Words: 1147
In this issue, it relates to criminal law because this is an illegal action. If Lance Armstrong convicted, he may face long jail term. More than that, all his reputation and his career will be run by the charges he is facing right now. Contract law There are many points of this case is considered as contract law. Furthermore, Armstrong has signed a contract with his own company. But now, if Armstrong who is under agreement with his company should not use performance-enhancing drugs during his tournament. If he is using performance-enhancing drugs, it is obvious that he is breaking the rule of his agreement.
Armstrong may face a big problem in the future by settling accusation from his company and also Armstrong will be sued by his company with arguing that their company have been tainted if he is using performance-enhancing drugs during his tournament. Tort Law There are many aspects of this case is considered as tort law. One of the aspect is US Anti-Doping Agency (JIHADS) Proved that Armstrong is a doper who is using performance-enhancing during his tournament, but Armstrong does not confess on this case, and judges does not charge him at all.
So, if Armstrong wins the case, then US Anti-Doping Agency (USDA) is the one who will get sued for defamation which is under tort law. They are trying to damage Armstrong reputation strongly. So all of this is under tort law. B) Find examples in the report of how the law does the following things: (4 Marks) I) Allows people to organism and plan. Contract law is both of the parties who signed the agreement to agree what them to do and follow the term and condition but not to against with the term and condition.
From the article, company SAC sponsored at least 1 million pay the winner Of the tournament which is Tour De France but company SAC knew that the winner who is Armstrong he is doper and found evidence by US Anti;Doping Agency (USDA), they are taking action to seeking back those money at least 1 1 million with the winner. It is under contract law. Ii) Encourages or discourages particular activities It discourages particular activities. From the article, Armstrong is a famous cyclist in the world. Before the tournament start he uses performance- enhancing drug to finish his tournament, this evidence found by US Anti- Doping Agency (USDA).
It is an illegal action. In this case, Armstrong can be sued by his company and charged criminal law by the judges. Iii) Creates right and duties that can be enforced. US Department of Justice that has the power to charge Armstrong teammate Floyd Landis alleging fraud against the IIS Postal Service, even he know Armstrong is a doper. Moreover, US Postal Service by using this power to sue Floyd Landis with criminal law. This is the right and duties that can be enforced by US Postal Service. Iv) Provides remedies when the right has interfered with our duties are not discharged.
Armstrong is a famous cyclist in the world. For the example, US Anti-Doping Agency (USDA) proved that he is a liar, but he keeps defending himself saying that he doesn’t use performance-enhancing drugs during his tournament. Furthermore, if Armstrong wins the case of this. He can sue back US Anti-Doping Agency with defamation which is under tort law. This action is trying to damage Armstrong reputation as well. C) In your own words and with reference to the media report you have selected describe why is it important to know the law in these circumstances. In 21-Century , the law has existed in our life.
Law is a good knowledge of the athlete. The athlete should be aware of what they can do and what they cannot do at all. From the report show that Armstrong who is the top cyclist in the world, he is using performance-enhancing drugs during his tournament. It can be considered as criminal law which is under the law. This is the important why we need to know the law in these circumstances. The knowledge of the law can lead us in the right direction . On the other hand, law is a good knowledge that can teach us to be a good person which is not to against with the law.
Moreover, the law may give a knowledge that can distinguish a person should charges by law or discharges by law. From the report said that Armstrong had signed contract with his own company but he is trying to break his company reputation to his company if he is successfully sued by charges. He will lose everything and he needs to pay back all the money which is sponsored by his company. Besides that, he will sue by his own company. In this case is considered as contract law. So the law is very important to us, it allow people to know the truth behind. Part B .
This case decided at the Court Of Appeal 2. Persuasive, It is because the hierarchy of courts which is United Kingdom made different decisions in this case. So the Western Australian State Supreme court can choose either follow or not follow. 3. Cozens-hardy M. R. , Fletcher-Milton L J. And Buckley L J. 4. Nash is the plaintiff in this case. He is the tailor who supplied 11 fancy waistcoat to Inman who is a defendant in this case. Inman gets sued by Nash. 5. Nash has signed a contract with Inman who is a Cambridge undergraduate student. Nash is a tailor who is supplied 1 1 associates to Inman.
These cloths are suitable for minor. But, Main’s father was already enough for supplied clothes to his son who was a minor. When Nash Claimed the cost of these clothes but Inman said that his lack of capacity and succeeded at first instance. 6. Should the tailor who is Nash provided the 11 fancy waistcoat to minor (Nash) who already owned enough amount of clothes. 7. The court had decided that was enforceable because these 11 fancy waistcoats were not considered as important or need for the defendant who is Inman. As the defendant, he had already enough clothes.
A contract between plaintiff and defendant wan to execute then the good or service should be necessary for the minor. 8. For now, a Minor is not enforceable into a contract. But, if the minor is a necessity to those waistcoats, the tailor has responsibility for supplied good and service to minors. In this case, the plaintiff who is the tailor (Nash). He knew that the minor who is the undergraduate student (Inman) was not necessity those waistcoats because the minor who is the defendant in this case he had adequate supply of clothes from his father.