos mentis, meaning "having control of one's mind". This phrase was first used in thirteenth-century English law. NECROMANCY Spirit possession is a term for the belief that animas, aliens, demons, gods, or spirits can take control of a human body. The concept of spirit possession exists in many religions, including Christianity, Buddhism, Haitian Vodou, Wicca, Hinduism, Islam and Southeast Asian and African traditions. The Egyptians believed that when the spirit of an animal is separated from its body by violence, it does not go to a distance, but remains near it. It is the same with the soul of a man who has died a violent death; it remains near the body—nothing can make it go away; it is retained there by sympathy; several have been seen sighing near their bodies which were interred. The magicians abuse their power over such in their incantations; they force them to obey, when they are masters of the dead body, or even part of it. Frequent experience taught them that there is a secret virtue in the body, which draws towards it the spirit which has once inhabited it; wherefore those who wish to receive or become the receptacles of the spirits of such animals as know the future, eat the principle parts of them, as the hearts of crows, moles, or hawks. The spirit of these creatures enters into them at the moment they eat this food, and makes them give out oracles like divinities.. Porphyry, when consulted by Anebo, an Egyptian priest, if those who foretell the future and perform prodigies have more powerful souls, or whether they receive power from some strange spirit, replies that, according to appearance, all these things are done by means of certain evil spirits that are naturally knavish, and take all sorts of shapes, and do everything that one sees happen, whether good or evil; but that in the end they never lead men to what is truly good. Treatise on the Apparitions of Spirits and on Vampires or Revenants. A revenant is a visible ghost or animated corpse that is believed to have revived from death to haunt the living. The word revenant is derived from the Old French word, revenant, the "returning" (see also the related French verb revenir, meaning "to come back").

Question 26

Indemnity

Answer 26

Indemnity is a contractual obligation of one party (indemnifier) to compensate the loss occurred to the other party (indemnity holder) due to the act of the indemnitor or any other party. The duty to indemnify is usually, but not always, coextensive with the contractual duty to "hold harmless" or "save harmless". In contrast, a guarantee is an obligation of one party assuring the other party that guarantor will perform the promise of the third party if it defaults.

Question 27

Guarantee

Answer 27

A formal pledge to pay another person's debt or to perform another person's obligation in the case of default. A formal promise or assurance (typically in writing) that certain conditions will be fulfilled, especially that a product will be repaired or replaced if not of a specified quality and durability. Provide a formal assurance or promise, especially that certain conditions shall be fulfilled relating to a product, service, or transaction.

Question 28

Warrant

Answer 28

Law - A document issued by a legal or government official authorizing the police or some other body to make an arrest, search premises, or carry out some other action relating to the administration of justice. A document that entitles the holder to receive goods, money, or services. (synonyms) voucher, slip, ticket, coupon, pass "a travel warrant" Finance - a negotiable security allowing the holder to buy shares at a specified price at or before some future date. Justification or authority for an action, belief, or feeling. An official certificate of appointment issued to an officer of lower rank than a commissioned officer. Justify or necessitate (a certain course of action). Officially affirm or guarantee. Middle English (in the senses ‘protector’ and ‘safeguard,’ also, as a verb, ‘keep safe from danger’): from variants of Old French guarant (noun), guarantir (verb), of Germanic origin; compare with guarantee. ``` synonyms: voucher, slip, ticket, coupon, pass "a travel warrant" (Synonym) authorization, order, license, permit, document; More writ, summons, subpoena; mandate, decree, fiat, edict. ```

Question 29

Aver

Answer 29

State or assert to be the case. "he averred that he was innocent of the allegations" Allege as a fact in support of a plea. Late Middle English (in the sense ‘declare or confirm to be true’): from Old French averer, Latin ad ‘to’ (implying ‘cause to be’) + verus ‘true.’

Question 30

Warranty

Answer 30

This is what it says it is. These promises are true and binding and the person holding the warranty will receive compensation in the event the promise is breached, the object does not accomplish what was promised or the performance is not delivered. a written guarantee, issued to the purchaser of an article by its manufacturer, promising to repair or replace it if necessary within a specified period of time. "the car comes with a three-year warranty" synonyms: guarantee, assurance, promise, covenant, commitment, agreement "a three-year warranty" (in contract law) a promise that something in furtherance of the contract is guaranteed by one of the contractors, especially the seller's promise that the thing being sold is as promised or represented. (in an insurance contract) an engagement by the insured party that certain statements are true or that certain conditions shall be fulfilled, the breach of it invalidating the policy.

Question 31

Assurance

Answer 31

A positive declaration intended to give confidence; a promise. The assuring party is lawfully obligated to perform the terms of the agreement remedial and enforceable at law. Confidence or certainty in one's own abilities. Certainty about something.

Question 32

Underwrite

Answer 32

Sign and accept liability under (an insurance policy), thus guaranteeing payment in case loss or damage occurs. Make payment for another who defaults, fails to perform, is unwilling to perform, or is unable to deliver on his pledge per an act of God or contingent disability.

Question 33

Fund

Answer 33

A collection of valuable rights, titles, and property itemized, inventoried and evaluated as a whole, then capable of being sub-divided into units called shares, capable of being conjoined to one or more beneficial interest holders within a trust instrument.

Question 34

Beneficial Owner

Answer 34

Beneficial owner is a legal term where specific property rights ("use and title") in equity belong to a person even though legal title of the property belongs to another person. This often relates where the legal title owner has implied trustee duties to the beneficial owner.

Question 35

Real Party in Interest

Answer 35

In law, the real party in interest is the one who actually possesses the substantive right being asserted and has a legal right to enforce the claim (under applicable substantive law). Additionally, the "real party in interest" must sue in his own name. In many situations, the real party in interest will be the parties themselves (i.e., plaintiff and defendant).

Question 36

Mandamus

Answer 36

Mandamus (/ˈmænˈdeɪməs/; lit. 'we command') is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court[1] to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing), and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to reject or authorize applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications. Mandamus may be a command to do an administrative action or not to take a particular action, and it is supplemented by legal rights. In the American legal system it must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when he or she is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something and abstains from doing it.

Question 37

Duty of Care

Answer 37

In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law which the defendant has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed by operation of law between individuals with no current direct relationship (familial or contractual or otherwise), but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law (meaning case law). Duty of care may be considered a formalisation of the social contract, the implicit responsibilities held by individuals towards others within society. It is not a requirement that a duty of care be defined by law, though it will often develop through the jurisprudence of common law.

Question 38

Trustee

Answer 38

Trustee (or the holding of a trusteeship) is a legal term which, in its broadest sense, is a synonym for anyone in a position of trust and so can refer to any person who holds property, authority, or a position of trust or responsibility for the benefit of another. A trustee can also refer to a person who is allowed to do certain tasks but not able to gain income.[1] Although in the strictest sense of the term a trustee is the holder of property on behalf of a beneficiary,[1] the more expansive sense encompasses persons who serve, for example, on the board of trustees of an institution that operates for a charity, for the benefit of the general public, or a person in the local government. A trust can be set up either to benefit particular persons, or for any charitable purposes (but not generally for non-charitable purposes): typical examples are a will trust for the testator's children and family, a pension trust (to confer benefits on employees and their families) and a charitable trust. In all cases, the trustee may be a person or company, whether or not they are a prospective beneficiary.

Question 39

Guardian Ad Litem

Answer 39

(especially of a guardian) appointed to act in a lawsuit on behalf of a child or other person who is not considered capable of representing themselves. A “guardian ad litem” (GAL) is a person the court appoints to investigate what solutions would be in the “best interests of a child.” Here, we are talking about a GAL in a divorce or parental rights and responsibilities case. The GAL will look into the family situation and advise the court on things like: where the children should live most of the time whether the child is being harmed by a parent’s substance abuse what contact the child should have with a parent

Question 40

Liability

Answer 40

One who owes a duty, performance, delivery of goods or debt. Responsible party. One who is answerable in a lawsuit. One who is able to be sued. li·a·bil·i·ty /ˌlīəˈbilədē/Submit noun 1. the state of being responsible for something, especially by law. "the partners accept unlimited liability for any risks they undertake" synonyms: accountability, responsibility, legal responsibility, answerability; More 2. a person or thing whose presence or behavior is likely to cause embarrassment or put one at a disadvantage. "he has become a political liability" synonyms: hindrance, encumbrance, burden, handicap, nuisance, inconvenience. Example of a liability clause. FOURTEENTH, No Director or O icer of the Trust shall be held liable to the Trust or its Bene cial Owners or any related or associated parties for any claim of injury, or wrong, or demand for compensation, or any other monetary damages or sanction, except under the following circumstances:- i. If any such act or omission by a Director or O icer of the Trust occurred during the normal execution of their duties, and did not involve clear evidence of bad faith, deliberate malice, intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of the law; or ii. If any such act or omission by a Director or O icer involved a wilful of negligent violation of duciary duties in the approval of one or more signi cant unauthorised payments; or iii. If any such act or omission by a Director or O icer involved deliberate per dy, or treachery against the Trust.

Question 41

Transfer Agent

Answer 41

A transfer agent is a trust company, bank or similar financial institution assigned by a corporation to maintain records of investors and account balances. The transfer agent records transactions, cancels and issues certificates, processes investor mailings and deals with other investor problems (e.g., lost or stolen certificates). A transfer agent works closely with a registrar to ensure that investors receive interest payments and dividends when they are due and to send monthly investment statements to mutual fund shareholders. BREAKING DOWN Transfer Agent When an investor purchases a security, the new owner is issued some form of a certificate and most certificates are now issued in book-entry form. Rather than invest the time and expense to issue physical securities, book-entry securities record ownership electronically and a transfer agent issues and cancels these types of certificates. Factoring in Ownership Different investments issue book-entry securities in different forms. Bonds, for example, are issued at a face amount of $1,000 and in $1,000 multiples, while stocks are issued in shares. In addition, unit investment trusts are sold in units, and mutual funds are issued in shares, and the transfer agent processes all of these securities.

Question 42

Chartered Accountant

Answer 42

Chartered accountants were the first accountants to form a professional accounting body, initially established in Scotland in 1854. The Edinburgh Society of Accountants (1854), the Glasgow Institute of Accountants and Actuaries (1854) and the Aberdeen Society of Accountants (1867) were each granted a royal charter almost from their inception.[1] The title is an internationally recognised professional designation; the certified public accountant designation is generally equivalent to it. Chartered accountants work in all fields of business and finance, including auditing, taxation, financial and general management. Some are engaged in public practice work, others work in the private sector and some are employed by government bodies.[2][3][4] Chartered accountants' institutes require members to undertake a minimum level of continuing professional development to stay professionally competitive. They facilitate special interest groups (for instance, entertainment and media, or insolvency and restructuring) which lead in their fields. They provide support to members by offering advisory services, technical helplines and technical libraries. They also offer opportunities for professional networking, career and business development.[5]

Question 43

Registrar

Answer 43

A registrar is an institution, often a bank or trust company, responsible for keeping records of bondholders and shareholders after an issuer offers securities to the public. When an issuer needs to make an interest payment on a bond or a dividend payment to shareholders, the firm refers to the list of registered owners maintained by the registrar. BREAKING DOWN Registrar One role of the registrar is to make sure the amount of shares outstanding does not exceed the number of shares authorized in a firm’s corporate charter. A corporation cannot issue more shares of stock than the maximum number of shares that the corporate charter discloses. Outstanding shares are those that shareholders currently hold. A business may continue to issue shares periodically over time, increasing the amount of outstanding shares. The registrar accounts for all issued and outstanding shares, as well as the number of shares owned by each individual shareholder. How a Registrar Factors in Stock Dividends and Splits The registrar determines which shareholders are paid a cash or stock dividend. A cash dividend is a payment of company earnings to each shareholder, and a stock dividend means additional shares are issued to each shareholder. To pay a dividend, the corporation sets a record date. The registrar verifies the shareholders who own the stock on the record date and the number of shares owned as of that date. Both cash and stock dividends are paid based on the registrar’s list of shareholders. The registrar changes this shareholder data based on current buy and sell transactions. How a Bond Registrar Operates For example, when an issuer offers a bond to investors, the company works with an underwriter to create a bond indenture. The indenture lists all of the pertinent information about the bond, including its face amount, the interest rate, and the maturity date. A bond indenture also certifies the bond is a legal obligation of the issuer. A bond may be secured by specific company assets or simply by the issuer’s ability to pay. Just as with stock, the bond registrar tracks the investors who own the bond and investors who should receive interest payments. When the bond matures, the registrar’s records determine which investors should be repaid the principal amount on the bond issue. Examples of Other Registrars Mutual funds operate using a transfer agent, which is a company that acts as the registrar and also performs the duties of a transfer agent. While the registrar keeps records, the transfer agent handles the mutual fund share purchases and redemptions.

Question 44

Testator

Answer 44

a person who has made a will or given a legacy. Middle English: from Anglo-Norman French testatour, from Latin testator, from the verb testari ‘testify. A testator is a person who has written and executed a last will and testament that is in effect at the time of his/her death. It is any "person who makes a will."

Question 45

Settlor

Answer 45

A person who makes a settlement, especially of a property. In law a settlor is a person who settles property on trust law for the benefit of beneficiaries. In some legal systems, a settlor is also referred to as a trustor, or occasionally, a grantor or donor. Where the trust is a testamentary trust, the settlor is usually referred to as the testator. The settlor of a trust is the person who creates the trust. To do so, the settlor does two things. First, the settlor establishes the legal document that contains the trust's terms. Second, the settlor then transfers property into the trust, which is also known as funding the trust.

Question 46

Joinder

Answer 46

In law, a joinder is the joining of two or more legal issues together. Procedurally, a joinder allows multiple issues to be heard in one hearing or trial and is done when the issues or parties involved overlap sufficiently to make the process more efficient or more fair. It helps courts avoid hearing the same facts multiple times or seeing the same parties return to court separately for each of their legal disputes. The term is also used in the realm of contracts to describe the joining of new parties to an existing agreement.

Question 47

Joinder of Claims

Answer 47

Joinder of claims refers to bringing several legal claims against the same party together. In U.S. federal law, joinder of claims is governed by Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These rules allow claimants to consolidate all claims that they have against an individual who is already a party to the case. Claimants may bring new claims even if these new claims are not related to the claims already stated; for example, a plaintiff suing someone for breach of contract may also sue the same person for assault. The claims may be unrelated, but they may be joined if the plaintiff desires.[1] Joinder of claims requires that the court have jurisdiction over the subject matter of each of the new claims, and that joinder of claims is never compulsory. A party who sues for breach of contract can bring his suit for assault at a later date if he chooses. However, if the claims are related to the same set of facts, the plaintiff may be barred from bringing claims later by the doctrine of res judicata, e.g. if a plaintiff sues for assault and the case is concluded, he may not later sue for battery regarding the same occurrence.

Question 48

Joinder of Parties

Answer 48

Joinder of parties also falls into two categories: permissive joinder and compulsory joinder. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure No. 20 addresses permissive joinder. Permissive joinder allows multiple plaintiffs to join in an action if each of their claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence, and if there is a common question of law or fact relating to all plaintiffs' claims. For example, several landowners may join together in suing a factory for environmental runoff onto their property. Permissive joinder is also appropriate to join multiple defendants, as long as the same considerations as for joining multiple plaintiffs are met. This often occurs in lawsuits regarding faulty products; the plaintiff will sue the manufacturer of the final product and the manufacturers of any constituent parts. The court must have personal jurisdiction over every defendant joined in the action.[2] Compulsory joinder is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, which makes it mandatory that some parties be joined. Parties that must be joined are those necessary and indispensable to the litigation. The rule includes several reasons why this might be true, including if that party has an interest in the dispute that they will be unable to protect if they are not joined. For example, if three parties each lay claim to a piece of property and the first two sue each other, the third will not be able to protect his (alleged) interest in the property if he is not joined. Another circumstance is when a party might end up with inconsistent obligations, for example he may be required by two different courts to grant two different parties exclusive rights to the same piece of property. This is avoided by joining the parties in one lawsuit. However, while "necessary" parties must be joined if that joinder is possible, the litigation will continue without them if joinder is impossible, for example, if the court does not have jurisdiction over the party. By contrast, if "indispensable" parties cannot be joined, the litigation cannot go forward. Courts have some discretion in determining what parties are indispensable, though the Federal Rules provide some guidelines.[3]

Question 49

Res Judicata

Answer 49

MATTER ALREADY JUDGED (Can't sue twice) Issue preclusion bars the relitigation of issues of fact or law that have already been necessarily determined by a judge or jury as part of an earlier case. Res judicata (RJ) or res iudicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for "a matter [already] judged", and refers to either of two concepts: in both civil law and common law legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) continued litigation of a case on same issues between the same parties. In this latter usage, the term is synonymous with "issue preclusion". In the case of res judicata, the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court. A court will use res judicata to deny reconsideration of a matter.[1] The doctrine of res judicata is a method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished, but perhaps also or mostly a way of avoiding unnecessary waste of resources in the court system. Res judicata does not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents litigants from multiplying judgments, and confusion. For res judicata to be binding, several factors must be met: identity in the thing at suit; identity of the cause at suit; identity of the parties to the action; identity in the designation of the parties involved; whether the judgment was final; whether the parties were given full and fair opportunity to be heard on the issue. Federal courts have traditionally adhered to the related doctrines of res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion). Under RJ, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties . . . from re-litigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action. Under collateral estoppel, once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude re-litigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first cause. As this court and other courts have often recognised, res judicata and collateral estoppel relieve parties of the costs and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication.[6]

Question 50

Scire facias

Answer 50

WRIT (Make the record known to the party) In English law, a writ of scire facias (Latin, meaning literally "make known") was a writ founded upon some judicial record directing the sheriff to make the record known to a specified party, and requiring the defendant to show cause why the party bringing the writ should not be able to cite that record in his own interest, or why, in the case of letters patent and grants, the patent or grant should not be annulled and vacated. In the United States, the writ has been abolished under federal law but may still be available in some state legal systems.

Question 51

Jurisdiction

Answer 51

Jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a legal body to administer justice within a defined field of responsibility, e.g., Michigan tax law. In federations like the United States, areas of jurisdiction apply to local, state, and federal levels; e.g. the court has jurisdiction to apply federal law. Colloquially it is used to refer to the geographical area to which such authority applies, e.g. the court has jurisdiction over all of Colorado. The legal term refers only to the granted authority, not to a geographical area. Jurisdiction draws its substance from international law, conflict of laws, constitutional law, and the powers of the executive and legislative branches of government to allocate resources to best serve the needs of society.

Question 52

De Jure

Answer 52

In law and government, de jure (/deɪ ˈdʒʊəri, di-/; Latin: de iure, lit. 'in law' Latin pronunciation: [deː juːre]) describes practices that are legally recognised, whether or not the practice exist in reality.[1] In contrast, de facto ("in fact" or "in practice") describes situations that exist in reality, even if not legally recognised.[2] The terms are often used to contrast different scenarios: for a colloquial example, "I know that, de jure, this is supposed to be a parking lot, but now that the flood has left four feet of water here, it's a de facto swimming pool".[3] To further explain, even if the signs around the flooded parking lot say "Parking Lot" (the signs effectively being the "law" determining what it is) it is "in fact" a swimming pool (with the water, the current practical circumstances, determining what it is).

Question 53

De Facto

Answer 53

In law and government, de facto (/deɪ ˈfæktoʊ/ or /di ˈfæktoʊ/;[1] Latin: de facto, "in fact"; Latin pronunciation: [deː ˈfaktoː]) describes practices that exist in reality, even if not legally recognised by official laws.[2][3][4] It is commonly used to refer to what happens in practice, in contrast with de jure ("in law"), which refers to things that happen according to law. Unofficial customs that are widely accepted are sometimes called de facto standards.

Question 54

Legal Process

Answer 54

Legal process (sometimes simply process) is any formal notice or writ by a court obtains jurisdiction over a person or property.[1] Common forms of process include a summons, subpoena, mandate, and warrant.[2] Process normally takes effect by serving in on a person, arresting a person, posting it on real property, or seizing personal property.

Question 55

Civil Procedure

Answer 55

Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the rules and standards that courts follow when adjudicating civil lawsuits (as opposed to procedures in criminal law matters). These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced; what kind of service of process (if any) is required; the types of pleadings or statements of case, motions or applications, and orders allowed in civil cases; the timing and manner of depositions and discovery or disclosure; the conduct of trials; the process for judgment; various available remedies; and how the courts and clerks must function.

Question 56

Criminal Procedure

Answer 56

Criminal procedure is the adjudication process of the criminal law. While criminal procedure differs dramatically by jurisdiction, the process generally begins with a formal criminal charge with the person on trial either being free on bail or incarcerated, and results in the conviction or acquittal of the defendant. Criminal procedure can be either in form of inquisitorial or adversarial criminal procedure. Currently, in many countries with a democratic system and the rule of law, criminal procedure puts the burden of proof on the prosecution – that is, it is up to the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, as opposed to having the defense prove that s/he is innocent, and any doubt is resolved in favor of the defendant. This provision, known as the presumption of innocence, is required, for example, in the 46 countries that are members of the Council of Europe, under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and it is included in other human rights documents. Such basic rights also include the right for the defendant to know what offence he or she has been arrested for or is being charged with, and the right to appear before a judicial official within a certain time of being arrested. Many jurisdictions also allow the defendant the right to legal counsel and provide any defendant who cannot afford their own lawyer with a lawyer paid for at the public expense.

Question 57

Injured Party

Answer 57

the victim of a crime (known as the "injured party") may be awarded damages by a criminal court judge.

Question 58

Law Suit

Answer 58

A lawsuit (or suit in law[a]) is a proceeding by a party or parties against another in the civil court of law.[1] Sometimes, the term "lawsuit" is in reference to a civil action brought in a court of law in which a plaintiff, a party who claims to have incurred loss as a result of a defendant's actions, demands a legal or equitable remedy. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is in the plaintiff's favor, and a variety of court orders may be issued to enforce a right, award damages, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.

Question 59

Crime

Answer 59

In ordinary language, a crime is an unlawful act punishable by a state or other authority.[1] The term "crime" does not, in modern criminal law, have any simple and universally accepted definition,[2] though statutory definitions have been provided for certain purposes.[3] The most popular view is that crime is a category created by law; in other words, something is a crime if declared as such by the relevant and applicable law.[2] One proposed definition is that a crime or offence (or criminal offence) is an act harmful not only to some individual but also to a community, society or the state ("a public wrong"). Such acts are forbidden and punishable by law. What precisely is a criminal offence is defined by criminal law of each country. While many have a catalogue of crimes called the criminal code, in some common law countries no such comprehensive statute exists. The state (government) has the power to severely restrict one's liberty for committing a crime. In modern societies, there are procedures to which investigations and trials must adhere. If found guilty, an offender may be sentenced to a form of reparation such as a community sentence, or, depending on the nature of their offence, to undergo imprisonment, life imprisonment or, in some jurisdictions, execution. Usually, to be classified as a crime, the "act of doing something criminal" (actus reus) must – with certain exceptions – be accompanied by the "intention to do something criminal" (mens rea).[4] While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime. Breaches of private law (torts and breaches of contract) are not automatically punished by the state, but can be enforced through civil procedure.

Question 60

Tort Law

Answer 60

A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong[1] that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law, where the purpose of any action is to obtain a private civil remedy such as damages, may be compared to criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law which also provides a civil remedy after breach of duty; but whereas the contractual obligation is one chosen by the parties, the obligation in both tort and crime is imposed by the state. In both contract and tort, successful claimants must show that they have suffered foreseeable loss or harm as a direct result of the breach of duty.[2][3]

Question 61

Contract Law

Answer 61

A contract is a promise or set of promises that are legally enforceable and, if violated, allow the injured party access to legal remedies.[1] Contract law recognises and governs the rights and duties arising from agreements.[2] In the Anglo-American common law, formation of a contract generally requires an offer, acceptance, consideration, and a mutual intent to be bound. Each party must have capacity to enter the contract.[3] Although most oral contracts are binding, some types of contracts may require formalities such as being in the form of a signed, dated written agreement in order for a party to be bound to its terms. In the civil law tradition, contract law is a branch of the law of obligations.

Question 62

Legal Liability

Answer 62

Legal liability concerns both civil law and criminal law and can arise from various areas of law, such as contracts, torts, taxes, or fines given by government agencies. The claimant is the one who seeks to establish, or prove, liability. Claimants can prove liability through a myriad of different theories, known as theories of liability. Which theories of liability are available in a given case depends on nature of the law in question. For example, in case involving a contractual dispute, one available theory of liability is breach of contract; or in the tort context, negligence, negligence per se, respondeat superior, vicarious liability, strict liability, or intentional conduct are all valid theories of liability. Each theory of liability has certain conditions, or elements, that must be proven by the claimant before liability will be established. For example, the theory of negligence requires the claimant to prove that... (1) the defendant had a duty; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the defendant's breach caused the injury; and (4) that injury resulted in recoverable damages.

Question 63

Breach of Contract

Answer 63

Breach of contract is a legal cause of action and a type of civil wrong, in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance. Breach occurs when a party to a contract fails to fulfill his or her obligation as described in the contract, or communicates an intent to fail the obligation or otherwise appears not to be able to perform his or her obligation under the contract.

Question 64

Specific Performance

Answer 64

Specific performance is an equitable remedy in the law of contract, whereby a court issues an order requiring a party to perform a specific act, such to complete performance of the contract. It is typically available in the sale of land, but otherwise is not generally available if damages are an appropriate alternative. Specific performance is almost never available for contracts of personal service, although performance may also be ensured through the threat of proceedings for contempt of court. Specific performance is commonly used in the form of injunctive relief concerning confidential information or real property.[clarification needed] While specific performance can be in the form of any type of forced action, it is usually to complete a previously established transaction, thus being the most effective remedy in protecting the expectation interest of the innocent party to a contract. It is usually the opposite of a prohibitory injunction, but there are mandatory injunctions that have a similar effect to specific performance.

Question 65

Contract

Answer 65

A contract is a promise or set of promises that are legally enforceable and, if violated, allow the injured party access to legal remedies.[1] Contract law recognises and governs the rights and duties arising from agreements.[2] In the Anglo-American common law, formation of a contract generally requires an offer, acceptance, consideration, and a mutual intent to be bound. Each party must have capacity to enter the contract.[3] Although most oral contracts are binding, some types of contracts may require formalities such as being in the form of a signed, dated written agreement in order for a party to be bound to its terms. In the civil law tradition, contract law is a branch of the law of obligations. At common law, the elements of a contract are offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations, and consideration.

Question 66

Intention to be Bound

Answer 66

TWO PARTIES DESIRE ENFORCEABILITY ``` Agree to terms and conditions. Agree to jurisdiction. Agree to due process. Agree to laws and codes. Agree to terms of performance. Agree to compensation. Agree to penalties for breach. ``` Intention to create legal relations', otherwise "intention to be legally bound", is a doctrine used in contract law, particularly English contract law and related common law jurisdictions.[1] The doctrine establishes whether a court should presume that parties to an agreement wish it to be enforceable at law, and it states that an agreement is legally enforceable only if the parties are deemed to have intended it to be a binding contract.

Question 67

Offer and Acceptance

Answer 67

TWO PARTIES OF ONE MIND Offer and acceptance analysis is a traditional approach in contract law. The offer and acceptance formula, developed in the 19th century, identifies a moment of formation when the parties are of one mind. This classical approach to contract formation has been modified by developments in the law of estoppel, misleading conduct, misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. Treitel defines an offer as "an expression of willingness to contract on certain terms, made with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed", the "offeree".[1] An offer is a statement of the terms on which the offeror is willing to be bound. It is the present contractual intent to be bound by a contract with definite and certain terms communicated to the offeree.

Question 68

Meeting of the Minds

Answer 68

MUTUAL COMPREHENSION OF TERMS TWO PARTIES AWARE OF TERMS Meeting of the minds (also referred to as mutual agreement, mutual assent or consensus ad idem) is a phrase in contract law used to describe the intentions of the parties forming the contract. In particular, it refers to the situation where there is a common understanding in the formation of the contract. Formation of a contract is initiated with a proposal or offer.[1] This condition or element is considered a requirement to the formation of a contract in some jurisdictions.

Question 69

Assent

Answer 69

TO ADMIT A THING AS TRUE assent (third-person singular simple present assents, present participle assenting, simple past and past participle assented) (intransitive) To agree; to give approval. Macaulay The princess assented to all that was suggested. (intransitive) To admit a thing as true. Bible, Acts xxiv. 9 And the Jews also assented, saying that these things were so.

Question 70

Consent

Answer 70

TO SENSE TOGETHER Recorded in Middle English since circa 1225, from Old French consentir, from Latin cōnsentīre, present active infinitive of... cōnsentiō (“to feel together”), itself from com- (“with”) + sentiō (“to feel”) consent (third-person singular simple present consents, present participle consenting, simple past and past participle consented) (intransitive) To express willingness, to give permission. After reflecting a little bit, I've consented. (Can we date this quote?) William Shakespeare My poverty, but not my will, consents. (medicine) To cause to sign a consent form. 2002, T Usmani; KD O'Brien, HV Worthington, S Derwent, D …, “A randomized clinical trial to compare the effectiveness of canine lacebacks with reference to …”, in Journal of Orthodontics: When the patient was consented to enter the study and registered, a telephone call was made to research assistant (obsolete) To grant; to allow; to assent to. (Can we date this quote?) John Milton Interpreters […] will not consent it to be a true story. To agree in opinion or sentiment; to be of the same mind; to accord; to concur. (Can we date this quote?) Bible, Acts viii. 1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. (Can we date this quote?) Fuller Flourishing many years before Wyclif, and much consenting with him in judgment. consent (plural consents) Voluntary agreement or permission. 1603, John Florio, transl.; Michel de Montaigne, chapter 6, in The Essayes, […], book II, printed at London: By Val[entine] Simmes for Edward Blount […], OCLC 946730821: All men know by experience, there be some parts of our bodies which often without any consent of ours doe stirre, stand, and lye down againe. (obsolete) Unity or agreement of opinion, sentiment, or inclination. 1604-11, Bible (King James Version), Luke: XIV:18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse.

Question 71

Evidence (Law)

Answer 71

The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury.[1] The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation.

Question 72

Trier of Fact

Answer 72

A trier of fact, or finder of fact, is a person, or group of persons, who determines facts in a legal proceeding, usually a trial. To determine a fact is to decide, from the evidence, whether something existed or some event occurred.[1] Various aspects of a case that are not in controversy may be the "facts of the case" and are determined by the agreement of the separate parties; the trier of fact need not decide such issues.

Question 73

Code of Law

Answer 73

A code of law, also called a law code or legal code, is a type of legislation that purports to exhaustively cover a complete system of laws or a particular area of law as it existed at the time the code was enacted, by a process of codification.[1] Though the process and motivations for codification are similar in different common law and civil law systems, their usage is different. In a civil law country, a code of law typically exhaustively covers the complete system of law, such as civil law or criminal law. By contrast, in a common law country with legislative practices in the English tradition, a code of law is a less common form of legislation, which differs from usual legislation that, when enacted, modify the existing common law only to the extent of its express or implicit provision, but otherwise leaves the common law intact. A code entirely replaces the common law in a particular area, leaving the common law inoperative unless and until the code is repealed. The legal code was a common feature of the legal systems of the ancient Middle East. The Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu (c. 2100-2050 BC), then the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1760 BC), are among the earliest and best preserved legal codes,[citation needed] originating in the Fertile Crescent. In the Roman empire, a number of codifications were developed, such as the Twelve Tables of Roman law (first compiled in 450 BC) and the Corpus Juris Civilis of Justinian, also known as the Justinian Code (429 - 534 AD). However, these law codes did not exhaustively describe the Roman legal system. The Twelve Tables were limited in scope, and most legal doctrines were developed by the pontifices, who "interpreted" the tables to deal with situations far beyond what is contained therein. The Justinian Code collected together existing legal material at the time. The Hebrew Written Torah and Oral Torah (200–220 CE) constitute the earliest and best preserved ethical code at the same time.[citation needed] Halakha (Jewish religious law) is the oldest collective body of religious laws, laws and jurisdictions still in use.[citation needed]

Question 74

Ordinance

Answer 74

From Middle English (ca. 1300), from Old French ordenance (Modern French ordonnance) "decree, command", from Middle Latin ordinantia, from ordinans, the present participle of Latin ordinare "put in order" (whence ordain). ORDAIN From Middle English, from Old French, from Latin ordinare (“to order”), from ordo (“order”). To prearrange unalterably. To decree. To admit into the ministry of a religion, for example as a priest, bishop, minister or Buddhist monk, or to authorize as a rabbi. To predestine. _________________________________ ordinance (plural ordinances) A local law (US) An edict or decree, authoritative order. (England) Prior to the Third English Civil War, a decree of Parliament. (Britain, pre-1992 universities, Commonwealth of Nations) Detailed legislation that translates the broad principles of the university's charter and statutes into practical effect. A religious practice or ritual prescribed by the church. In the United States, these laws are enforced locally in addition to state law and federal law. In states such as Connecticut, legislative bodies at the local level develop city and town ordinances to govern the public.[1] However, because of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, for criminal processing purposes a local ordinance is considered the same as a state law, statute or ordinance, meaning if someone is charged with an offense punishable under a local ordinance and a state law, they can be prosecuted under one or the other, but not both, and a conviction or acquittal under a local ordinance or a state law prohibits a second trial on the same offense under the other one. LOCAL ORDINANCE A local ordinance is a law usually found in a code of laws for a political division smaller than a state or nation, i.e., a local government such as a municipality, county, parish, prefecture, etc. In the United States, these laws are enforced locally in addition to state law and federal law.

Question 75

Regulations

Answer 75

In parliamentary systems and presidential systems of government, primary legislation and secondary legislation, the latter also called delegated legislation or subordinate legislation,[1] are two forms of law, created respectively by the legislative and executive branches of government. Primary legislation generally consists of statutes, also known as "acts", that set out broad outlines and principles, but delegate specific authority to an executive branch to make more specific laws under the aegis of the principal act. The executive branch can then issue secondary legislation (mainly via its regulatory agencies), creating legally-enforceable regulations and the procedures for implementing them.

Question 76

Regulatory Agency

Answer 76

A regulatory agency (also regulatory authority, regulatory body or regulator) is a public authority or government agency responsible for exercising autonomous authority over some area of human activity in a regulatory or supervisory capacity. An independent regulatory agency is a regulatory agency that is independent from other branches or arms of the government. Regulatory authorities are commonly set up to enforce safety and standards, and/or to protect consumers in markets where there is a lack of effective competition or the potential for the undue exercise of market power. Examples of regulatory agencies that enforce standards include the Food and Drug Administration in the United States and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency in the United Kingdom; and, in the case of economic regulation, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets and the Telecom Regulatory Authority in India. Regulatory agencies are typically a part of the executive branch of the government and have statutory authority to perform their functions with oversight from the legislative branch. Their actions are generally open to legal review. Regulatory agencies deal in the areas of administrative law, regulatory law, secondary legislation, and rulemaking (codifying and enforcing rules and regulations and imposing supervision or oversight for the benefit of the public at large). The existence of independent regulatory agencies is justified by the complexity of certain regulatory and supervisory tasks, and the drawbacks of political interference. Some independent regulatory agencies perform investigations or audits, and other may fine the relevant parties and order certain measures. In a number of cases, in order for a company or organization to enter an industry it must obtain a license to operate from the sector regulator. This license will set out the conditions by which the companies or organizations operating within the industry must abide.

Question 77

Statute

Answer 77

A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a city, state, or country.[1] Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare policy.[1] Statutes are rules made by legislative bodies; they are distinguished from case law or precedent, which is decided by courts, and regulations issued by government agencies.[1] In virtually all countries, newly enacted statutes are published in a Government gazette which is then distributed so that everyone can look up the statutory law. A universal problem encountered by lawmakers throughout human history is how to organize published statutes. Such publications have a habit of starting small but growing rapidly over time, as new statutes are enacted in response to the exigencies of the moment. Eventually, persons trying to find the law are forced to sort through an enormous number of statutes enacted at various points in time to determine which portions are still in effect. The solution adopted in many countries is to organize existing statutory law in topical arrangements (or "codified") within publications called codes, then ensure that new statutes are consistently drafted so that they add, amend, repeal or move various code sections. In turn, in theory, the code will thenceforth reflect the current cumulative state of the statutory law in that jurisdiction. In many nations statutory law is distinguished from and subordinate to constitutional law.

Question 78

Act

Answer 78

Act Definition: A bill which has passed through the various legislative steps required for it and which has become law. _________________________________ In the United States, Acts of Congress are designated as either public laws, relating to the general public, or private laws, relating to specific institutions or individuals. Since 1957, all Acts of Congress have been designated as "Public Law X-Y" or "Private Law X-Y", where X is the number of the Congress and Y refers to the sequential order of the bill (when it was enacted).[1] For example, P. L. 111-5 (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) was the fifth enacted public law of the 111th United States Congress. Public laws are also often abbreviated as Pub. L. No. X-Y. _______________________________________ An Act adopted by simple majorities in both houses of Congress is promulgated, or given the force of law, in one of the following ways: Signature by the President of the United States, Inaction by the President after ten days from reception (excluding Sundays) while the Congress is in session, or Reconsideration by the Congress after a presidential veto during its session. (A bill must receive a ​2⁄3 majority vote in both houses to override a president's veto.) The President promulgates Acts of Congress made by the first two methods. If an Act is made by the third method, the presiding officer of the house that last reconsidered the act promulgates it.[3] Under the United States Constitution, if the President does not return a bill or resolution to Congress with objections before the time limit expires, then the bill automatically becomes an Act; however, if the Congress is adjourned at the end of this period, then the bill dies and cannot be reconsidered (see pocket veto). In addition, if the President rejects a bill or resolution while the Congress is in session, a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Congress is needed for reconsideration to be successful. _________________________________ The difference between act and law exist in their formation. Law is a word that is easily understood by common people. It is a piece of legislation that is binding upon people and is followed by all. It has provisions that are applicable on people in different circumstances. Laws are made by the legislators who are the members of the parliament. Many people can not make out the difference between a law and an act as they believe both are same and interchangeable. Well, they are right to an extent as Acts of parliament are a type of Law and there are other types of legislation also. In this article I will try to clarify the doubts people have regarding differences between Act and Law. If you talk to a legal person, he will tell you that there is not much to choose between an act and a law. This is because an act is a law of the land. Let us see how. Law : A law is a system of regulations that are made to govern people, to help them in their conduct according to the norms of the society. Laws are generally for the protection of people and to maintain public order. Laws are there to guide and protect people. Laws are more general in nature, and they are not complicated. We get to see what we should do and should not do directly. For example, walking on the railway line is prohibited. Here, we see that walking on the railway line is prohibited. We do not have to spend time trying to understand it as it is simple and direct. Act : On the othr hand, act is a piece of legislation that is more specific and applies to particular circumstances and specific people. For example, there are laws against drunk driving and people are aware of them while DUI is the specific act that pertains to drunk driving. Furthermore, acts are made by the government, to let people know about provisions pertaining to a specific situation, and how and why public is required to follow these mandatory rules and regulations. Thus we see that Act is more specific. That is because usully an act is a constitutional plan that is created by the government. This has to be created at the parliament. It also has to pass the vote of the parliament ministers in order to become a law. Until an act is passed by parliament, in order to turn it to a law, an Act is known as a Bill. Through an act, the ideas of the government are made mandatory for the people of the country. So, to summarise, we get, Law is a generic term that refers to all rules and regulations passed by the parliament and are meant to guide the conduct of people. Laws also help in the protection of the citizens and also in maintaining public order. Acts are a type of Laws thar pertain to specific situations and circumstances. They are passed by the government, to let people know the rules and regulations about specific situations. Until an act is passed by the parliament. It can not become a law. Until it is passed by the parliament, an act is known as a bill. Law is always known as law, because it is something that is already established.

Question 79

Public Bill

Answer 79

In the legislative process, a public bill is a bill which proposes a law of general application throughout the jurisdiction in which it is proposed, and which if enacted will hence become a public law or public act. The term "public bill" differentiates such a bill from a private bill, which is a legislative bill affecting only a single person, group, or area, such as a bill granting a named person citizenship or, previously, granting named persons a legislative divorce. In practice, a (technically) public act can have the effect of a private act by the addition of restrictions such as limiting the act's effect to areas falling within a certain population bracket.

Question 80

Private Bill

Answer 80

A private bill is a proposal for a law that would apply to a particular individual or group of individuals, or corporate entity. This is unlike public bills which apply to everyone within their jurisdiction. Private law can afford relief from another law, grant a unique benefit or powers not available under the general law, or relieve someone from legal responsibility for some allegedly wrongful act. There are many examples of such private law in democratic countries, although its use has changed over time. A private bill is not to be confused with a private member's bill, which is a bill introduced by a "private member" of the legislature rather than by the ministry. There are two types of private Act in the United Kingdom. The first are acts for the benefit of individuals (known as private or personal acts) which have historically often dealt with divorces or granting British nationality to foreigners, but in modern times are generally limited to authorising marriages which would otherwise not be legal.[1] The second type are Acts for the benefit of organisations, or authorising major projects such as railways or canals, or granting extra powers to local authorities (known as local acts).[2]

Question 81

Ministry

Answer 81

"The complete body of government ministers (whether or not they are in cabinet) under the leadership of a head of government (such as a prime minister)" In constitutional usage in Commonwealth realms and in some other systems, a ministry (usually preceded by the definite article, i.e., the ministry) is a collective body of government ministers headed by a prime minister or premier,[1] and also referred to as the head of government. It is described by the Oxford Dictionary as "a period of government under one prime minister".[2] Although the term "cabinet" can in some circumstances be a synonym, a ministry can be a broader concept which might include office-holders who do not participate in cabinet meetings. Other titles can include "administration" (in the United States) or "government" (in common usage among most parliamentary systems) to describe similar collectives. The term is primarily used to describe the successive governments of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which share a common parliamentary political heritage.[3] In the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, a new ministry begins after each election, regardless of whether the prime minister is re-elected, and whether there may have been a minor rearrangement of the ministry. For example, after winning the 1979 general election, Margaret Thatcher (as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom) formed the first Thatcher ministry. After being re-elected at the 1983 general election, she formed the second Thatcher ministry, and so on. In Canada, a new ministry is only formed if the government loses an election.

Question 82

Power

Answer 82

legal power - (law) the right and power to interpret and apply the law; "courts having jurisdiction in this district" the collection of rules imposed by authority; "civilization presupposes respect for the law"; "the great problem for jurisprudence to allow freedom while enforcing order"

Question 83

Trial

Answer 83

trial (n.) mid-15c., "act or process of testing, a putting to proof by examination, experiment, etc.," from Anglo-French trial, noun formed from triet "to try" (see try (v.)). Sense of "examining and deciding of the issues between parties in a court of law" is first recorded 1570s; extended to any ordeal by 1590s. As an adjectival phrase, trial-and-error is recorded from 1806. Trial balloon (1826) translates French ballon d'essai, a small balloon sent up immediately before a manned ascent to determine the direction and tendency of winds in the upper air, though the earliest use in English is figurative. __________________ try (v.) c. 1300, "examine judiciously, discover by evaluation, test;" mid-14c., "sit in judgment of," also "attempt to do," from Anglo-French trier (13c.), from Old French trier "to pick out, cull" (12c.), from Gallo-Roman *triare, of unknown origin. The ground sense is "separate out (the good) by examination." Sense of "subject to some strain" (of patience, endurance, etc.) is recorded from 1530s. To try on "test the fit of a garment" is from 1690s; to try (something) on for size in the figurative sense is recorded by 1946. Try and instead of try to is recorded from 1680s. _________________________ assay (v.) c. 1300, "to try, endeavor, strive; test the quality of," from Anglo-French assaier, from assai (n.), from Old French assai, variant of essai "trial" (see essay (n.)). Related: Assayed; assaying. assay (n.) mid-14c., "trial, test of quality, test of character," from Anglo-French assai, ultimately from Late Latin exagium "a weighing" (see essay (n.)). Meaning "trial of purity of a metal" is from late 14c. _________________________ probation (n.) early 15c., "trial, experiment, test," from Old French probacion "proof, evidence" (14c., Modern French probation) and directly from Latin probationem (nominative probatio) "approval, assent; a proving, trial, inspection, examination," noun of action from past participle stem of probare "to test" (see prove). Meaning "testing of a person's conduct" (especially as a trial period for membership) is from early 15c.; theological sense first recorded 1520s; criminal justice sense is recorded by 1866. As a verb from 1640s. Related: Probationer; probationary. ___________________ probate (n.) "official proving of a will," c. 1400, from Latin probatum "a thing proved," neuter of probatus "tried, tested, proved," past participle of probare "to try, test, prove" (see prove). probate (v.) 1560s, "to prove," from probate (n.) or from Latin probatus, past participle of probare "to make good; esteem, represent as good; make credible, show, demonstrate; test, inspect; judge by trial." Specific sense of "prove the genuineness of a will" is from 1792. Related: Probated; probating. probation (n.) early 15c., "trial, experiment, test," from Old French probacion "proof, evidence" (14c., Modern French probation) and directly from Latin probationem (nominative probatio) "approval, assent; a proving, trial, inspection, examination," noun of action from past participle stem of probare "to test" (see prove). Meaning "testing of a person's conduct" (especially as a trial period for membership) is from early 15c.; theological sense first recorded 1520s; criminal justice sense is recorded by 1866. As a verb from 1640s. Related: Probationer; probationary. __________________________ prove (v.) late 12c., pruven, proven "to try, test; evaluate; demonstrate," from Old French prover, pruver "show; convince; put to the test" (11c., Modern French prouver), from Latin probare "to make good; esteem, represent as good; make credible, show, demonstrate; test, inspect; judge by trial" (source also of Spanish probar, Italian probare), from probus "worthy, good, upright, virtuous," from PIE *pro-bhwo- "being in front," from *pro-, extended form of root *per- (1) "forward," hence "in front of"), + root *bhu- "to be" (source also of Latin fui "I have been," futurus "about to be;" Old English beon "to be;" see be). Related: Proved; proven; proving. ____________________________ test (n.) late 14c., "small vessel used in assaying precious metals," from Old French test, from Latin testum "earthen pot," related to testa "piece of burned clay, earthen pot, shell" (see tete). Sense of "trial or examination to determine the correctness of something" is recorded from 1590s. The connecting notion is "ascertaining the quality of a metal by melting it in a pot." Test Act was the name given to various laws in English history meant to exclude Catholics and Nonconformists from office, especially that of 1673, repealed 1828. Test drive (v.) is first recorded 1954. test (v.) 1748, "to examine the correctness of," from test (n.), on the notion of "put to the proof." Earlier "assay gold or silver" in a test (c. 1600). Meaning "to administer a test" is from 1939; sense of "undergo a test" is from 1934. Related: Tested; testing. _______________________ truth (n.) Old English triewð (West Saxon), treowð (Mercian) "faith, faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty; veracity, quality of being true; pledge, covenant," from Germanic abstract noun *treuwitho, from Proto-Germanic treuwaz "having or characterized by good faith," from PIE *drew-o-, a suffixed form of the root *deru- "be firm, solid, steadfast." With Germanic abstract noun suffix *-itho (see -th (2)). Sense of "something that is true" is first recorded mid-14c. Meaning "accuracy, correctness" is from 1560s. English and most other IE languages do not have a primary verb for "speak the truth," as a contrast to lie (v.). Truth squad in U.S. political sense first attested in the 1952 U.S. presidential election campaign. troth (n.) "truth, verity," late 12c., from a phonetic variant of Old English treowð "faithfulness, veracity, truth;" see truth, which is a doublet of this word. Restricted to Midlands and Northern England dialect after 16c., and to certain archaic phrases (such as plight one's troth). Also see betroth. betroth (v.) c. 1300, betrouthen, "to promise to marry (a woman)," from be-, here probably with a sense of "thoroughly," + Middle English treowðe "truth," from Old English treowðe "truth, a pledge" (see truth). From 1560s as "contract to give (a woman) in marriage to another, affiance." Related: Betrothed; betrothing. ____________________________ jury (n.) "set number of persons, selected according to law and sworn to determine the facts and truth of a case or charge submitted to them and render a verdict," early 14c. (late 12c. in Anglo-Latin), from Anglo-French and Old French juree (13c.), from Medieval Latin iurata "an oath, a judicial inquest, sworn body of men," noun use of fem. past participle of Latin iurare "to swear," from ius (genitive iuris) "law, an oath" (see jurist). Meaning "body of persons chosen to award prizes at an exhibition" is from 1851. Grand jury attested from early 15c. in Anglo-French (le graund Jurre), literally "large," so called with reference to the number of its members (usually 12 to 23). Jury-box is from 1729; juryman from 1570s. Figurative phrase jury is still out "no decision has been made" is from 1957. jury (adj.) "temporary," 1610s (in jury-mast, a nautical term for a temporary mast put in place of one broken or blown away), a sailors' word of uncertain origin. Perhaps it is ultimately from Old French ajurie "help, relief," from Latin adjutare (see aid (n.)). Jury-leg for "wooden leg" is from 1751; Denham once used jury-buttocks. ___________________________ In law and in religion, testimony is a solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter. The words "testimony" and "testify" both derive from the Latin word testis, referring to the notion of a disinterested third-party witness.

Question 84

Embracery

Answer 84

Embracery is the attempt to influence a juror corruptly to give his or her verdict in favour of one side or the other in a trial, by promise, persuasions, entreaties, money, entertainments and the like.[1] In English law, it was an offence both at common law and by statute, punishable by fine and imprisonment. As a statutory offence it dates back to 1360. The offence is complete, whether any verdict has been given or not, and whether the verdict is in accordance with the weight of evidence or otherwise. The person making the attempt, and any member of the jury who consents, are equally punishable.[1] The legal term "embracery" comes from the Old Fr. embraseour, an embracer, i.e., one who excites or instigates, literally one who sets on fire, from embraser, to kindle a fire. This is unrelated to the common word "embrace", i.e., to hold or clasp in the arms, which is from French embracer, from Latin bracchia, arms.[1] The false verdict of a jury, whether occasioned by embracery or otherwise, was formerly considered criminal, and jurors were severely punished, being proceeded against by writ of attaint. The Juries Act 1825, in abolishing writs of attaint, made a special exemption as regards jurors guilty of embracery (s.61). Prosecution for the offence has been so extremely rare that when a case occurred in 1891[2] it was stated that no precedent could be found for the indictment. The defendant was fined £200, afterwards reduced to £100.[1] By 2010 the offence was regarded as obsolete[3] and such misconduct more likely to be charged as perverting the course of justice.[4] The last conviction for embracery in the UK was at Caernarvon Crown Court in November 1975 but it was quashed by the Court of Appeal the following year on the initiative of Lord Justice Lawton,[5] who said that the offence was obsolete. The offence was abolished by section 17 of the Bribery Act 2010,[6] as from 1 July 2011.[7] In the United States, embracery prosecutions have occurred as recently as 1989, when a county commissioner in Georgia was sentenced to a fine and probation.[8][9]

Question 85

Arraignment

Answer 85

Arraignment is a formal reading of a criminal charging document in the presence of the defendant. In response to arraignment, the defendant is expected to enter a plea. Acceptable pleas vary among jurisdiction but generally include peremptory (setting out reasons why a trial cannot proceed), not guilty, guilty, the Alford (a type of guilty plea where the defendant asserts innocence but concedes that they will be found guilty, only used in the United States) and nolo contendere (or no contest). Nolo contendere is a legal term that comes from the Latin phrase for "I do not wish to contend" and it is also referred to as a plea of no contest. In criminal trials in certain United States jurisdictions, it is a plea where the defendant neither admits nor disputes a charge, serving as an alternative to a pleading of guilty or not guilty. A no-contest plea, while not technically a guilty plea, has the same immediate effect as a guilty plea and is often offered as a part of a plea bargain.[1] In many jurisdictions a plea of nolo contendere is not a typical right and carries various restrictions on its use. The United States has 57 court systems – one each for federal (1), state (50), commonwealth (2), territorial (3), and federal district (1) jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction establishes its own rules of criminal procedure. All 57 sets of rules must comply with certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution (e.g. the privilege against self-incrimination, prohibition of excessive bail, etc.) but otherwise are bound only by their own local constitutions and statutes. At federal level, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that "arraignment shall [consist of an] open...reading [of] the indictment...to the defendant...and call[] on him to plead thereto. He/she shall be given a copy of the indictment...before he/she is called upon to plead."[5] Federal arraignment takes place in two stages. The first is called the initial arraignment and must take place within 48 hours of an individual's arrest, 72 hours if the individual was arrested on the weekend and not able to go before a judge until Monday.[6] During this arraignment the defendant is informed of the pending legal charges and is informed of his or her right to retain counsel. The presiding judge also decides at what amount, if any, to set bail. During the second arraignment, a post-indictment arraignment or PIA, the defendant is allowed to enter a plea. In New York, most people arrested must be released if they are not arraigned within 24 hours.[7]

Question 86

indictment

Answer 86

An indictment (/ɪnˈdaɪtmənt/ in-DYT-mənt) is a criminal accusation that a person has committed a crime. In jurisdictions that use the concept of felonies, the most serious criminal offence is a felony; jurisdictions that do not use the concept of felonies often use that of an indictable offence—an offence that requires an indictment.

Question 87

Identity (person)

Answer 87

In psychology, identity is the qualities, beliefs, personality, looks and/or expressions that make a person (self-identity) or group (particular social category or social group).[citation needed] Categorizing identity can be positive or destructive.[1] A psychological identity relates to self-image (one's mental model of oneself), self-esteem, and individuality. Consequently, Weinreich gives the definition: "A person's identity is defined as the totality of one's self-construal, in which how one construes oneself in the present expresses the continuity between how one construes oneself as one was in the past and how one construes oneself as one aspires to be in the future"; this allows for definitions of aspects of identity, such as: "One's ethnic identity is defined as that part of the totality of one's self-construal made up of those dimensions that express the continuity between one's construal of past ancestry and one's future aspirations in relation to ethnicity". Sociology places some explanatory weight on the concept of role-behavior. The notion of identity negotiation may arise from the learning of social roles through personal experience. Identity negotiation is a process in which a person negotiates with society at large regarding the meaning of his or her identity. Psychologists most commonly use the term "identity" to describe personal identity, or the idiosyncratic things that make a person unique. Sociologists, however, often use the term to describe social identity, or the collection of group memberships that define the individual. However, these uses are not proprietary, and each discipline may use either concept and each discipline may combine both concepts when considering a person's identity. Identity formation, also known as individuation, is the development of the distinct personality of an individual[1] regarded as a persisting entity (known as personal continuity) in a particular stage of life in which individual characteristics are possessed and by which a person is recognized or known (such as the establishment of a reputation). This process defines individuals to others and themselves. Pieces of the person's actual identity include a sense of continuity, a sense of uniqueness from others, and a sense of affiliation. Identity formation leads to a number of issues of personal identity and an identity where the individual has some sort of comprehension of themselves as a discrete and separate entity. This may be through individuation whereby the undifferentiated individual tends to become unique, or undergoes stages through which differentiated facets of a person's life tend toward becoming a more indivisible whole.[citation needed] Identity is often described as finite and consisting of separate and distinct parts (family, cultural, personal, professional, etc.), yet according to Parker J. Palmer, it is an ever-evolving core within where our genetics (biology), culture, loved ones, those we cared for, people who have harmed us and people we have harmed, the deeds done (good and ill) to self and others, experiences lived, and choices made come together to form who we are at this moment. __________________________________

Question 88

Mental Model (identity)

Answer 88

A mental model is an explanation of someone's thought process about how something works in the real world. It is a representation of the surrounding world, the relationships between its various parts and a person's intuitive perception about his or her own acts and their consequences. Mental models can help shape behaviour and set an approach to solving problems (similar to a personal algorithm) and doing tasks. A mental model is a kind of internal symbol or representation of external reality, hypothesized to play a major role in cognition, reasoning and decision-making. Kenneth Craik suggested in 1943 that the mind constructs "small-scale models" of reality that it uses to anticipate events. The image of the world around us, which we carry in our head, is just a model. Nobody in his head imagines all the world, government or country. He has only selected concepts, and relationships between them, and uses those to represent the real system (Forrester, 1971). A mental representation (or cognitive representation), in philosophy of mind, cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science, is a hypothetical internal cognitive symbol that represents external reality,[1] or else a mental process that makes use of such a symbol: "a formal system for making explicit certain entities or types of information, together with a specification of how the system does this".[2] Mental representation is the mental imagery of things that are not actually present to the senses.[3] In contemporary philosophy, specifically in fields of metaphysics such as philosophy of mind and ontology, a mental representation is one of the prevailing ways of explaining and describing the nature of ideas and concepts. Mental representations (or mental imagery) enable representing things that have never been experienced as well as things that do not exist.

Question 89

Self (identity)

Answer 89

SELF Self-image is the mental picture, generally of a kind that is quite resistant to change, that depicts not only details that are potentially available to objective investigation by others (height, weight, hair color, etc.), but also items that have been learned by that person about themself, either from personal experiences or by internalizing the judgments of others. Self-image may consist of four types: Self-image resulting from how an individual sees oneself. Self-image resulting from how others see the individual. Self-image resulting from how the individual perceives others see them. Self-image resulting from how the individual perceives the individual sees oneself. These four types may or may not be an accurate representation of the person. All, some or none of them may be true. A more technical term for self-image that is commonly used by social and cognitive psychologists is self-schema. Like any schema, self-schemas store information and influence the way we think and remember. For example, research indicates that information which refers to the self is preferentially encoded and recalled in memory tests, a phenomenon known as "self-referential encoding".[1] Self-schemas are also considered the traits people use to define themselves, they draw information about the self into a coherent scheme.[2][3] Self-reference occurs in natural or formal languages when a sentence, idea or formula refers to itself. The reference may be expressed either directly—through some intermediate sentence or formula—or by means of some encoding. In philosophy, it also refers to the ability of a subject to speak of or refer to itself: to have the kind of thought expressed by the first person nominative singular pronoun, the word "I" in English. One's self-concept (also called self-construction, self-identity, self-perspective or self-structure) is a collection of beliefs about oneself.[1][2] Generally, self-concept embodies the answer to "Who am I?". Self-awareness is the capacity for introspection and the ability to recognize oneself as an individual separate from the environment and other individuals.[1] It is not to be confused with consciousness in the sense of qualia. While consciousness is being aware of one's environment and body and lifestyle, self-awareness is the recognition of that awareness.[2] Self-awareness is how an individual consciously knows and understands his/her own character, feelings, motives, and desires. Self-knowledge is a term used in psychology to describe the information that an individual draws upon when finding an answer to the question "What am I like?". While seeking to develop the answer to this question, self-knowledge requires ongoing self-awareness and self-consciousness (which is not to be confused with consciousness). Young infants and chimpanzees display some of the traits of self-awareness[1] and agency/contingency,[2] yet they are not considered as also having self-consciousness. At some greater level of cognition, however, a self-conscious component emerges in addition to an increased self-awareness component, and then it becomes possible to ask "What am I like?", and to answer with self-knowledge. The psychology of self is the study of either the cognitive, conative or affective representation of one's identity or the subject of experience. The earliest formulation of the self in modern psychology derived from the distinction between the self as I, the subjective knower, and the self as Me, the object that is known. Self-esteem reflects an individual's overall subjective emotional evaluation of their own worth. It is the decision made by an individual as an attitude towards the self. Self-esteem encompasses beliefs about oneself, (for example, "I am competent", "I am worthy"), as well as emotional states, such as triumph, despair, pride, and shame.[1] Smith and Mackie (2007) defined it by saying "The self-concept is what we think about the self; self-esteem, is the positive or negative evaluations of the self, as in how we feel about it."[2]:107 Self-esteem is attractive as a social psychological construct because researchers have conceptualized it as an influential predictor of certain outcomes, such as academic achievement,[3][4] happiness,[5] satisfaction in marriage and relationships,[6] and criminal behaviour.[6] Self-esteem can apply specifically to a particular dimension (for example, "I believe I am a good writer and feel happy about that") or a global extent (for example, "I believe I am a bad person, and feel bad about myself in general"). Psychologists usually regard self-esteem as an enduring personality characteristic ("trait" self-esteem), though normal, short-term variations ("state" self-esteem) also exist. Synonyms or near-synonyms of self-esteem include many things: self-worth,[7] self-regard,[8] self-respect,[9][10] and self-integrity. Self-perception theory (SPT) is an account of attitude formation developed by psychologist Daryl Bem.[1][2] It asserts that people develop their attitudes (when there is no previous attitude due to a lack of experience, etc.—and the emotional response is ambiguous) by observing their own behavior and concluding what attitudes must have caused it. The theory is counterintuitive in nature, as the conventional wisdom is that attitudes determine behaviors. Furthermore, the theory suggests that people induce attitudes without accessing internal cognition and mood states.[3] The person interprets their own overt behaviors rationally in the same way they attempt to explain others' behaviors. ______________________________ In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. This discomfort is triggered by a situation in which a person’s belief clashes with new evidence perceived by that person. When confronted with facts that contradict personal beliefs, ideals, and values, people will find a way to resolve the contradiction in order to reduce their discomfort.[1][2] In A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957), Leon Festinger proposed that human beings strive for internal psychological consistency in order to mentally function in the real world. A person who experiences internal inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and so is motivated to reduce the cognitive dissonance, by making changes to justify the stressful behavior, either by adding new parts to the cognition causing the psychological dissonance, or by actively avoiding social situations and contradictory information likely to increase the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance.[1]

Question 90

Business

Answer 90

DILIGENT - CAREFUL - ANXIOUS busy (adj.) Old English bisig "careful, anxious," later "continually employed or occupied, in constant or energetic action" cognate with Old Dutch bezich, Low German besig, but having no known connection with any other Germanic or Indo-European language. Still pronounced as in Middle English, but for some unclear reason the spelling shifted to -u- in 15c. The notion of "anxiousness" has drained from the word since Middle English. Often in a bad sense in early Modern English, "prying, meddlesome, active in that which does not concern one" (preserved in busybody). The word was a euphemism for "sexually active" in 17c. Of telephone lines, 1884. Of display work, "excessively detailed, visually cluttered," 1903. busy (v.) late Old English bisgian, "attend to, be concerned with, be diligent," from the source of busy (adj.). From late 14c. as "keep engaged, make or keep busy." Related: Busied; busying. business (n.) Old English bisignes (Northumbrian) "care, anxiety, occupation," from bisig "careful, anxious, busy, occupied, diligent" (see busy (adj.)) + -ness. The original sense is obsolete, as is the Middle English sense of "state of being much occupied or engaged" (mid-14c.), the latter replaced by busyness. Johnson's dictionary also has busiless "At leisure; without business; unemployed." Modern two-syllable pronunciation is 17c. Sense of "a person's work, occupation, that which one does for a livelihood" is first recorded late 14c. (in late Old English bisig (adj.) appears as a noun with the sense "occupation, state of employment"). Sense of "that which is undertaken as a duty" is from late 14c. Meaning "what one is about at the moment" is from 1590s. Sense of "trade, commercial engagements, mercantile pursuits collectively" is first attested 1727, on the notion of "matters which occupy one's time and attention." In 17c. business also could mean "sexual intercourse." Business card first attested 1840; business letter from 1766. Business end "the practical or effective part" (of something) is American English, by 1874. Phrase business as usual attested from 1865. To mean business "be intent on serious action" is from 1856. To mind (one's) own business "attend to one's affairs and not meddle with those of others" is from 1620s.

Question 91

Injustice

Answer 91

Injustice is a quality relating to unfairness or undeserved outcomes. The term may be applied in reference to a particular event or situation, or to a larger status quo. In Western philosophy and jurisprudence, injustice is very commonly—but not always—defined as either the absence or the opposite of justice. The sense of injustice is a universal human feature, though the exact circumstances considered unjust can vary from culture to culture. While even acts of nature can sometimes arouse the sense of injustice, the sense is usually felt in relation to human action such as misuse, abuse, neglect, or malfeasance that is uncorrected or else sanctioned by a legal system or fellow human beings. The sense of injustice can be a powerful motivational condition, causing people to take action not just to defend themselves but also others who they perceive to be unfairly treated.

Question 92

Procedural Justice

Answer 92

Procedural justice is the idea of fairness in the processes that resolve disputes and allocate resources. One aspect of procedural justice is related to discussions of the administration of justice and legal proceedings. This sense of procedural justice is connected to due process (U.S.), fundamental justice (Canada), procedural fairness (Australia), and natural justice (other Common law jurisdictions), but the idea of procedural justice can also be applied to nonlegal contexts in which some process is employed to resolve conflict or divide benefits or burdens. Other aspects of procedural justice can also be found in social psychology and sociology issues and organizational psychology.[1][2] Procedural justice concerns the fairness and the transparency of the processes by which decisions are made, and may be contrasted with distributive justice (fairness in the distribution of rights or resources), and retributive justice (fairness in the punishment of wrongs). Hearing all parties before a decision is made is one step which would be considered appropriate to be taken in order that a process may then be characterised as procedurally fair. Some theories of procedural justice hold that fair procedure leads to equitable outcomes, even if the requirements of distributive or restorative justice are not met.[3] It has been suggested that this is the outcome of the higher quality interpersonal interactions often found in the procedural justice process, which has shown to be stronger in affecting the perception of fairness during conflict resolution.[citation needed]

Question 93

Administration of Justice

Answer 93

The administration of justice is the process by which the legal system of a government is executed. The presumed goal of such administration is to provide justice for all those accessing the legal system.

Question 94

Cause

Answer 94

Causation is the "causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and end result". In other words, causation provides a means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect, typically an injury. In criminal law, it is defined as the actus reus (an action) from which the specific injury or other effect arose and is combined with mens rea (a state of mind) to comprise the elements of guilt. Causation only applies where a result has been achieved and therefore is immaterial with regard to inchoate offenses.

Question 95

Inchoate Offense

Answer 95

An inchoate offense, preliminary crime, inchoate crime or incomplete crime is a crime of preparing for or seeking to commit another crime. The most common example of an inchoate offense is "attempt". "Inchoate offense" has been defined as the following: "Conduct deemed criminal without actual harm being done, provided that the harm that would have occurred is one the law tries to prevent."

Question 96

Culpability

Answer 96

Culpability, or being culpable, is a measure of the degree to which an agent, such as a person, can be held morally or legally responsible for action and inaction. Culpability marks the dividing line between moral evil, like murder, for which someone may be held legally responsible and a randomly occurring event, like earthquakes, for which no human can be held responsible. A person is culpable if they cause a negative event and (1) the act was intentional; (2) the act and its consequences could have been controlled (i.e., the agent knew the likely consequences, the agent was not coerced, and the agent overcame hurdles to make the event happen); and (3) the person provided no excuse or justification for the actions. Culpability descends from the Latin concept of fault (culpa). The concept of culpability is intimately tied up with notions of agency, freedom, and free will. All are commonly held to be necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for culpability. Culpa is a Latin, Spanish, and Portuguese word meaning guilt or fault. It may also be referring to: Criminal negligence, called culpa in several legal systems Mea Culpa, the Latin phrase for "it is my fault" Culpa (1993 film), a Cuban film directed by Jorge Molina Guilt may refer to: Guilt (emotion), an emotion that occurs when a person feels that they have violated a moral standard Culpability, a legal term Guilt (law), a legal term

Question 97

Guilt

Answer 97

In criminal law, guilt is the state of being responsible for the commission of an offense. Legal guilt is entirely externally defined by the state, or more generally a "court of law". Being "guilty" of a criminal offense means that one has committed a violation of criminal law, or performed all the elements of the offense set out by a criminal statute. The determination that one has committed that violation is made by an external body (a "court of law") and is, therefore, as definitive as the record-keeping of the body. _______________________ Philosophically, guilt in criminal law is a reflection of a functioning society and its ability to condemn individuals' actions. It rests fundamentally on a presumption of free will, in which individuals choose actions and are, therefore, subjected to external judgement of the rightness or wrongness of those actions. An adjudication of guilt is more than a factual determination that the defendant pulled a trigger, took a bicycle, or sold heroin. It is a moral judgment that the individual is blameworthy. Our collective conscience does not allow punishment where it cannot impose blame. Our concept of blameworthiness rests on assumptions that are older than the Republic: man is naturally endowed with these two great faculties, understanding and liberty of will. Historically, our substantive criminal law is based on a theory of punishing the viscious [sic] will. It postulates a free agent confronted with a choice between doing right and wrong, and choosing freely to do wrong. So the most basic definition is fundamentally circular: a person is guilty of violating a law, if a court says so. "Guilt" is the obligation of a person who has violated a moral standard to bear the sanctions imposed by that moral standard. In legal terms, guilt means having been found to have violated a criminal law,[1] though law also raises 'the issue of defences, pleas, the mitigation of offences, and the defeasibility of claims'. Guilt can sometimes be remedied by: 1. punishment (a common action and advised or required in many legal and moral codes); 2. forgiveness (as in transformative justice); 3. making amends (see reparation or acts of reparation) 4. restitution ... an important step in finding freedom from real guilt' 5. by sincere remorse (as with confession in Catholicism or restorative justice). 6. Guilt can also be remedied through intellectualisation or cognition [7] (the understanding that the source of the guilty feelings was illogical or irrelevant). Helping other people can also help relieve guilt feelings: "thus guilty people are often helpful people ... helping, like receiving an external reward, seemed to get people feeling better".[8] There are also the so-called "Don Juans of achievement ... who pay the installments due their superego not by suffering but by achievements.... Since no achievement succeeds in really undoing the unconscious guilt, these persons are compelled to run from one achievement to another". Law does not usually accept the agent's self-punishment, but some ancient codes did: in Athens, the accused could propose their own remedy, which could, in fact, be a reward, while the accuser proposed another, and the jury chose something in-between. This forced the accused to effectively bet on his support in the community, as Socrates did when he proposed "room and board in the town hall" as his fate. He lost and drank hemlock, a poison, as advised by his accuser.

Question 98

Malum prohibitum

Answer 98

Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute,[1] as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.[2] Conduct that is so clearly violative of society's standards for allowable conduct that it is illegal under English common law is usually regarded as malum in se. An offense that is malum prohibitum may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards. The distinction between these two cases is discussed in State of Washington v. Thaddius X. Anderson: Criminal offenses can be broken down into two general categories malum in se and malum prohibitum. The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community," whereas a malum prohibitum offense is wrong only because a statute makes it so. State v. Horton, 139 N.C. 588, 51 S.E. 945, 946 (1905). "Public welfare offenses" are a subset of malum prohibitum offenses as they are typically regulatory in nature and often "'result in no direct or immediate injury to person or property but merely create the danger or probability of it which the law seeks to minimize.'" Bash, 130 Wn.2d at 607 (quoting Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 255-56, 72 S. Ct. 240, 96 L. Ed. 288 (1952)); see also State v. Carty, 27 Wn. App. 715, 717, 620 P.2d 137 (1980).

Question 99

Malum in se

Answer 99

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited. For example, most human beings believe that murder, rape, and theft are wrong, regardless of whether a law governs such conduct or where the conduct occurs, and is thus recognizably malum in se. In contrast, malum prohibitum crimes are criminal not because they are inherently bad, but because the act is prohibited by the law of the state. For example, law in the United States requires drivers to drive on the right side of the road. This is not because driving on the left side of a road is considered immoral, but because consistent rules promote safety and order on the roads. This concept was used to develop the various common law offences.[1] Another way to describe the underlying conceptual difference between "malum in se" and "malum prohibitum" is "iussum quia iustum" and "iustum quia iussum", namely something that is commanded (iussum) because it is just (iustum) and something that is just (iustum) because it is commanded (iussum).

Question 100

Morality

Answer 100

In its descriptive sense, "morality" refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores from a society that provides these codes of conduct in which it applies and... { is accepted by an individual.} Morality (from Latin: moralis, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2] Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness". Moral philosophy includes moral ontology, which is the origin of morals; and moral epistemology, which studies the knowledge of morals. Different systems of expressing morality have been proposed, including deontological ethical systems which adhere to a set of established rules, and normative ethical systems which consider the merits of actions themselves. An example of normative ethical philosophy is the Golden Rule, which states that: "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself." Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. opposition to that which is good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any particular set of moral standards or principles.

Question 101

Code of Conduct

Answer 101

A code of conduct is a set of rules outlining the social norms, religious rules and responsibilities of, and or proper practices for, an individual. In its 2007 International Good Practice Guidance, "Defining and Developing an Effective Code of Conduct for Organizations", the International Federation of Accountants[1][better source needed] provided the following working definition: "Principles, values, standards, or rules of behaviour that guide the decisions, procedures and systems of an organization in a way that (a) contributes to the welfare of its key stakeholders, and (b) respects the rights of all constituents affected by its operations." A common code of conduct is written for employees of a company (a company code of conduct), which protects the business and informs the employees of the company's expectations. It is ideal for even the smallest of companies to form a document containing important information on expectations for employees. The document does not need to be complex or have elaborate policies, but the file needs a simple basis of what the company expects from each employee. A company code of conduct is a document written up voluntarily by a company in which sets out a set of principles that it commits itself to follow. In some cases, codes of conduct reach suppliers, subcontractors and third parties. It is a type of code of conduct. The company code of conduct appeared in the 1970s but in the course of the 1990s process that multinational corporations (MNE) generally began to create and disseminate to the public many codes of conduct to those who undertake to adjust their activities. It is about a phenomenon with regards to MNEs and their relationship with workers, society and the environment. They have also generated extensive debates about the conditions of their validity and their control, which in turn has led to the creation of "multinational enterprise observatories" A company code of conduct is related to the International Framework Agreements (sometimes also called bilateral codes of conduct) that a coupe of MNEs have signed with World Trade Unions, as well as with the multilateral codes of conduct that have been signed by companies with trade unions, NGOs, environmental organizations, consumer organizations, etc.

Question 102

Sherif

Answer 102

sċīrġerēfa From sċīr +‎ ġerēfa. sheriff, chief officer of a shire. gerefa From ġe- + *rof (“an array, number, host”) (attested only in compounds: secgrōf (“host of men”), stæfrōf (“alphabet”)). Cognate to Middle Low German grēve (Danish greve, Swedish greve). a reeve or official with local jurisdiction under the king; the chief magistrate of a district. REEVE From Middle English reve, from Old English rēfa, an aphetism of ġerēfa (also groefa), perhaps dissimilated from Proto-Germanic *grēfijô (“officer, official”). Compare Danish greve, Swedish greve, Dutch graaf, German Graf. Role, and later word, mostly replaced by bailiff, of Anglo-Norman origin. (historical) Any of several local officials, with varying responsibilities. ``` From Old English rēafian. rēafian to rob to plunder to reave ``` Scottish reve (plural reves or reven) A reeve or bailiff (a local official); an administrator. An administrator of an estate or manor; a manager or steward. (Christianity) A subordinate or deputy of God. [ OE scīr-gerēfa, scīre-, scȳr(e)-, scīrrēfa.] (a) A high elected or appointed official representing the Crown, having various legal and administrative duties, a sheriff; (b) with the names of specific English counties or cities: ~ of york (london, the seid toun of bristol, etc.); ~ for the cite of london; (c) by extension to other countries: a governor, prefect, etc.; also, transl. of L vicecomes; (d) ~ cacche-pol, shir-reves depute, a sheriff's officer; shir-reve(s clerk, a clerk of the sheriff's court; ~ gavel, a rent of some kind; ~ shot (tenthe), shir-reves silver (welcom), shir-reve(s yeld, money to meet the sheriff's expenses, sheriff's aid; ~ toth, shir-reves teth, a customary rent; shir-reve(s tourn, the sheriff's biannual court; shir-reves writ, a writ directed to the sheriff; (e) in phrases: ~ of shires (the shire, this cite, etc.); ministre of the ~, a sheriff's deputy; tourn of ~, sheriff's court; reven To cause someone to lose something: To steal, or rob; to secretly loot. To loot, despoil, ravage; to bring to ruin. To grab, take, or confiscate with force or violence. To lose an ability or knowledge. To ruin or destroy: To eliminate or terminate; to render unusable. To kill; to murder or end the life of. To chop or lop off To take into safety; to recover or liberate. To bring into a euphoric state. ``` Proto-Germanic/ grēfijô *grēfijô m count (the male ruler of a county) earl reeve, bailiff officer,official ``` From Old High German grāfo, grāvo, grāfio, grāvio (“count, local judge”). ____________________ scir sċīr f office (status of an official) district (under an official or governor) administrative region, shire (consisting of a number of hundreds or wapentakes, ruled jointly by an alderman and a sheriff) Shire shire (plural shires) Physical area administered by a sheriff. Former administrative area of Britain; a county. Yorkshire is the largest shire in England. (Britain, colloquial) The general area in which a person lives, used in the context of travel within the UK. When are you coming back to the shire? A rural or outer suburban local government area of Australia. ___________________________ ƿǣpenġetæc wǣpenġetæc n a vote made by touching one's weapon; a council where such votes are taken wapentake; a district governed by such a council, generally under Scandinavian control Old English wǣpenġetæc, from Old Norse vápnatak, from vápn (“weapon”) + taka (“take”). An administrative subdivision in northern English counties, developed under Norse influence, and corresponding to hundreds in the rest of England. vápnatak From vápn "weapon" and tak "taking/touching". vápnatak n lit. a weapons-touching: a Scandinavian ceremony in which a newly chosen lord's raised blade was met by those of his vassals, functioning as a ritual imitation in which the vassals oath their taking up of weapons should their lord rally them a vote made by touching one's weapon; the council where such votes are taken a district governed by such a council. ________________________ COUNTY From Middle English countee, counte, conte, from Anglo-Norman counté, Old French conté (French comté), from Latin comitātus (“jurisdiction of a count”), from comes (“count, earl”). Cognate with English condado (“county”). Doublet of comitatus, borrowed directly from Latin. Latin comitatus (plural comitatuses or comitatus) (historical) A group of warriors or nobles accompanying a king or other leader. accompanied; guarded; served. comes m, f (genitive comitis); third declension a companion, comrade, partner an attendant, a servant (late classical, medieval) a count, an earl. COUNT Borrowed from Anglo-Norman conte and Old French comte (“count”), from Latin comes (“companion”) (more specifically derived from its accusative form comitem) in the sense of "noble fighting alongside the king". Doublet of comes and comte. Noun Edit count (plural counts) The male ruler of a county. ______________________ EARL earl (plural earls) A British or Irish nobleman next in rank above a viscount and below a marquess; equivalent to a European count. A female using the style is termed a countess. eorl m Anglo-Saxon of noble rank; a nobleman ranking above a thane; alderman warrior, brave man Danish under-king, jarl Old Norse jarl Norwegian Nynorsk a title given to the highest noblemen in Norse times. Went out of use in the 14th century. ``` ὄρνῡμῐ • (órnūmi) to set upon, let loose upon, move on to awaken, arouse to raise, excite to stir up, encourage, exhort, cheer on. ``` From Proto-Indo-European *h₃er- (“to move, stir, spring”). (compare Latin orior (“to rise, get up”), Ancient Greek ὄρνυμι (órnumi, “to urge, incite”), ___________________________ marquis Lord of the border country. from Proto-Indo-European *marǵ- (“edge, boundary”). Meaning is “lord of the march”, in sense of march (“border country”). marquess (plural marquesses) A title of nobility for a man ranking beneath a duke and above an earl. From Middle English marchen, from Middle French marcher (“to march, walk”), from Old French marchier (“to stride, to march, to trample”), from Frankish *markōn (“to mark, mark out, to press with the foot”), from Proto-Germanic *markō (“area, region, edge, rim, border”), akin to Persian مرز‎ (marz), from Proto-Indo-European *mereg- (“edge, boundary”). Akin to Old English mearc, ġemearc (“mark, boundary”). ``` Old English mearc f (nominative plural mearca or mearce) ``` mark, sign, character boundary, limit From Proto-Indo-European *marǵ- (“edge, boundary, border”). Cognate with Latin margo (“border, edge”), Proto-Celtic *mrogis (“region, country”). Proto-Celtic/ mrogis Frontier From Proto-Indo-European *morǵ- (“frontier, border”). Cognate with Latin margo (“border, edge”), Proto-Germanic *markō (“border, region”), Avestan 𐬨𐬀𐬭𐬆𐬰𐬀‎ (marəza, “frontier”). mrogis f border, borderland, march, mark region, country, territory, province Mercia From Proto-Germanic *markōną, from *markō (“a mark”). Cognate with Old Frisian merkia (“to notice”), Old Saxon markon (“to design”), Old High German marchon (“to limit”) (German merken (“to put a mark on”)), Old Norse marka (“put a mark on, observe”). ____________________________ A nobleman holding a rank intermediate between dukes and barons. ____________________________ LADY hlǣfdīġe From hlāf (“bread”) + a second element representing Proto-Germanic *daigijǭ (“kneader”) (compare dǣġe, dāg (“dough”)). dǣġe f female servant woman in charge of a dairy; dey, dairymaid. English: dey; dairy; lady Proto-Germanic/ daigij From Proto-Indo-European *dʰeyǵʰ- (“to knead, form, build”). *daigijǭ f kneader of bread; dairy-maid Old English dæg From Proto-Germanic *dagaz, from Proto-Indo-European *dʰegʷʰ- (“to burn”). Cognate with Old High German tac (German Tag), Old Norse dagr (Swedish dag), Old Frisian dei, Old Saxon and Old Dutch dag (Dutch dag), Gothic 𐌳𐌰𐌲𐍃 (dags). From Proto-Germanic *þewernǭ, through Old Saxon thiorna. Ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *tekʷ- (“to run”). Noun Edit þerna f maid servant From Proto-Germanic *daigijǭ (“kneader”): cognate with Old Norse deigja (“female servant”). ______________________________ BAILIFF From Anglo-Norman and Old French bailif (plural bailis), probably from reconstructed Vulgar Latin *bāiulivus (“castellan”), from Latin bāiulus (“porter; steward”), whence also bail. As a translation of foreign titles, semantic loan from French bailli, Scots bailie, Dutch baljuw, etc. Mostly replaced the role of native reeve. (law enforcement) An officer of the court, particularly: (historical, Norman term) A reeve, (specifically) the chief officer executing the decisions of any English court in the period following the Norman Conquest or executing the decisions of lower courts in the late medieval and early modern period. (Britain) A high bailiff: an officer of the county courts responsible for executing warrants and court orders, appointed by the judge and removable by the Lord Chancellor. (Britain) A bound bailiff: a deputy bailiff charged with debt collection. (US, colloquial) Any law enforcement officer charged with courtroom security and order. A huissier de justice or other foreign officer of the court acting as either a process server or as courtroom security. A public administrator, particularly: (obsolete) A king's man: any officer nominated by the English Crown. (historical) The chief officer of a hundred in medieval England. The title of the mayor of certain English towns. The title of the castellan of certain royal castles in England. The chief justice and president of the legislature on Jersey and Guernsey in the Channel Islands. The High Bailiff of the Isle of Man. (obsolete) A bailie: an alderman in certain Scottish towns. (historical) An appointee of the French king administering certain districts of northern France in the Middle Ages. (historical) A head of a district ("bailiwick") of the Knights Hospitaller; a head of one of the national associations ("tongues") of the Hospitallers' headquarters on Rhodes or Malta. (historical) A landvogt in the medieval German states. A private administrator, particularly (historical) A steward: the manager of a medieval manor charged with collecting its rents, etc. (historical) An overseer: a supervisor of tenant farmers, serfs, or slaves, usually as part of his role as steward (see above). (Britain, slang) Any debt collector, regardless of his or her official status. *bāiulīvus m (genitive *bāiulīvī); second declension An official in charge of a castle. overseer (plural overseers) One who oversees or supervises. (historical) The manager of a plantation of slaves. (historical) An officer responsible for the care of the poor, making out lists of voters and those who had not paid taxes, etc. ___________________________ provost (plural provosts) One placed in charge: a head, a chief, particularly: (religion, historical) A dean: the head of a cathedral chapter. (religion) The head of various other ecclesiastical bodies, even (rare, obsolete) muezzins. (religion) The minister of the chief Protestant church of a town or region in Germany, the Low Countries, and Scandinavia. (Britain, higher education) The head of various colleges and universities. (obsolete) A ruler. A mayor: the chief magistrate of a town, particularly (Scotland) the head of a burgh or (historical) the former chiefs of various towns in France, Flanders, or (by extension) other Continental European countries. A senior deputy, a superintendent, particularly: (religion, historical) A prior: an abbot's second-in-command. (US, higher education) A senior deputy administrator; a vice-president of academic affairs. (historical) A steward or seneschal: a medieval agent given management of a feudal estate or charged with collecting fees; (obsolete, sometimes as ~ of Paradise or ~ of Heaven) a title of the archangel Michael. (historical) Any manager or overseer in a medieval or early modern context. (obsolete) A viceroy. (obsolete) A governor. (obsolete) A reeve. (obsolete) Various Roman offices, as prefect and praetor. (historical) A constable: a medieval or early modern official charged with arresting, holding, and punishing criminals. _____________________________ STEWARD Steward A person who manages the property or affairs for another entity, particularly (historical) the chief administrator of a medieval manor. From Middle English steward, from Old English stīweard, stīġweard (“steward, housekeeper, one who has the superintendence of household affairs, guardian”), from stīġ in the sense house, hall + weard (“ward, guard, guardian, keeper”).[1][2] Compare Icelandic stívarður (“steward”). More at sty, ward. ______________________ Latin praepositus Perfect passive participle of praepōnō, equivalent to prae- (“fore-”) + positus (“placed”). positus m (feminine posita, neuter positum); first/second declension placed ordained pōnō (present infinitive pōnere, perfect active posuī, supine positum); third conjugation I place, put, lay I ordain I set up, pitch (camp)

Question 103

Assize

Answer 103

The courts of assize, or assizes (/əˈsaɪzɪz/), were periodic courts held around England and Wales until 1972, when together with the quarter sessions they were abolished by the Courts Act 1971 and replaced by a single permanent Crown Court. The assizes exercised both civil and criminal jurisdiction, though most of their work was on the criminal side.[1] The assizes heard the most serious cases, which were committed to it by the quarter sessions (local county courts held four times per year), while the more minor offences were dealt with summarily by justices of the peace in petty sessions (also known as magistrates' courts). The word assize refers to the sittings or sessions (Old French assises) of the judges, known as "justices of assize", who were judges who travelled across the seven circuits of England and Wales on commissions of "oyer and terminer", setting up court and summoning juries at the various assize towns. Etymology Middle English assise < Old French assize ("session, legal action" – past participle of asseoir, "to seat") < Vulgar Latin *assedēre < Latin assidēre ("to sit beside, assist in the office of a judge") < ad + sedēre ("to sit"). Justices of the Court of King's Bench, those of the Court of Common Pleas, and barons of the Exchequer of Pleas travelled around the country on five commissions: their civil commissions were the commission of assize and the commission of nisi prius; their criminal commissions were the commission of the peace, the commission of oyer and terminer and the commission of (or for) gaol delivery. Nisi prius (/ˈnaɪsaɪ ˈpraɪəs/) is a historical term in English law. In the 19th century, it came to be used to denote generally all legal actions tried before judges of the King's Bench Division[1] and in the early twentieth century for actions tried at assize by a judge given a commission.[2] Used in that way, the term has had no currency since the abolition of assizes in 1971.

Question 104

Nisi Prius

Answer 104

Nisi prius translates as "if not sooner" or "if not before" in addition to "unless first": when the action was started in London, the sheriff was ordered to have the jurors there for trial on a certain day "unless before" (nisi prius) that day the case was heard at assize in the claimant's county. Nisi prius (/ˈnaɪsaɪ ˈpraɪəs/) is a historical term in English law. In the 19th century, it came to be used to denote generally all legal actions tried before judges of the King's Bench Division[1] and in the early twentieth century for actions tried at assize by a judge given a commission.[2] Used in that way, the term has had no currency since the abolition of assizes in 1971.

Question 105

Original Jurisdiction Court of first instance.

Answer 105

The original jurisdiction of a court is the power to hear a case for the first time, as opposed to appellate jurisdiction, when a higher court has the power to review a lower court's decision. The lowest civil court of France, the tribunal de première instance (literally, "Court of First Instance"), has original jurisdiction over most civil matters except areas of specialist exclusive jurisdiction, those being mainly land estates, business and consumer matters, social security, and labor. All criminal matters may pass summarily through the lowest criminal court, the tribunal de police, but each court has both original and limited jurisdiction over certain separate levels of offences: juge de proximité ("Magistrate Court"): petty misdemeanors and violations; tribunal de police ("Police Court"): gross misdemeanors or summary offences (jurisdiction); tribunal correctionnel ("Criminal Court"): felonies or indictable offences generally; cour d'assises ("Court of Sessions"): capital and first-degree felonies or major indictable offences, high crimes, crimes against the State.

Question 106

Statutory Instruments

Answer 106

Statutory instruments are the principal form of delegated or secondary legislation in the United Kingdom. In England and Wales, statutory instruments (or "regulations")[1] are primarily governed by the Statutory Instruments Act 1946,[2] which replaced the system of statutory rules and orders governed by the Rules Publication Act 1893.

Question 107

Primary and secondary legislation

Answer 107

In parliamentary systems and presidential systems of government, primary legislation and secondary legislation, the latter also called delegated legislation or subordinate legislation,[1] are two forms of law, created respectively by the legislative and executive branches of government. Primary legislation generally consists of statutes, also known as "acts", that set out broad outlines and principles, but delegate specific authority to an executive branch to make more specific laws under the aegis of the principal act. The executive branch can then issue secondary legislation (mainly via its regulatory agencies), creating legally-enforceable regulations and the procedures for implementing them. In the United Kingdom, and other Commonwealth nations, primary legislation can take a number of different forms: An Act of Parliament. An Order in Council made under the Royal Prerogative Church of England Measures – the instruments by which changes are made to legislation relating to the administration and organisation of the Church (UK only). In the United Kingdom, secondary legislation (also referred to as delegated legislation or subordinate legislation) is law made by an executive authority under powers delegated from by an enactment of primary legislation, which grants the executive agency power to implement and administer the requirements of that primary legislation.[4] In the United Kingdom, and other Commonwealth nations, primary legislation can take a number of different forms: An Act of Parliament. An Order in Council made under the Royal Prerogative Church of England Measures – the instruments by which changes are made to legislation relating to the administration and organisation of the Church (UK only). "primary legislation" means any— (a) public general Act; (b) local and personal Act; (c) private Act; (d) Measure of the Church Assembly; (e) Measure of the General Synod of the Church of England; (f) Order in Council— (i) made in exercise of Her Majesty's Royal Prerogative; (ii) made under section 38(1)(a) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 or the corresponding provision of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; or (iii) amending an Act of a kind mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); and includes an order or other instrument made under primary legislation (otherwise than by the Welsh Ministers, the First Minister for Wales, the Counsel General to the Welsh Assembly Government, a member of the Scottish Executive, a Northern Ireland Minister or a Northern Ireland department) to the extent to which it operates to bring one or more provisions of that legislation into force or amends any primary legislation... — Parliament of the United Kingdom, Section 21(1), Human Rights Act 1998[3] ____________________________________ SECONDARY Forms of secondary legislation in the United Kingdom include:[5] Statutory instruments – made in a variety of forms, most commonly Orders in Council, regulations, rules and orders. The form to be adopted is usually set out in the enabling Act. Special Procedure Orders – a form of delegated legislation to which special parliamentary procedure applies. Part of this procedure gives those people or bodies who are especially affected by the order the right to petition against it to either House. An Act of the Scottish Parliament, Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales or Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly Hybrid instruments – statutory instruments which need to be approved by both Houses and affect some members of a group (whether individuals or bodies) more than others in the same group.[6] "subordinate legislation" means any— (a) Order in Council other than one— (i) made in exercise of Her Majesty's Royal Prerogative; (ii) made under section 38(1)(a) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 or the corresponding provision of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; or (iii) amending an Act of a kind mentioned in the definition of primary legislation; (b) Act of the Scottish Parliament; (ba) Measure of the National Assembly for Wales; (bb) Act of the National Assembly for Wales; (c) Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland; (d) Measure of the Assembly established under section 1 of the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973; (e) Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly; (f) order, rules, regulations, scheme, warrant, bylaw or other instrument made under primary legislation (except to the extent to which it operates to bring one or more provisions of that legislation into force or amends any primary legislation); (g) order, rules, regulations, scheme, warrant, bylaw or other instrument made under legislation mentioned in paragraph (b), (c), (d) or (e) or made under an Order in Council applying only to Northern Ireland; (h) order, rules, regulations, scheme, warrant, bylaw or other instrument made by a member of the Scottish Welsh Ministers, the First Minister for Wales, the Counsel General to the Welsh Assembly Government, a Northern Ireland Minister or a Northern Ireland department in exercise of prerogative or other executive functions of Her Majesty which are exercisable by such a person on behalf of Her Majesty; — Parliament of the United Kingdom, Section 21(1), Human Rights Act 1998[7]

Question 108

Appellate jurisdiction

Answer 108

Appellate jurisdiction is the power of an appellate court to review, amend and overrule decisions of a trial court or other lower tribunal. Most appellate jurisdiction is legislatively created, and may consist of appeals by leave of the appellate court or by right. Depending on the type of case and the decision below, appellate review primarily consists of: an entirely new hearing (a non trial de novo); a hearing where the appellate court gives deference to factual findings of the lower court; or review of particular legal rulings made by the lower court (an appeal on the record). An appellate court, commonly called an appeals court, court of appeals (American English),[1] appeal court (British English), court of second instance or second instance court, is any court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal. In most jurisdictions, the court system is divided into at least three levels: the trial court, which initially hears cases and reviews evidence and testimony to determine the facts of the case; at least one intermediate appellate court; and a supreme court (or court of last resort) which primarily reviews the decisions of the intermediate courts. A jurisdiction's supreme court is that jurisdiction's highest appellate court.[2] Appellate courts nationwide can operate under varying rules.[3] The authority of appellate courts to review the decisions of lower courts varies widely from one jurisdiction to another. In some areas, the appellate court has limited powers of review. Generally, an appellate court's judgment provides the final directive of the appeals courts as to the matter appealed, setting out with specificity the court's determination that the action appealed from should be affirmed, reversed, remanded or modified.[4]

Question 109

Tribunal

Answer 109

A tribunal, generally, is any person or institution with authority to judge, adjudicate on, or determine claims or disputes—whether or not it is called a tribunal in its title. Roman Catholic Tribunal In the Roman Catholic Church, a tribunal usually refers literally to one of three instances of ecclesiastical courts: a diocesan tribunal a provincial tribunal, that is, of more than one diocese and commonly referred to as an appellate court, or the Sacra Rota Romana, or Sacred Roman Rota, the highest court of appeals.

Question 110

Exclusive Jurisdiction

Answer 110

In civil procedure, exclusive jurisdiction exists where one court has the power to adjudicate a case to the exclusion of all other courts. It is the opposite situation from concurrent jurisdiction (or non exclusive jurisdiction), in which more than one court may take jurisdiction over the case. Exclusive jurisdiction is typically defined in terms of subject matter. For example, 28 U.S.C. § 1334 gives the United States district courts exclusive jurisdiction over all matters arising in bankruptcy (with few exceptions). On a Federal level, exclusive jurisdiction allows the Supreme Court to review the decisions in lower courts.

Question 111

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Answer 111

Subject-matter jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter. For instance, bankruptcy court only has the authority to hear bankruptcy cases. Subject-matter jurisdiction must be distinguished from personal jurisdiction, which is the power of a court to render a judgment against a particular defendant, and territorial jurisdiction, which is the power of the court to render a judgment concerning events that have occurred within a well-defined territory. Unlike personal or territorial jurisdiction, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. A judgment from a court that did not have subject-matter jurisdiction is forever a nullity.[1][2] To decide a case, a court must have a combination of subject (subjectam) and either personal (personam) or territorial (locum) jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction, personal or territorial jurisdiction, and adequate notice are the three most fundamental constitutional requirements for a valid judgment.

Question 112

Personal Jurisdiction

Answer 112

Personal jurisdiction is a court's jurisdiction over the parties to a lawsuit, as opposed to subject-matter jurisdiction, which is jurisdiction over the law and facts involved in the suit. If a court does not have personal jurisdiction over a party, its rulings or decrees cannot be enforced upon that party, except by comity; i.e., to the extent that the sovereign which has jurisdiction over the party allows the court to enforce them upon that party. A court that has personal jurisdiction has both the authority to rule on the law and facts of a suit and the power to enforce its decision upon a party to the suit. In some cases, territorial jurisdiction may also constrain a court's reach, such as preventing hearing of a case concerning events occurring on foreign territory between two citizens of the home jurisdiction.

Question 113

Territorial Jurisdiction

Answer 113

A jurisdiction is an area with a set of laws under the control of a system of courts or government entity which are different from neighbouring areas.[1][2] Each state in a federation such as Australia, Germany and the United States forms a separate jurisdiction. However, sometimes certain laws in a federal state are uniform across the constituent states and enforced by a set of federal courts; with a result that the federal state forms a single jurisdiction for that purpose. It is also possible for a jurisdiction to prosecute for crimes committed somewhere outside its jurisdiction, once the perpetrator returns.[3] In some cases, a citizen of another jurisdiction outside its own can be extradited to a jurisdiction where the crime is illegal, even if it was not committed in that jurisdiction.[4][5] Unitary states are usually single jurisdictions, but the United Kingdom is a notable exception; it has three separate jurisdictions due to its three separate legal systems. China also has separate jurisdictions of Hong Kong and Macao. See also Edit ``` Political division State (polity) Sovereign state Federated state State law Change of venue ``` ____________________________________ VENUE The perceived abuse of English criminal venue law was one of the enumerated grievances in the United States Declaration of Independence, which accused George III of the United Kingdom of "transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses."[1] Article Three of the United States Constitution provides: "Trial of all Crimes . . . shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed." The "where the said Crimes shall have been committed" language refers to the locus delicti, and a single crime may often give rise to several constitutionally permissible venues.[3] "[T]he locus delicti must be determined from the nature of the crime alleged and the location of the act or acts constituting it."[4] Thus, venue may be constitutionally permissible even if an individual defendant was never personally present in the relevant state.[5] For example, conspiracy may be prosecuted wherever the agreement occurred or wherever any overt act was committed.[6]

Question 114

Change of Venue

Answer 114

A change of venue is the legal term for moving a trial to a new location. In high-profile matters, a change of venue may occur to move a jury trial away from a location where a fair and impartial jury may not be possible due to widespread publicity about a crime and its defendant(s) to another community in order to obtain jurors who can be more objective in their duties. This change may be to different towns, and across the other sides of states or, in some extremely high-profile federal cases, to other states. In law, the word venue designates the location where a trial will be held. It derives from the Latin word for "a place where people gather." The perceived abuse of English criminal venue law was one of the enumerated grievances in the United States Declaration of Independence, which accused George III of the United Kingdom of "transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses."[1] Article Three of the United States Constitution provides: "Trial of all Crimes . . . shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

Question 115

Lex Loci

Answer 115

The lex loci delicti commissi is the Latin term for "law of the place where the delict [tort] was committed"[1] in the conflict of laws. Conflict of laws is the branch of law regulating all lawsuits involving a "foreign" law element where a difference in result will occur depending on which laws are applied. The term is often shortened to lex loci delicti. When a case comes before a court and the parties and the causes of action are local, the court will apply the lex fori, the prevailing municipal law, to decide the case. However, if there are "foreign" elements to the case, the forum court may be obliged, under conflict of laws, to adjudicate whether the forum court has jurisdiction to hear the case (see forum shopping). The court may then be required to apply the choice of law rules to decide the lex causae, the law to be applied to each cause of action.

Question 116

Lex Fori

Answer 116

Lex fori (Latin for the laws of a forum) is a legal term used in the conflict of laws to refer to the laws of the jurisdiction in which a legal action is brought.[1] When a court decides that it should, by reason of the principles of conflict of law, resolve a given legal dispute by reference to the laws of another jurisdiction, the lex causae, the lex fori still govern procedural matters.[2]

Question 117

Lex Causae

Answer 117

Lex causae (Latin for "law of the cause"), in conflict of laws, is the law chosen by the forum court from the relevant legal systems when it judges an international or interjurisdictional case. It refers to the usage of particular local laws as the basis or "cause" for the ruling, which would itself become part of referenced legal canon. Conflict of laws regulates all lawsuits involving foreign law if the outcome of a legal action would differ by the laws applied. Once the forum court has ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear the case, it must then decide which possible law is to be applied. If the parties and the causes of action are local, the court will apply the lex fori, the prevailing municipal law. If there are foreign elements to the case, the forum court, under conflict of laws, will consider which law will apply.

Question 118

Lex Loci Contractus

Answer 118

In the conflict of laws, the lex loci contractus is the Latin term for "law of the place where the contract is made". When a case comes before a court and all the main features of the case are local, the court will apply the lex fori, the prevailing municipal law, to decide the case. But if there are "foreign" elements to the case, the forum court may be obliged under the conflict of laws system to consider: whether the forum court has jurisdiction to hear the case (see the problem of forum shopping); it must then characterise the issues, i.e. allocate the factual basis of the case to its relevant legal classes; and then apply the choice of law rules to decide which law is to be applied to each class.

Question 119

Choice of Law

Answer 119

Choice of law is a procedural stage in the litigation of a case involving the conflict of laws when it is necessary to reconcile the differences between the laws of different legal jurisdictions, such as sovereign states, federated states (as in the US), or provinces. The outcome of this process is potentially to require the courts of one jurisdiction to apply the law of a different jurisdiction in lawsuits arising from, say, family law, tort or contract. The law which is applied is sometimes referred to as the "proper law." Jurisdiction. The court selected by the plaintiff must decide both whether it has the jurisdiction to hear the case and, if it has, whether another forum is more suitable (the forum non conveniens issue relates to the problem of forum shopping) for the disposition of the case. Naturally, a plaintiff with appropriate knowledge and finance will always commence proceedings in the court most likely to give a favourable outcome. This is called forum shopping and whether a court will accept such cases is always determined by the local law. Recognition of foreign judgments. Even where a conflict of laws exists, the court will recognize the validity of a foreign judgment in most cases. Under U.S. law, this authority is part of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Under international law, this authority is part of the doctrine of comity. The court will invoke comity by its discretion and will usually look to two factors before using its discretionary powers: did the foreign court have jurisdiction, and were fair procedures used in adjudicating the case? Under English law, it is the doctrine of obligation. Within the European Union the Brussels Recast Regulation determines jurisdiction and recognition. Characterization. The court then allocates each aspect of the case as pleaded to its appropriate legal classification. Each such classification has its own choice of law rules but distinguishing between procedural and substantive rules requires care. The court may have adopted a rule of law which prevents it from applying any procedural law other than its own. This can include the court's own choice of law rules. A danger exists if the choice of law requires that a case be heard elsewhere due to the forum's lack of expertise in deciding an issue of foreign law. The court then applies the relevant choice of law rules. In a few cases, usually involving family law, an incidental question can arise which will complicate this process. The United States has adopted a law that almost universally eliminates incidental questions involving family law. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) requires states to apply the law of the "home state;" that is, the forum which originally determined custody and maintenance. A state court will only apply its own law when no parent retains a connection with the original jurisdiction and when substantial evidence is available in its forum to make a custody or maintenance determination.

Question 120

Forum Shopping

Answer 120

Forum shopping is a colloquial term for the practice of litigants having their legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a favorable judgment. Some jurisdictions have, for example, become known as "plaintiff-friendly" and so have attracted litigation even when there is little or no connection between the legal issues and the jurisdiction in which they are to be litigated. Examples include the attraction of foreign litigants to the United States due to its expansive acceptance of personal jurisdiction and favorable litigation climate, and the United Kingdom for its stricter defamation laws and generous divorce settlements. The term has become adopted in a wider context for the activity of repeatedly seeking a venue or willing listener for a concern, complaint or action, until one is found.

Question 121

Legal Case

Answer 121

A legal case is a dispute between opposing parties resolved by a court, or by some equivalent legal process. A legal case may be either civil or criminal law. In each legal case there is an accuser and one or more defendants.

Question 122

Civil Case

Answer 122

A civil case, more commonly known as a lawsuit or controversy, begins when a plaintiff files a document called a complaint with a court, informing the court of the wrong that the plaintiff has allegedly suffered because of the defendant, and requesting a remedy. The remedy sought may be money, an injunction, which requires the defendant to perform or refrain from performing some action, or a declaratory judgment, which determines that the plaintiff has certain legal rights. The remedy will be prescribed by the court if the plaintiff wins the case. A civil case can also be arbitrated through arbitration, which may result in a faster settlement, with lower costs, than could be obtained by going through a trial. At any point during the case, the parties can agree to a settlement, which will end the case, although in some circumstances, such as in class actions, a settlement requires court approval in order to be binding.

Question 123

Legal Case

Answer 123

A legal case is a dispute between opposing parties resolved by a court, or by some equivalent legal process. A legal case may be either civil or criminal law. In each legal case there is an accuser and one or more defendants.

Question 124

Service of Process

Answer 124

Service of process is the procedure by which a party to a lawsuit gives an appropriate notice of initial legal action to another party (such as a defendant), court, or administrative body in an effort to exercise jurisdiction over that person so as to enable that person to respond to the proceeding before the court, body, or other tribunal. Notice is furnished by delivering a set of court documents (called "process") to the person to be served.

Question 125

Summons

Answer 125

A judicial summons is served on a person involved in a legal proceeding. Legal action may be in progress against the person, or the person's presence as witness may be required.[1] In the former case, the summons will typically announce to the person to whom it is directed that a legal proceeding has been started against that person, and that a case has been initiated in the issuing court. In some jurisdictions, it may be drafted in legal English difficult for the layman to understand, while several U.S. states expressly require summonses to be drafted in plain English and that they must start with this phrase: "Notice! You have been sued."[citation needed] The summons announces a date by which the person or persons summoned must either appear in court, or respond in writing to the court or the opposing party or parties. The summons is the descendant of the writ of the common law. It replaces the former procedure in common-law countries by which the plaintiff actually had to ask the sheriff to arrest the defendant in order for the court to obtain personal jurisdiction in both criminal and civil actions.

Question 126

Citation

Answer 126

A citation, traffic violation ticket, or notice to appear is a type of summons prepared and served at the scene of the occurrence by a law enforcement official, compelling the appearance of a defendant before the local magistrate within a certain period of time to answer for a minor traffic infraction, misdemeanor, or other summary offence. Failure to appear within the allotted period of time is a separate crime of failure to appear.

Question 127

Failure to Appear

Answer 127

Failure to appear is the legal term for the failure of a defendant or respondent to appear at (or within) the stated time before a tribunal as directed in a summons. Where the conduct alleged in the summons or complaint is an infraction or summary offence, failure to appear is a crime for which a bench-warrant can be issued if the defendant promised to appear. If the conduct alleged is a tort or other cause for civil action, failure to appear generally results in a default judgment by the court in favor of the plaintiff/petitioner.

Question 128

Default Judgement

Answer 128

Default judgment is a binding judgment in favor of either party based on some failure to take action by the other party. Most often, it is a judgment in favor of a plaintiff when the defendant has not responded to a summons or has failed to appear before a court of law. The failure to take action is the default. The default judgment is the relief requested in the party's original petition.[1] Default can be compared to a forfeit victory in sports. In a civil trial involving damages, a default judgment will enter the amount of damages pleaded in the original complaint. If proof of damages is required, the court may schedule another hearing on that issue. A party can have a default judgment vacated, or set aside, by filing a motion, after the judgment is entered, by showing of a proper excuse.

Question 129

Vacated Judgment

Answer 129

A vacated judgment makes a previous legal judgment legally void. A vacated judgment is usually the result of the judgment of an appellate court, which overturns, reverses, or sets aside the judgment of a lower court. An appellate court may also vacate its own decisions. A trial court may have the power under certain circumstances, usually involving fraud or lack of jurisdiction over the parties to a case, to vacate its own judgments. A vacated judgment may free the parties to civil litigation to re-litigate the issues subject to the vacated judgment. Another means of having a vacated judgment would be if the defendant dies prior to all appeals being exhausted. Notable defendants having their convictions vacated under this include Kenneth Lay (the former Chairman/CEO of Enron who died before sentencing) and Aaron Hernandez (the former football player who committed suicide in jail before his appeals were exhausted).

Question 130

Civil Law (Common Law)

Answer 130

The law relating to civil wrongs and quasi-contracts is part of the civil law,[3] as is law of property (other than property-related crimes, such as theft or vandalism).[4] Civil law may, like criminal law, be divided into substantive law and procedural law.[5] The rights and duties of persons (natural persons and legal persons) amongst themselves is the primary concern of civil law.[6] It is often suggested that civil proceedings are taken for the purpose of obtaining compensation for injury, and may thus be distinguished from criminal proceedings, whose purpose is to inflict punishment. However, exemplary damages or punitive damages may be awarded in civil proceedings. It was also formerly possible for common informers to sue for a penalty in civil proceedings.[7]

Question 131

Quasi-Contract (Original Sin-Debt)

Answer 131

A quasi-contract (or implied-in-law contract or constructive contract) is a fictional contract recognised by a court. The notion of a quasi-contract can be traced to Roman law and is still a concept used in some modern legal systems. In common law jurisdictions, the law of quasi-contract can be traced to the medieval form of action known as indebitatus assumpsit. In essence, the plaintiff would recover a money sum from the defendant as if the defendant had promised to pay it: that is, as if there were a contract subsisting between the parties. The defendant's promise—their agreement to be bound by the "contract"—was implied by law. The law of quasi-contract was generally used to enforce restitutionary obligations.[1] The form of action known as indebitatus assumpsit came to include various sub-forms known as the common money counts. The most important of these for the later development of the law of quasi-contract included: (i) actions for money had and received to the plaintiff's use; (ii) actions for money paid to the defendant's use; (iii) quantum meruit; and (iv) quantum valebat.[2] Quasi-contractual actions were generally (but not exclusively) used to remedy what would now be called unjust enrichment. In most common law jurisdictions the law of quasi-contract has been superseded by the law of unjust enrichment.[3]

Question 132

Unjust Enrichment

Answer 132

In contract law, unjust enrichment occurs when one person is enriched at the expense of another in circumstances that the law sees as unjust.[1] Where an individual is unjustly enriched, the law imposes an obligation upon the recipient to make restitution, subject to defences such as change of position. Liability for an unjust (or unjustified) enrichment arises irrespective of wrongdoing on the part of the recipient. The concept of unjust enrichment can be traced to Roman law and the maxim that "no one should be benefited at another's expense": nemo locupletari potest aliena iactura or nemo locupletari debet cum aliena iactura. The law of unjust enrichment is closely related to, but not co-extensive with, the law of restitution. The law of restitution is the law of gain-based recovery. It is wider than the law of unjust enrichment. Restitution for unjust enrichment is a subset of the law of restitution in the same way that compensation for breach of contract is a subset of the law relating to compensation.

Question 133

Quantum meruit

Answer 133

Quantum meruit is a Latin phrase meaning "what one has earned". In the context of contract law, it means something along the lines of "reasonable value of services". In the United States, the elements of quantum meruit are determined by state common law. For example, to state a claim for unjust enrichment in New York, a plaintiff must allege that (1) defendant was enriched; (2) the enrichment was at plaintiff's expense; and (3) the circumstances were such that equity and good conscience require defendants to make restitution. When a person hires another to do work for him, and the contract is either not completed or is otherwise rendered unperformable, the person performing may sue for the value of the improvements made or the services rendered to the defendant. The law implies a promise from the employer to the workman that he will pay him for his services, as much as he may deserve or merit. The measure of value set forth in a contract may be submitted to the court as evidence of the value of the improvements or services, but the court is not required to use the contract's terms when calculating a quantum meruit award. (This is because the values set forth in the contract are rebuttable, meaning the one who ultimately may have to pay the award can contest the value of services set in the contract.) When there is an express contract for a stipulated amount and mode of compensation for services, the plaintiff cannot abandon the contract and resort to an action for a quantum meruit on an implied assumpsit. However, if there is a total failure of consideration, the plaintiff has a right to elect to repudiate the contract and may then seek compensation on a quantum meruit basis.

Question 134

Restitution

Answer 134

The law of restitution is the law of gains-based recovery. It is to be contrasted with the law of compensation, which is the law of loss-based recovery. When a court orders restitution it orders the defendant to give up his/her gains to the claimant. When a court orders compensation it orders the defendant to pay the claimant for his or her loss.

Question 135

Restitution (Damages)

Answer 135

In law, damages are an award, typically of money, to be paid to a person as compensation for loss or injury.[1] The rules for damages can and frequently do vary based on the type of claim which is presented (e.g., breach of contract versus a tort claim) and the jurisdiction. At common law, damages are categorized into compensatory (or actual) damages,[2] and punitive damages.[3] Compensatory damages are further categorized into special damages, which are economic losses such as loss of earnings, property damage and medical expenses, and general damages, which are non-economic damages such as pain and suffering and emotional distress.[4]

Question 136

Torte of Deceit

Answer 136

The tort of deceit is a type of legal injury that occurs when a person intentionally and knowingly deceives another person into an action that damages them. Specifically, deceit requires that the tortfeasor makes a factual representation, knowing that it is false, or reckless or indifferent about its veracity, intending that another person relies on it, who then acts in reliance on it, to that person's own detriment. Deceit dates in its modern development from Pasley v. Freeman.[1] Here the defendant said that a third party was creditworthy to the claimant, knowing he was broke. The claimant loaned the third party money and lost it. He sued the defendant successfully.

Question 137

Misrepresentation

Answer 137

A concept of English law, a misrepresentation is an untrue or misleading[1] statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party into the contract.[2][3] The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well (or instead of rescission). The law of misrepresentation is an amalgam of contract and tort; and its sources are common law, equity and statute. The common law was amended by the Misrepresentation Act 1967. The general principle of misrepresentation has been adopted by the USA and various Commonwealth countries.[4]

Question 138

Contributory Negligence

Answer 138

Contributory negligence in common law jurisdictions is generally a defense to a claim based on negligence, an action in tort. This principle is relevant to the determination of liability and is applicable when plaintiffs/claimants have, through their own negligence, contributed to the harm they suffered.[1] In some jurisdictions it may be applied by the court in a tort matter irrespective of whether it was pleaded as a defense.[2] If successful, a contributory negligence defense eliminates the defendant's responsibility to pay damages to an injured plaintiff.[3] For example, a pedestrian crosses a road negligently and is hit by a driver who was driving negligently. Since the pedestrian has also contributed to the accident, they may be barred from complete and full recovery of damages from the driver (or their insurer) because the accident was less likely to occur if it hadn't been for their failure to keep a proper lookout. Another example of contributory negligence is where a plaintiff actively disregards warnings or fails to take reasonable steps for his or her safety, such as diving in shallow water without checking the depth first.

Question 139

Misleading or deceptive conduct

Answer 139

Unlike related doctrines in contract or tort law, such as the tort of deceit and misrepresentation, misleading or deceptive conduct applies to any conduct that is, or is likely to be, misleading or deceptive, and does not require the making of a representation.[9]:at [31] Conduct is likely to mislead or deceive where there is a "real and not remote" chance that it will mislead or deceive, which can be true even where the probability of misleading or deceiving is less than 50%. Misleading or deceptive conduct is a "strict liability" offence, in that it does not matter whether the conduct was intended to mislead or deceive,[12] or even whether the claimant could reasonably have protected its interests.[9]:at [42] This means that so long as there is an element of reliance on the part of the claimant, a respondent could be found to have engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct even if they had every reason to believe that their representations were true. The reason for strict liability in this instance that a person making a representation is always better placed to know about whether or not it is true than the person relying on the representation, so the law is constructed to shift the onus of ensuring that the representation is true onto the person making it. This is in contrast to the traditional common law principle of "caveat emptor" or "let the buyer beware".[13] As a tort-style offence applying to cases of "pure economic loss" (as opposed to physical harm), a cause of action in misleading or deceptive conduct will only accrue from the time that any loss is suffered – i.e. conduct could be misleading and deceptive, and a person could rely on it and still have no claim. There would only be a claim when that person suffers a loss as a result of the conduct.[14] Misleading or deceptive conduct (often referred to as just misleading conduct) is a doctrine of Australian law. The prohibition on misleading conduct is set out in section 18(1) of the Australian Consumer Law:[1] "A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive." The Australian Consumer Law defines conduct as: "...doing or refusing to do any act, including the making of, or the giving effect to a provision of, a contract or arrangement, the arriving at, or the giving effect to a provision of, and understanding or the requiring of the giving of, or the giving of, a covenant;"[1]:s 2(2)(a) Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law essentially mirrors the previous ban on misleading or deceptive conduct in section 52 of the Trade Practices Act.[6] The elements required to establish misleading or deceptive conduct are: the impugned conduct was done in trade or commerce; the impugned conduct was, in all the circumstances, misleading or deceptive; the claimant relied on the conduct; and as a result of its reliance on the conduct, the claimant suffered a loss. Trade or commerce Edit Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law,[1] which is found in schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010,[2][3] prohibits conduct by corporations in trade or commerce which is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive. The states and territories of Australia each have Fair Trading Legislation either containing similar provisions in relation to misleading or deceptive conduct by individuals, or simply applies the federal law to the state or territory.[4] Section 12DA of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct in financial services.[5] The doctrine aims primarily to provide consumer protection by preventing businesses from misleading their customers. However, it extends to all situations in the course of trade or commerce. A range of remedies are available in the event of misleading or deceptive conduct.

Question 140

Expert Testimony (Loss)

Answer 140

It may be useful for the lawyers, the plaintiff and/or the defendant to employ forensic accountants or someone trained in the relevant field of economics to give evidence on the value of the loss.[4] In this case, they may be called upon to give opinion evidence as an expert witness. Compensatory damages are paid to compensate the claimant for loss, injury, or harm suffered as a result of (see requirement of causation) another's breach of duty. (e.g., in a negligence claim under tort law). Expectation damages are used in contract law.

Question 141

Punitive Damages

Answer 141

Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit.[1] Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some of the punitive damages award. Punitive damages are often awarded if compensatory damages are deemed an inadequate remedy. The court may impose them to prevent undercompensation of plaintiffs and to allow redress for undetectable torts and taking some strain away from the criminal justice system.[2] Punitive damages are most important for violations of the law that are hard to detect.[3]

Question 142

Assumpsit

Answer 142

Assumpsit ("he has undertaken", from Latin, assumere),[1] or more fully, the action of assumpsit, was a form of action at common law. The origins of the action can be traced to the 14th century, when litigants seeking justice in the royal courts turned from the writs of covenant and debt to the trespass on the case. Throughout its long history, the action of assumpsit has been used to enforce what are now referred to as obligations arising in tort, contract, and (in some common law jurisdictions) unjust enrichment. Most significantly, it is out of the law relating to the action of assumpsit that the modern law of contract and of unjust enrichment emerged in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries.

Question 143

Form of Action

Answer 143

The forms of action were the different procedures by which a legal claim could be made during much of the history of the English common law. Depending on the court, a plaintiff would purchase a writ in Chancery (or file a bill) which would set in motion a series of events eventually leading to a trial in one of the medieval common law courts. Each writ entailed a different set of procedures and remedies which together amounted to the "form of action".

Question 144

Cause of Action

Answer 144

A cause of action, in law, is a set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue to obtain money, property, or the enforcement of a right against another party. The term also refers to the legal theory upon which a plaintiff brings suit (such as breach of contract, battery, or false imprisonment). The legal document which carries a claim is often called a 'statement of claim' in English law, or a 'complaint' in U.S. federal practice and in many U.S. states. It can be any communication notifying the party to whom it is addressed of an alleged fault which resulted in damages, often expressed in amount of money the receiving party should pay/reimburse.[1] To pursue a cause of action, a plaintiff pleads or alleges facts in a complaint, the pleading that initiates a lawsuit. A cause of action generally encompasses both the legal theory (the legal wrong the plaintiff claims to have suffered) and the remedy (the relief a court is asked to grant). Often the facts or circumstances that entitle a person to seek judicial relief may create multiple causes of action. Although it is fairly straightforward to file a Statement of Claim in most jurisdictions, if it is not done properly, then the filing party may lose his case due to simple technicalities. There are a number of specific causes of action, including: contract-based actions; statutory causes of action; torts such as assault, battery, invasion of privacy, fraud, slander, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress; and suits in equity such as unjust enrichment and quantum meruit.

Question 145

Demurrer

Answer 145

A demurrer is a pleading in a lawsuit that objects to or challenges a pleading filed by an opposing party. The word demur means "to object"; a demurrer is the document that makes the objection. Lawyers informally define a demurrer as a defendant saying "So what?" to the pleading. The demurrer challenges the legal sufficiency of a cause of action in a complaint or of an affirmative defense in an answer. If a cause of action in a complaint does not state a cognizable claim (e.g., the claim is nonsense) or if it does not state all the required elements, then the challenged cause of action or possibly the entire complaint can be thrown out (informally speaking) at the demurrer stage as not legally sufficient. A demurrer is typically filed near the beginning of a case in response to the plaintiff filing a complaint or the defendant answering the complaint.

Question 146

Element (Criminal Law)

Answer 146

Under United States law, an element of a crime (or element of an offense) is one of a set of facts that must all be proven to convict a defendant of a crime. Before a court finds a defendant guilty of a criminal offense, the prosecution must present evidence that, even when opposed by any evidence the defense may choose , is credible and sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed each element of the particular crime charged. The component parts that make up any particular crime vary depending on the crime. ``` Mental state (Mens rea) intent Mens rea varies depending on the offense. For murder, the mental element requires the defendant acted with "malice aforethought". Others may require proof the act was committed with such mental elements such as "knowingly" or "willfulness" or "recklessness". Arson requires an intent to commit a forbidden act, while others such as murder require an intent to produce a forbidden result. Motive, the reason the act was committed, is not the same as mens rea and the law is not concerned with motive. ```

Question 147

Malice Aforethought

Answer 147

Malice aforethought is the "premeditation" or "predetermination" (with malice) required as an element of some crimes in some jurisdictions[1] and a unique element for first-degree or aggravated murder in a few.[1] Insofar as the term is still in use, it has a technical meaning that has changed substantially over time.

Question 148

Accident

Answer 148

An accident, also known as an unintentional injury, is an undesirable, incidental, and an unplanned event that could have been prevented had circumstances leading up to the accident been recognized, and acted upon, prior to its occurrence. Most scientists who study unintentional injury avoid using the term "accident" and focus on factors that increase risk of severe injury and that reduce injury incidence and severity.[1]

Question 149

Motive (law)

Answer 149

A motive, in law, especially criminal law, is the cause that moves people to induce a certain action.[1] Motive, in itself, is not an element of any given crime; however, the legal system typically allows motive to be proven in order to make plausible the accused's reasons for committing a crime, at least when those motives may be obscure or hard to identify with. However, a motive is not required to reach a verdict.[2] Motives are also used in other aspects of a specific case, for instance, when police are initially investigating.[2] The law technically distinguishes between motive and intent. "Intent" in criminal law is synonymous with Mens rea, which means the mental state shows liability which is enforced by law as an element of a crime.[3] "Motive" describes instead the reasons in the accused's background and station in life that are supposed to have induced the crime. Motives are often broken down into three categories; biological, social and personal.[4]

Question 150

Means, Motive and Opportunity

Answer 150

In seeking our "indicators of suspicion" in investigations, investigation will usually attempt to "establish which individuals had the means, motive, and opportunity to commit the crime" and to establish the relationships between the victim and any known offenders. Criminal investigation is an applied science that involves the study of facts, used to identify, locate and prove the guilt of an accused criminal.

Question 151

Misdemeanor

Answer 151

A misdemeanor (American English,[1] spelled misdemeanour in British English) is any "lesser" criminal act in some common law legal systems. Misdemeanors are generally punished less severely than felonies, but theoretically more so than administrative infractions (also known as minor, petty, or summary offences) and regulatory offences. Many misdemeanors are punished with monetary fines.

Question 152

Felony

Answer 152

The term felony, in some common law countries, is defined as a serious crime. The word originates from English common law (from the French medieval word "félonie"), where felonies were originally crimes involving confiscation of a convicted person's land and goods.

Question 153

Summary Offense

Answer 153

A summary offence is a crime in some common law jurisdictions that can be proceeded against summarily, without the right to a jury trial and/or indictment (required for an indictable offence).[1]

Question 154

Indictable Offense

Answer 154

In many common law jurisdictions (e.g., England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, Hong Kong, India, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore), an indictable offence is an offence which can only be tried on an indictment after a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is a prima facie case to answer or by a grand jury (in contrast to a summary offence). In the United States, a crime of similar severity and rules is called a felony, which also requires an indictment.

Question 155

Question of Law

Answer 155

In law, a question of law, also known as a point of law, is a question that must be answered by applying relevant legal principles to interpretation of the law.[1] Such a question is distinct from a question of fact, which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence as well as inferences arising from those facts. Answers to questions of law are generally expressed in terms of broad legal principles and can be applied to many situations rather than be dependent on particular circumstances or factual situations. An answer to a question of law as applied to the particular facts of a case is often referred to as a "conclusion of law." In several civil law jurisdictions, the highest courts consider questions of fact settled by the lower court and will only consider questions of law. They thus may refer a case back to a lower court to re-apply the law and answer any fact-based evaluations based on their answer on the application of the law. International courts such as the Benelux Court of Justice and the European Court of Justice will only answer questions of law, asked by judges of national courts if they are not certain about the interpretation of the law of multilateral organizations. While questions of fact are resolved by a trier of fact, which in the common law system is often a jury, questions of law are always resolved by a judge or equivalent. Whereas findings of fact in a common law legal system are rarely overturned by an appellate court, conclusions of law are more readily reconsidered.

Question 156

Question of Fact

Answer 156

In law, a question of fact, also known as a point of fact, is a question that must be answered by reference to facts and evidence as well as inferences arising from those facts. Such a question is distinct from a question of law, which must be answered by applying relevant legal principles. The answer to a question of fact (a "finding of fact") usually depends on particular circumstances or factual situations.[2] All questions of fact are capable of proof or disproof by reference to a certain standard of proof. Depending on the nature of the matter, the standard of proof may require that a fact be proven to be "more likely than not" (there is barely more evidence for the fact than against, as established by a preponderance of the evidence) or true beyond reasonable doubt. Answers to questions of fact are determined by a trier of fact such as a jury, or a judge. In many jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, appellate courts generally do not consider appeals based on errors of fact (errors in answering a question of fact). Rather, the findings of fact of the first venue are usually given great deference by appellate courts.[3]

Question 157

Fact

Answer 157

A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence. For example, "this sentence contains words" is a linguistic fact, and "the sun is a star" is a cosmological fact. Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" are also both facts. All of these statements have the epistemic quality of being ontologically superior to opinion or interpretation — they are either categorically necessary or supported by adequate historical documentation. Conversely, while it may be both consistent and true that "most cats are cute", it's not a fact. Generally speaking, facts transcend belief and serve as concrete descriptions of a state of affairs on which beliefs can later be assigned. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability — that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.

Question 158

Jurist

Answer 158

A jurist (from medieval Latin) is someone who researches and studies jurisprudence (theory of law).[1] Such a person can work as an academic, legal writer or law lecturer. In the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and in many other Commonwealth countries, the word jurist sometimes refers to a barrister, whereas in the United States of America and Canada it often refers to a judge.[2

Question 159

Barrister

Answer 159

A barrister is a type of lawyer in common law jurisdictions. Barristers mostly specialise in courtroom advocacy and litigation. Their tasks include taking cases in superior courts and tribunals, drafting legal pleadings, researching the philosophy, hypothesis and history of law, and giving expert legal opinions. Often, barristers are also recognised as legal scholars. Barristers are distinguished from solicitors, who have more direct access to clients, and may do transactional-type legal work. It is mainly barristers who are appointed as judges, and they are rarely hired by clients directly. In a few jurisdictions, barristers are usually forbidden from "conducting" litigation, and can only act on the instructions of a solicitor, who performs tasks such as corresponding with parties and the court, and drafting court documents.

Question 160

Solicitor

Answer 160

A solicitor is a legal practitioner who traditionally deals with most of the legal matters in some jurisdictions. A person must have legally-defined qualifications, which vary from one jurisdiction to another, to be described as a solicitor and enabled to practise there as such. For example, in England and Wales a solicitor is admitted to practise under the provisions of the Solicitors Act 1974. With some exceptions, practising solicitors must possess a practising certificate. There are many more solicitors than barristers in England; they undertake the general aspects of giving legal advice and conducting legal proceedings. The states of New South Wales and Queensland, however, maintain strongly independent bars, call to which requires extra training. In those states, solicitors' rights of audience before superior courts are unlimited, but infrequently exercised in practice. South Australia and Victoria also have an independent bar but solicitors have full right of audience before all courts. _______________________________ SOLICIT From Middle French solliciter, from Latin sollicitāre, present active participle of sollicitō (“stir, disturb; look after”), from sollicitus (“agitated, anxious, punctilious”, literally “thoroughly moved”), ``` from sollus (“whole, entire”) + perfect passive participle of... cieō (“shake, excite, cite, to put in motion”). ``` To persistently endeavor to obtain an object, or bring about an event. To woo; to court. To persuade or incite one to commit some act. To make a petition. (archaic) To disturb or trouble; to harass. To urge the claims of; to plead; to act as solicitor for or with reference to. (obsolete, rare) To disturb; to disquiet.

Question 161

Right of Audience

Answer 161

In common law, a right of audience is generally a right of a lawyer to appear and conduct proceedings in court on behalf of their client.[1][2] In English law, there is a fundamental distinction between barristers, who have rights of audience in the superior courts, and solicitors, who have rights of audience in the lower courts, unless a certificate of advocacy is obtained, which allows a solicitor to represent clients in the superior courts also. However, there is no such distinction in American law.

Question 162

Advocate

Answer 162

An advocate is a professional in the field of law. Different countries' legal systems use the term with somewhat differing meanings. The broad equivalent in many English law-based jurisdictions could be a barrister or a solicitor. "Advocate" is in some languages an honorific for lawyers, such as "Adv. Sir Alberico Gentili". In England and Wales, advocates and proctors practised civil law in the Admiralty Courts and also, but in England only, in the ecclesiastical courts of the Church of England, in a similar way to barristers and attorneys in the common law and equity courts.

Question 163

Proctor

Answer 163

Proctor, a variant of procurator, is a person who takes charge of, or acts for, another.[1] The word "proctor" is frequently used to describe someone who oversees an examination or dormitory.[2] The title is used in England in three principal contexts:[1] In law, a proctor is an attorney or solicitor acting in some courts. In religion, a proctor represents the clergy in Church of England dioceses. In education, a proctor is the name of university officials in certain universities, or a supervisor or invigilator during an exam. A proctor was a legal practitioner in the ecclesiastical and admiralty courts.[1] Historically, proctors were licensed by the Archbishop of Canterbury to undertake the duties that were performed in common law courts by attorneys and in the courts of equity by solicitors.[1] Later, the Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875, which created the Supreme Court of Judicature, combined the three roles into the common profession of "solicitor of the Supreme Court". In the admiralty courts, a proctor or procurator was an officer who, in conjunction with the King's Proctor, acted as the attorney or solicitor in all causes concerning the Lord High Admiral's affairs in the High Court of Admiralty and other courts. The King's Proctor so acted in all causes concerning the King. The Queen's Proctor (or King's Proctor) is the proctor or solicitor representing the Crown in the courts of probate and divorce.[1] The office has for many years been combined with that of the Treasury Solicitor, whose formal title is Her (or His) Majesty's Procurator-General and Treasury Solicitor. In petitions of divorce, or for declaration of nullity of marriage, the Queen's Proctor may, under direction of the Attorney General, intervene in the suit for the purpose of arguing any question that the court deems expedient to have argued. His or her powers are set out in section 8 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, and include the power to show cause against a decree nisi being made absolute,

Question 164

Decree Nisi

Answer 164

DECREE UPON CONDITION ("UNLESS") A decree nisi or rule nisi (from Latin nisi, meaning 'unless') is a court order that will come into force at a future date unless a particular condition is met.[1] Unless the condition is met, the ruling becomes a decree absolute (rule absolute), and is binding.[2] Typically, the condition is that an adversely affected party provide satisfactory evidence or argument that the decree should not take effect (i.e. the decree takes effect unless the party shows that it should not).[2] For that reason, a decree nisi may also be called a rule, order or decree to show cause. Using the example of a divorce, the wording of such a decree is generally in the form of "that the marriage solemnized on (date) between AB and CD, be dissolved by reason of (grounds) UNLESS sufficient cause be shown to the court why this decree should not be made absolute within six weeks". This allows time for any party who objects to the divorce to come forward with those objections. When no objection is raised by either party, an automatic dissolution takes effect.

Question 165

Procurator

Answer 165

procurator (plural procurators) From prōcūrō (“I manage, administer”) +‎ -tor. Latin - prōcūrātor m (genitive prōcūrātoris); third declension manager, overseer, superintendent agent, deputy _______________________________ A tax collector. An agent or attorney. A legal officer who both investigates and prosecutes crimes, found in some inquisitorial legal systems, particularly communist or formerly communist states – see public procurator (Ancient Rome) The governor of a small imperial province. Anglo-Norman procuratour, from Latin prōcūrātor, from prōcūrō (“I procure”) (English procure). Equivalent to procure +‎ -ator. From Old French procurer, from Late Latin prōcūrāre, present active infinitive of Latin prōcūrō (“I manage, administer”), from prō (“on behalf of”) + cūrō (“I care for”). procure (third-person singular simple present procures, present participle procuring, simple past and past participle procured) (transitive) To acquire or obtain. (transitive, criminal law) To induce or persuade someone to do something. (obsolete) To contrive; to bring about; to effect; to cause.

Question 166

Curo

Answer 166

cūrō (present infinitive cūrāre, perfect active cūrāvī, supine cūrātum); first conjugation I arrange, see to, attend to, take care of, ensure Romani templa deorum magna diligentia curant. The Romans care for the temples of the gods with great diligence. Benedictus de Spinoza, Tractatus Politicus sedulo curavi, humanas actiones non ridere, non lugere, neque detestari, sed intelligere I have laboured diligently, not to mock, lament, or execrate human actions; but to understand them. I heal, cure I govern, command I undertake, procure Latin curare (transitive) to treat or cure (a disease) (transitive) to look after (transitive) to edit

Question 167

Call to the Bar

Answer 167

The call to the bar is a legal term of art in most common law jurisdictions where persons must be qualified to be allowed to argue in court on behalf of another party and are then said to have been "called to the bar" or to have received a "call to the bar". "The bar" is now used as a collective noun for barristers, but literally referred to the wooden barrier in old courtrooms, which separated the often crowded public area at the rear from the space near the judges reserved for those having business with the Court. Barristers would sit or stand immediately behind it, facing the judge, and could use it as a table for their briefs. Like many other common law terms, the term originated in England in the Middle Ages, and the call to the bar refers to the summons issued to one found fit to speak at the 'bar' of the royal courts. In time, English judges allowed only legally qualified men to address them on the law and later delegated the qualification and admission of barristers to the four Inns of Court. Once an Inn calls one of its members to its bar, they are thereafter a barrister. They may not, however, practise as a barrister until they have completed (or been exempted from) an apprenticeship called pupillage. After completing pupillage, they are considered to be a practising barrister with a right of audience before all courts.

Question 168

Lawyer

Answer 168

A lawyer or attorney is a person who practices law, as an advocate, attorney, attorney at law, barrister, barrister-at-law, bar-at-law, civil law notary, counsel, counselor, counsellor, counselor at law, solicitor, chartered legal executive, or public servant preparing, interpreting and applying law but not as a paralegal or charter executive secretary.[1] Working as a lawyer involves the practical application of abstract legal theories and knowledge to solve specific individualized problems, or to advance the interests of those who hire lawyers to perform legal services.

Question 169

Attorney

Answer 169

Old French atorné, masculine singular past participle of atorner, atourner, aturner ("to attorn", in the sense of... ("one appointed or constituted"). French - atorner to prepare; to ready. to assign (something to someone) French - torner (transitive or intransitive) to turn to return; to go back. ______________________________ From attorney (“any personal representative”). From Middle English attournen, from Old French atorner (“designate”), from a- (“to”) + torner (“turn”). attorn (third-person singular simple present attorns, present participle attorning, simple past and past participle attorned) (intransitive, law) To transfer one's obligations from a person to another person. (intransitive, law) To consent to the transfer of one's obligations as tenant under a lease to a new landlord. From Latin tornāre, present active infinitive of tornō (“I turn”). tornō (present infinitive tornāre, perfect active tornāvī, supine tornātum); first conjugation I turn I round off, make round (by turning on a lathe) ``` From tornus (“lathe”) ____________________________ ``` attorney (plural attorneys) (US) A lawyer; one who advises or represents others in legal matters as a profession. (UK 19th century and earlier) One such who practised in the courts of the common law (cf solicitor, proctor). (Britain, 20th century and later, rare, usually pejorative) A solicitor. (obsolete outside set phrases) An agent or representative authorized to act on someone else's behalf. (Philippines) A title given to lawyers and notaries public, or those holders by profession who also do other jobs. Usually capitalized or abbreviated as Atty. Usage notes Edit In the "agent" sense, the word is now used to refer to nonlawyers usually only in fixed phrases such as attorney-in-fact or power of attorney.

Question 170

Power of Attorney

Answer 170

AUTHORIZED TO ACT FOR ANOTHER (uncountable, law) The legal authorisation of one person to act as the agent of another. He confirmed that he had power of attorney. (countable, law) A legal document allowing one person to act as the agent of another. Here you can apply for a power of attorney. ______________________________ AUTHORIZATION authorization (uncountable) Permission. I've got authorization. Call the office and you'll see. (countable) (A document giving) formal sanction, permission or warrant. (government) Permission, possibly limited, to spend funds for a specific budgetary purpose. AUTHORIZE authorize (third-person singular simple present authorizes, present participle authorizing, simple past and past participle authorized) (transitive) To grant (someone) the permission or power necessary to do (something). The General Assembly authorized the Council to take up the matter. (transitive) To permit (something), to sanction or consent to (something). The judge authorized the wiretapping.

Question 171

Power (Law)

Answer 171

From Middle English poer, from Old French poeir, from Vulgar Latin *potēre, from Latin possum, posse (“to be able”); see potent. Compare Modern French pouvoir. (social) Ability to coerce, influence or control. (countable) Ability to affect or influence. Control or coercion, particularly legal or political (jurisdiction). (metonymy) (chiefly in the plural) The people in charge of legal or political power, the government. (metonymy) An influential nation, company, or other such body. (physical, uncountable) Effectiveness. Physical force or strength. A measure of the rate of doing work or transferring energy. __________________________________________ Power The right, ability, or authority to perform an act. An ability to generate a change in a particular legal relationship by doing or not doing a certain act. In a restricted sense, a liberty or authority that is reserved by, or limited to, a person to dispose of real or Personal Property, for his or her own benefit or for the benefit of others, or that enables one person to dispose of an interest that is vested in another. power n. the right, authority and ability to take some action or accomplish something, including demanding action, executing documents, contracting, taking title, transferring, exercising legal rights, and many other acts. ____________________________________ POWER This is either inherent or derivative. Inherent Power The former is the right, ability, or faculty of doing something, without receiving that right, ability, or faculty from another. The people have the power to establish a form of government, or to change one already established. A father has the legal power to chastise his son; a master, his apprentice. Derivative Power Derivative power, which is usually known, by the technical name of power, is an authority by which one person enables another to do an act for him. Powers of this kind were well known to the common law, and were divided into two sorts: naked powers or bare authorities, and powers coupled with an interest. There is a material difference between them. In the case of the former, if it be exceeded in the act done, it is entirely void; in the latter it is good for so much as is within the power, and void for the rest only. Powers of Revocation and Appointment Powers derived from, the doctrine of uses may be defined to be an authority, enabling a person, through the medium of the statute of uses, to dispose of an interest, vested either in himself or another person. The N Y Revised Statutes define a power to be an authority to do some act in relation to lands, or the creation of estates therein, or of charges thereon, which the owner granting or reserving such power might himself lawfully perform. They are powers of revocation and appointment which are frequently inserted in conveyances which owe their effect to the statute of uses; when executed, the uses originally declared cease, and new uses immediately arise to the persons named in the appointment, to which uses the statute transfers the legal estate and possession. Powers being found to be much more convenient than conditions, were generally introduced into family settlements. Although several of these powers are not usually called powers of revocation, such as powers of jointuring, leasing, and charging settled estates with the payment of money, yet all these are powers of revocation, for they operate as revocations, pro tanto, of the preceding estates. Powers of revocation and appointment may be reserved either to the original owners of the land or to strangers: hence the general division of powers into those which relate to the land, and those which are collateral to it. Land-Related Powers Powers relating to the land are those given to some person having an interest in the land over which they are to be exercised. These again are subdivided into powers appendant and in gross. A power appendant is where a person has an estate in land, with a power of revocation and appointment, the execution of which falls within the compass of his estate; as, where a tenant for life has a power of making leases in possession. A power in gross is where a person has an estate in the land, with a power of appointment, the execution of which falls out of the compass of his estate, but, notwithstanding, is annexed in privity to it, and takes effect in the appointee, out of an interest vested in the appointer; for instance, where a tenant for life has a power of creating an estate, to commence after the determination of his own, such as to settle a jointure on his wife, or to create a term of years to commence after his death, these are called powers in gross, because the estate of the person to whom they are given, will not be affected by the execution of them. Collateral Powers Powers collateral, are those which are given to mere strangers, who have no interest in the laud: powers of sale and exchange given to trustees in a marriage settlement are of this kind. This classification of powers is admitted to be important only with reference to the ability of the donee to suspend, extinguish or merge the power. The general rule is that a power shall not be exercised in derogation of a prior grant by the appointer. But this whole division of powers has been condemned' as too artificial and arbitrary. Powell divides powers into general and particular powers. General powers are those to be exercised in favor of any person whom the appointer chooses. Particular powers are those which are to be exercised in favor of specific objects.

Question 172

POWER OF ATTORNEY

Answer 172

What Is a Power of Attorney? A power of attorney (POA) is a legal document giving one person (the agent or attorney-in-fact) the power to act for another person (the principal). The agent can have broad legal authority or limited authority to make legal decisions about the principal's property, finances or medical care. The power of attorney is frequently used in the event of a principal's illness or disability, or when the principal can't be present to sign necessary legal documents for financial transactions. A power of attorney can end for a number of reasons, such as when the principal dies, the principal revokes it, a court invalidates it, the principal divorces his/her spouse who happens to be the agent or the agent can no longer carry out the outlined responsibilities. Conventional POAs lapse when the creator becomes incapacitated, but a “durable POA” remains in force to enable the agent to manage the creator’s affairs, and a “springing POA” comes into effect only if and when the creator of the POA becomes incapacitated. A medical or healthcare POA enables an agent to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated person. [Important: A person appointed as power of attorney is not necessarily an attorney. The person could just be a trusted family member, friend or acquaintance]. Understanding Power of Attorney A power of attorney should be considered when planning for long-term care. There are different types of POAs that fall under either a general power of attorney or limited power of attorney. A general power of attorney acts on behalf of the principal in any and all matters, as allowed by the state. The agent under a general POA agreement may be authorized to take care of issues such as handling bank accounts, signing checks, selling property and assets like stocks, filing taxes, etc. A limited power of attorney gives the agent the power to act on behalf of the principal in specific matters or events. For example, the limited POA may explicitly state that the agent is only allowed to manage the principal's retirement accounts. A limited POA may also be limited to a specific period of time, e.g., if the principal will be out of the country for, say, two years. Most power of attorney documents allow an agent to represent the principal in all property and financial matters as long as the principal’s mental state of mind is good. If a situation occurs where the principal becomes incapable of making decisions for him or herself, the POA agreement would automatically end. However, someone who wants the POA to remain in effect after the person’s health deteriorates would need to sign a durable power of attorney (DPOA).

Question 173

Res Republica

Answer 173

'Res' is a nominative singular Latin noun for a substantive or concrete thing – as opposed to 'spes', which means something unreal or ethereal – and 'publica' is an attributive adjective meaning 'of and/or pertaining to the state or the public'. Hence a literal translation is, 'the public thing/affair'.

Question 174

Imply

Answer 174

IMPLY - EXPLICIT - IMPLICIT implicit (adj.) 1590s, "implied, resting on inference," from Middle French implicite and directly from Latin implicitus, later variant of implicatus "entangled, confused, involved," past participle of implicare "entangle, involve," from assimilated form of in- "into, in, on, upon" (from PIE root *en "in") + plicare "to fold" (from PIE root *plek- "to plait"). From c. 1600 as "resulting from perfect confidence (in authority), unquestioning" (especially of faith). *en Proto-Indo-European root meaning "in." It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit antara- "interior;" Greek en "in," eis "into," endon "within;" Latin in "in, into," intro "inward," intra "inside, within;" Old Irish in, Welsh yn, Old Church Slavonic on-, Old English in "in, into," inne "within, inside." *plek- Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to plait." It is an extended form of root *pel- (2) "to fold." It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit prasna- "turban;" Greek plekein "to plait, braid, wind, twine," plektos "twisted;" Latin plicare "to lay, fold, twist," plectere (past participle plexus) "to plait, braid, intertwine;" Old Church Slavonic plesti "to braid, plait, twist," Russian plesti; Gothic flahta "braid;" Old Norse fletta, Old High German flehtan "to plait;" Old English fleax "cloth made with flax, linen." *pel- (2) Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to fold." It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit putah "fold, pocket;" Albanian pale "fold;" Middle Irish alt "a joint;" Lithuanian pelti "to plait;" Old English faldan "to fold, wrap up, furl." explicit (adj.) 1610s, "open to the understanding, not obscure or ambiguous," from French explicite, from Latin explicitus "unobstructed," variant past participle of explicare "unfold, unravel, explain," from ex "out" (see ex-) + plicare "to fold" (from PIE root *plek- "to plait"). As a euphemism for "pornographic" it dates from 1971. Related: Explicitness. "Explicitus" was written at the end of medieval books, originally short for explicitus est liber "the book is unrolled."

Question 175

Assume

Answer 175

ASSUME - PRESUME assume (v.) early 15c., "to arrogate, take upon oneself," from Latin assumere, adsumere "to take up, take to oneself, take besides, obtain in addition," from ad "to, toward, up to" (see ad-) + sumere "to take," from sub "under" (see sub-) + emere "to take," from PIE root *em- "to take, distribute." Meaning "to suppose, to take for granted without proof as the basis of argument" is first recorded 1590s; that of "to take or put on fictitiously" (an appearance, etc.) is from c. 1600. Related: Assumed; assuming. Early past participle was assumpt. In rhetorical usage, assume expresses what the assumer postulates, often as a confessed hypothesis; presume expresses what the presumer really believes. Middle English also had assumpten "to receive up into heaven" (especially of the Virgin Mary), from the Latin past participle. presume (v.) late 14c., "to take upon oneself, to take liberty," also "to take for granted, presuppose," especially overconfidently, from Old French presumer (12c.) and directly from Latin praesumere "anticipate," in Late Latin, "assume," from prae "before" (see pre-) + sumere "to take, obtain, buy," from sus‑, variant of sub‑ "up from under" + emere "to take" (from PIE root *em- "to take, distribute"). "To presume is to base a tentative or provisional opinion on such knowledge as one has, to be held until it is modified or overthrown by further information" [Century Dictionary]. Related: Presumed; presumedly; presuming. Latin - sumere From *susmō < *sups(e)mō, from sub- +‎ emō (“to buy, take”), (with excrescent p in sūmpsī and sūmptum). sūmō (present infinitive sūmere, perfect active sūmpsī, supine sūmptum); third conjugation ``` I take, take up, assume; seize; claim, arrogate. I undertake, begin, enter upon. I exact satisfaction, inflict punishment. I choose, select. I obtain, acquire, receive, get, take. I use, apply, employ, spend, consume. I adopt; borrow. I buy, purchase. I fascinate, charm. ``` emō (present infinitive emere, perfect active ēmī, supine ēmptum); third conjugation ``` (transitive) I buy, purchase. Synonym: compārō Antonym: vēndō 405 CE, Jerome, Vulgate Ioannes.4.8: discipuli enim eius abierant in civitatem ut cibos emerent so his disciples had gone away unto the city to buy food Quantīs haec poma ēmisti? How much have you paid for these fruits? (figuratively) I acquire, procure. ``` From Proto-Italic *emō, from Proto-Indo-European *h₁em- (“to take, distribute”), (with excrescent p in ēmptum). Cognate with Lithuanian im̃ti, Old Church Slavonic имѫ (imǫ) and possibly Old Armenian իմանամ (imanam). Possibly related to Proto-Indo-European *nem- (“to take or give ones due”), with its descendants English nim, Danish nemme, Dutch nemen, German nehmen, West Frisian nimme, Ancient Greek νέμω (némō). νέμω • (némō) to deal out, distribute, dispense (of herdsmen), to pasture or graze their flocks, drive to pasture, tend. From Proto-Indo-European *nem- (“to assign, allot; take”). Cognate with English numb and German nehmen. from Proto-Indo-European *h₁em- (“to take, distribute”) *h₁em- to take to distribute. Possibly related to *nem- (“to take or give one's due”).

Question 176

κατήχησις

Answer 176

CATECHESIS - CATECHISM INDOCTRINATION Catechesis (/ˌkætəˈkiːsɪs/; from Greek: κατήχησις, "instruction by word of mouth", generally "instruction") In ecclesiology, a catechumen (/ˌkætɪˈkjuːmən, -mɛn/; via Latin catechumenus. from Greek κατηχούμενος katēkhoumenos, "one being instructed" from κατά kata, "down" and ἦχος ēkhos, "sound") is a person receiving instruction from a catechist in the principles of the Christian religion with a view to baptism. The word catechumen comes from the passive form of the Greek word κατηχέω (katēcheō), which is used seven times in the New Testament. In the passive, it means "to be instructed, informed." κατηχέω Definition: pr. to sound in the ears, make the ears ring; to instruct orally, to instruct, inform, 1 Cor. 14:19; pass. to be taught, be instructed, Lk. 1:4; Rom. 2:18; Gal. 6:6; to be made acquainted, Acts 18:25; to receive information, hear report, Acts 21:21, 24* _____________________________________ ἦχος - EXHO ἦχος • (êkhos) m (genitive ἤχου); second declension Non sound, noise, ringing of the ears echo (grammar) breathing (i.e. aspiration; rough (δᾰσεῖᾰ) or smooth (ψῑλή)) voice. Later form of ἠχή (ēkhḗ, “sound, noise”). ήχος • (íchos) m (plural ήχοι) Noun ("sound, noise, tone") ``` άηχος (áichos, “silent”) ηχηρός (ichirós, “loud”) ηχητικός (ichitikós, “sound, sonic”) ηχώ (ichó, “to sound”) ηχώ f (ichó, “echo”) ``` άηχος • (áichos) m (feminine άηχη, neuter άηχο) Adjective silent, noiseless, soundless (phonetics, phonology) voiceless, unvoiced") ηχηρός • (ichirós) m (feminine ηχηρή, neuter ηχηρό) Adjective (phonetics, phonology) voiced. From ήχος (“sound”) +‎ -ρός (-adjective suffix). ``` ηχηροποίηση • (ichiropoíisi) f (plural ηχηροποιήσεις) Noun (phonetics, phonology) voicing Antonym: αηχοποίηση (aïchopoíisi) ηχηρός (sound) +‎ -ποίηση (-voice). άηχος (soundless) +‎ -ποίηση (-voice). ``` Pronunciation methods [Voicing] example - "voiced fricative" (They) [Devoice] example - "unvoiced fricative" (Thump) (third-person singular simple present devoices, present participle devoicing, simple past and past participle devoiced) (transitive, phonetics) To pronounce a word with little movement of the vocal cords (transitive, Internet) To remove the voice flag from a user on IRC, preventing them from sending messages to the channel. ηχητικός • (ichitikós) m (feminine ηχητική, neuter ηχητικό) Adjective ("acoustic, sound") Synonyms ακουστικός (akoustikós, “acoustic, hearing”) ηχητική μόνωση f (ichitikí mónosi, “acoustic insulation, soundproofing”) ηχώ • (ichó) f (uncountable) Noun ("echo, reflected sound") ἠχώ • (ēkhṓ) f (genitive ἠχοῦς); third declension Noun ("echo, reflected sound, protracted sound") ηχώ • (ichó) (simple past ήχησα) sound Τα τύμπανα ηχούσαν όλη τη νύχτα. ― The drums sounded all night. Το γέλιο της ηχούσε στ' αυτιά του σαν γλυκιά μουσική. ― Her laughter sounded like sweet music to his ears. Original Word: ἦχος, ου, ὁ Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine Transliteration: échos Phonetic Spelling: (ay'-khos) Definition: a noise, sound Usage: (a) a sound, noise, (b) a rumor, report. Word Origin a late form of a prim. word éché (noise, sound) Definition blast (1), noise (1), report (1), roaring (1). Of uncertain affinity; a loud or confused noise ("echo"), i.e. Roar; figuratively, a rumor -- fame, sound. ______________________________________ SUFFIX -ποίηση • (-poíisi) n -ποιήσεως (genitive singular) -ization, -ing (suffix forming nouns denoting a process or its result) ‎ειδοποιώ (eidopoió, “notify”) + ‎-ποίηση (-poíisi) → ‎ειδοποίηση (eidopoíisi, “notification”) ‎τέκνο (tékno, “offspring”) + ‎-ποίηση (-poíisi) → ‎τεκνοποίηση (teknopoíisi, “bearing children”) ‎παγκόσμιος (pagkósmios, “global”) + ‎-ποίηση (-poíisi) → ‎παγκοσμιοποίηση (pagkosmiopoíisi, “globalisation”) From -ποιώ (“make, create”) ______________________________________ ``` Related Old English sƿōgan Alternative spelling of swōgan swōgan Verb To resound, sound, rush, roar. To move with violence, enter with force, invade. ``` Middle English Middle English: swōune (“faintness”) (past participle) Middle English: swōunen sough (plural soughs) Verb A murmuring sound; rushing, rustling, or whistling sound. A gentle breeze; a waft; a breath. A (deep) sigh. (Scotland, obsolete) A vague rumour. (Scotland, obsolete) A cant or whining mode of speaking, especially in preaching or praying. ``` English swoon (plural swoons) Verb A faint. An infatuation. ``` from Old English ġeswōgen (“insensible, senseless, dead”), past participle of swōgan (“to make a sound, overrun, suffocate”) (compare Old English āswōgan (“to cover over, overcome”)), from Proto-Germanic *swōganą (“to make a noise”) Cognate with Low German swogen (“to sigh, groan”), Dutch zwoegen (“to groan, breathe heavily”), dialectal Norwegian søgja (“to whistle, hum, talk loudly”). Verb swoon (third-person singular simple present swoons, present participle swooning, simple past and past participle swooned) (intransitive) (literally) To faint, to lose consciousness. Synonyms: black out, faint, pass out (by extension) To be overwhelmed by emotion, especially infatuation. To make a moan, sigh, or some other sound expressing infatuation or affection. The girls swooned at the picture of their favorite actor. Latin vāgiō (present infinitive vāgīre, perfect active vāgīvī); fourth conjugation, no passive, no supine stem Verb I wail (in distress) vāgītus m (genitive vāgītūs); fourth declension ("crying, wailing") _____________________________________ Luke 1:4 so that you may know the truth about the things you have been taught (katēchēthēs | κατηχήθης | aor pass ind 2 sg). 4 ἵνα ἐπιγνῶς περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν. ἵνα so that Conj ἐπιγνῷς you may know V-ASA-2S περὶ concerning Prep ὧν which RelPro-GMP κατηχήθης you were instructed V-AIP-2S λόγων , [of the] things N-GMP τὴν the Art-AFS ἀσφάλειαν certainty N-AFS Acts 18:25 He had been instructed (katēchēmenos | κατηχημένος | perf pass ptcp nom sg masc) in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the facts about Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. Acts 21:21 But they were told (katēchēthēsan | κατηχήθησαν | aor pass ind 3 pl) about you that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children and not to walk according to our customs. Acts 21:24 Take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses that they may shave their heads, and everyone will know that there is nothing in what they have been told (katēchēntai | κατήχηνται | perf pass ind 3 pl) about you, but that you yourself walk keeping the law. Romans 2:18 and know his will, and approve the things that excel because you are instructed (katēchoumenos | κατηχούμενος | pres pass ptcp nom sg masc) by the law, 1 Corinthians 14:19 however, in church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, so as to instruct (katēchēsō | κατηχήσω | aor act subj 1 sg) others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. Galatians 6:6 Now the one (katēchoumenos | κατηχούμενος | pres pass ptcp nom sg masc) who (katēchoumenos | κατηχούμενος | pres pass ptcp nom sg masc) is (katēchoumenos | κατηχούμενος | pres pass ptcp nom sg masc) taught (katēchoumenos | κατηχούμενος | pres pass ptcp nom sg masc) the word must share all good things with the one who teaches (katēchounti | κατηχοῦντι | pres act ptcp dat sg masc).