Insurancw Law (2)

Insurance

“constituent document”, in relation to an institution, means the
statute, charter, memorandum of association and articles of
association, rules and by-laws, partnership agreement, or other
instrument, under or by which the institution is established and its
governing and administrative structure and the scope of its functions
and business are set out, whether contained in one or more documents;
“controller”, in relation to an institution, means—
(a) a chief executive officer of the institution or of a body
corporate of which the institution is a subsidiary;
(b) a person who, either alone or with any associate—
(i) has interest in one-third or more of its voting shares;
(ii) has the power to appoint, or cause to be appointed,
a majority of its directors; or
(iii) has the power to decide, or cause to be decided, in
respect of its business or administration;
“co-operative society” means a co-operative society registered
under the Co-operative Societies Act 1993 [Act 502];
“corporation” has the meaning in the Companies Act 1965;
“credit facility” means an advance, loan or any other facility by
which the borrower has access, directly or indirectly, to the funds
of the lender and includes the giving of a guarantee in relation to
a credit facility;
“director” includes a person who occupies the position of a
director and includes a person in accordance with whose directions
or instructions the directors or officers are accustomed to act and
an alternate or substitute director, and without prejudice to the
foregoing, in the case of—
(a) a co-operative society, means a member of the board, or
other governing body of the co-operative society;
(b) a statutory body, means a member of the board, committee,
council or other governing body of the statutory body;
(c) a partnership, means a partner;
(d) a sole-proprietorship, means the sole-proprietor; and
16 Laws of Malaysia ACT 553
(e) any other body, association or group of persons, whether
corporate or unincorporate, means a person having the
direction and control of the management of its business
or affairs;
“document” has the meaning in the Evidence Act 1950 [Act 56]
and includes books and accounts;
“effective date” means the date of coming into force of this Act;
“employee”, in relation to a licensee, includes the chief executive
officer;
“financial adviser” means a person who carries on financial
advisory business;
“financial adviser’s representative” means an individual by
whatever name described, in the direct employment of or acting
for or by arrangement with a financial adviser, who performs for
the financial adviser any of the functions of a financial adviser
other than work ordinarily performed by accountants, clerks or
cashiers, whether his remuneration, if any, is by way of payment
of salary, wages, commission or otherwise and includes an officer
of the financial adviser who performs for the financial adviser any
of those functions, whether or not his remuneration is as aforesaid;

Insurance law (1)

Insurance Law (1) ...

WHAT IS AN INSURANCE POLICY ?

An Insurance Policy is a legally binding contract between the person who buys the policy and the Insurance company. The person who buys the policy is commonly called the "Policyholder", who is also often the person insured.

The policyholder pays a specified sum of money, called the "Premium" to the Insurance company in exchange for an agreement by the Insurance company to pay a certain types of loss or damage as specified in the contract. In the event a loss occurs, which meets all the requirements described by the terms of an Insurance policy, the loss is said to be "covered" by the policy.



HOW DOES AN INSURANCE POLICY "PROTECT" ME ?
Economic loss, which is, loss or damage that can be measured in purely financial terms and compensated by money is the protection offers by Insurance Policies. For example, an Insurance Policy can pay for the cost to rebuild a building damaged by fire or replace a damaged car, for the cost of medical treatment for an injury or illness or for the lost income of a person who dies or is unable to work. The purpose is to place the injured party, as nearly as possible, in the same financial position as if the loss had not occurred.

There are many types of losses which can not be compensated by money, therefore, it is important to understand this limitation of insurance. For example, Insurance cannot replace a life or take away the emotional injury or pain which often accompanies an accident or serious illness or compensate for loss of the "sentimental" value of an item of property. When you buy a life insurance, you are insuring only the economic value of the person who is insured, i.e., the financial consequences that can be expected to result from the person's death. When you buy homeowners insurance, you are insuring only the economic value of the home, i.e., the cost of rebuild or repair it.

Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald


Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470 (2006), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving claims for racial discrimination against the right to make and enforce contracts under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, a key civil rights provision in U.S. law that was originally enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Court ruled unanimously, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, that because agents of parties to contracts do not personally have rights under those contracts, they cannot state a claim under section 1981.


Background of the case
John McDonald, an African American entrepreneur, was the sole shareholder and president of JWM Investments, Inc. (JWM), a company organized under Nevada law. JWM and the restaurant chain Domino's Pizza entered into several contracts, under which JWM was to construct four restaurants in the Las Vegas area and then lease them to Domino's. McDonald claimed[1] that after the first restaurant was built, Domino's agent refused to execute documents that the contracts required to facilitate JWM's bank financing, and convinced the Las Vegas Valley Water District to change its recorded ownership of the land slated for restaurant construction from JWM to Domino's (which McDonald managed to subsequently change back).

McDonald wanted to see the contracts completed, but claimed that the agent threatened "serious consequences" if he did not back out. The agent was alleged to have said to McDonald "I don't like dealing with you people anyway," a phrase she did not explain. The contracts were never completed, and at least in part because of that JWM filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The bankruptcy trustee for JWM initiated an adversary proceeding against Domino's for breach of contract, which was settled for a $45,000 payment to JWM and a complete release of all claims between the parties. While the bankruptcy proceedings were still ongoing, McDonald personally filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 on the argument that Domino's broke its contracts with JWM because of racial animus towards McDonald.[2] McDonald claimed that the breach had harmed him personally by causing monetary damages, pain and suffering, emotional distress, and humiliation.

Domino's filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.[3] It argued that because McDonald was not himself a party to a contract with Domino's, he could not bring a § 1981 claim against it. The District Court granted the motion and dismissed McDonald's suit, stating that Domino's had "relied on the basic proposition that a corporation is a separate legal entity from its stockholders and officers," which means that "a president or sole shareholder may not step into the shoes of the corporation and assert that claim personally."

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal.[4] Though it agreed that an "injury suffered only by the corporation" would not permit a shareholder to bring a § 1981 action, the court concluded that, based on its prior decision in Gomez v. Alexian Bros. Hospital of San Jose, 698 F.2d 1019 (9th Cir. 1983), a nonparty like McDonald may nonetheless bring suit under § 1981 when he has suffered "injuries distinct from that of the corporation." The court acknowledged that this approach set it apart from the precedents of other Circuits. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari.[5]

[edit] The Court's decision
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit in a decision delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia.[6] The Court ruled that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 only applies to those who have enforceable rights under the contract.

Section 1981 protects the equal right of "all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States" to "make and enforce contracts" without respect to race.[7] The statute currently defines "make and enforce contracts" to "include the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship."[8]

The Court rejected McDonald's argument that the statute applied to him because he had "made and enforced contracts" on behalf of JWM. It believed that the right to "make contracts" guaranteed by the statute "was not the insignificant right to act as an agent for someone else's contracting—any more than it was the insignificant right to act as amanuensis in writing out the agreement, and thus to ‘make’ the contract in that sense." The right protected was instead the right to give and received contractual rights on one's own behalf, which many states had denied to African Americans when the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was drafted.[9] The Court further noted that at that time, it was a well accepted legal principle that "a mere agent, who has no beneficial interest in a contract which he has made on behalf of his principal, cannot support an action thereon."[10]

A § 1981 claim must therefore identify an impaired "contractual relationship" under which the plaintiff personally has rights,[11] whether to make a contract not yet formed or to enforce one already made. The Court stated that "it can be said to be the whole purpose of corporation and agency law" that shareholders and contracting officers of corporations have no rights or liability under the corporation's contracts. McDonald's argument that because he "negotiated, signed, performed, and sought to enforce the contract," Domino's could not insist that the contract was not his own, the Court believed "makes light of the law of corporations and of agency," and "contradicts McDonald's own experience." It noted that during JWM's bankruptcy, Domino's filed a proof of claim against the corporation rather than McDonald personally. His personal assets were protected by the limited liability of the corporate form and the rules of agency, which "similarly deny him rights under those contracts."

The Court rejected McDonald's alternative argument that § 1981 standing be extended to anyone who was the "actual target" of discrimination, and who loses some benefit that he would have received had a contract not been impaired. The Court believed this theory ignored the "explicit statutory requirement" that the plaintiff be the person whose rights were impaired on account of race. Past cases in which McDonald characterized the plaintiff's contractual relationship as unclear (and therefore, he argued, undermining a requirement of a contractual relationship) provided no support for his position, because those cases simply did not discuss or decide that issue.

McDonald also argued that "many discriminatory acts will go unpunished" if his interpretation of the statute was not adopted. The Court instead believed that the parties who actually suffered a breach of contract would likely pursue available remedies. In response to numerous hypothetical examples of unpunished discrimination described in McDonald's brief, including a scenario in which "Domino's officials had beaten up McDonald in an attempt to intimidate him," the Court simply noted that there are other laws available, particularly criminal law, to address such conduct. "The most important response, however, is that nothing in the text of § 1981 suggests that it was meant to provide an omnibus remedy for all racial injustice. If so, it would not have been limited to situations involving contracts." Giving it a more expansive reading would "produce satellite § 1981 litigation of immense scope," for example permitting class actions by all the minority employees of a nonbreaching party to a broken contract.

Lawyers In Hell

Question And Answer !!

Q: what's the different between a lawyer and a terrorist?

A: you can negotiate with a terrorist !!

The devil's offer

The devil visited a lawyr's office and made him an offer. " I can arrange somethings for you, the devil said" " I'll increase your income five-fold, your partners will love you, your clients will respect you, you'll have four months of vacation each year and you'll live to be a hundred. All I require in return is your wife's soul, your children's souls and their children's souls rot in hell for eternity"

the lawyer though for a moment and said " what's the catch?"

Actual Stupid Questions asked !!!

Was it or your brother that was killed in the war? !

Were you alone or by yourself

Question And Answer !!

Q: What happend then

A: He told me, he says " I have to kill you because you can Identify me"

Q: Did he kill you !!!

had been such a long day .. Studyin BBL , it's tooooooooooo much =(

ounce of brain for sale

A man went to a brain store to get some brain to complete a study. He sees a sign remarking on the quality of proffessional brain offered in this particulare brain store. He begins to question the butcher about the cost of these brains.

" How much does it cost for engineer brain?"

" three dollars an ounce"

" How much does it cost for a programmer brain?"

"Four dollars an ounce"

" How much for a lawyer brain?"

" 1000 an ounce !"

" why is lawyer brain is so much more?!"

" Do you know how many lawyers we had to kill to get one ounce of brain? "

quote of the day !

" No man is above the law and no man is below it, nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it " ....

(Theodore Roosvelt)

Need a nwe lawyer

Warning signs that you might need a different lawyer :

1. your lawyer tells you that his last good case was of Budwesiser.
2. when the prosecutors see your lawyer, they high-five each other
3. your lawyer picks the jury by playing " duck-duck-goose"
4. your lawyer tells you that he has never told a lie
5. a prison guard is shaving your head.

Anyone wants to know about lawyers in my Home town " Bahrain" ;

http://www.hg.org/firms-bahrain.html

Anyone who needs a Lawyer in Malaysia, here is where you can get some information ;)


http://www.hg.org/firms-malaysia.html

Hey guys, who has the old BBL book, the new one is so big, h8 it =(

Trader case law

Trader case law

A stockbroker managed his family's invesrment, carefully investigated companies before he purchase stocks, and would generally hold a stock for a long-term appreciation. He traded dividends from the securities purchased as personal service income. The Tax Court found that the tax payer was merely an investor managing his investments and not an active trader in secutities engaging in a trade or business.

Example of Civil Law

Contract Law

You have just purchased your first car. In Missouri, you must have car insurance in order to title and obtain a license for the car. One day an engine fire destroys your car. the fire is an accident; no one is to be blame. your insurance pokicy speciffically states that the insurance will pay you for the value of the car. This is a contract between you and your insurance company. your part is to pay the premiums and not intentionally harm your car and the insurance company's part is to pay you when somthing happend to your car

Example of Civil Law

Family Law

Your best friend's parents get a divorce . the judge awards sustody of your friend's sister to the mother and of your friend to the father.
The friend and sister want to live together, they ask a lawyer to change the custody order.

Question And Answer !!

Q: Why did God make snakes just before lawyers?
A: To practice !!! XD

Law Degree

A Law Degree is the degree conferred on someone who completes studies in law. However many law degrees are insufficient education for a license to practice law by the administative body of that jurisdiction. For example in England and wales one needs to complete the Legal Practice Course to become a solicitor or called to the bar to be a barrister.

The law And Society Association

The law and society Association, founded in 1964, is a group of scholars from many fields and countries, interested in the place of law social, political,economic and culture life.

Members bring training in law, sociology, political science,psycology, anthropology, economics, and history as well as in other related areas to the study of sociolegal phenomena.

Among it is activities, the association publishes The Law And Society Review, sponsors annual conferences and educational Workshops, and foster the development of academic programs in law and society around the world. for students and new scholars, the Assocaition encourages participation in it's workshops and mentorship program.

Law of Attraction

the phrase " law of attraction" used widely by New Thought writers refer to the idea that thought influence chance.
The law of attraction argues that thoughts ( both conscious and unconscious ) can effect things outside the head, not just through motivation, but by other means.
the law of attraction says that which is like unto itself is drawn. Essentially, if you really want somthing and truly beleive it's possible, you'll get it, but putting a lot of attention and thought onto somthing you don't want means you'll probably get that too.

Hey every body .. I was just wondering if anybody knows the date of the BBL Midterm exam?

Find lawyer

Hey Everybody ..

In case you needed a lawyer ( God forbide ) .. this website will help you :


http://www.hg.org/kuala-lumpur-lawfirms.asp