Legal errors made in the course of contractual interpretation include the application of an incorrect principle, the failure to consider a required
element of a legal test, or the failure to consider a relevant factor.
Legal errors made in the course of contractual interpretation include «the application of an incorrect principle, the failure to consider a required
element of a legal test, or the failure to consider a relevant factor» (King, at para. 21).
Not exact matches
«Genetic and genomic
tests are not uniquely challenging with respect to ethical,
legal, or psychosocial considerations, but these features justify careful thought and an
element of caution as we assess the benefits and risks
of these evolving technologies.»
Confidence that you can pound out the
elements of many different
legal tests, without thinking, will ease the anxiety
of bar review.
When I began my teaching career, at Georgetown, I taught a traditional
legal writing course with writing assignments drawn from a variety
of doctrinal areas, paying more attention to skills I wanted to teach — e.g. analyzing statutes, using
elements tests, analogizing and distinguishing cases, synthesizing case and statutory law, etc. — than to integrating any particular area
of doctrine.
In Upjohn Co. v. United States, 6 the United States Supreme Court held that a company's attorney — client privilege extends to company counsel's communications with employees in certain prescribed circumstances.7 Rather than providing a simple objective
test, the Upjohn court instead established five factors to guide courts in determining whether the company's privilege should extend to counsel's communications with its employees: (1) whether the communications were made by employees at the direction
of superior officers
of the company for the purpose
of obtaining
legal advice; (2) whether the communications contained information necessary for counsel to render
legal advice, which was not otherwise available from «control group» management; (3) whether the matters communicated were within the scope
of the employee's corporate duties; (4) whether the employee knew that the communications were for the purpose
of the company obtaining
legal advice; and (5) whether the communications were ordered to be kept confidential by the employee's superiors, including that the communications were considered confidential at the time and kept confidential subsequent to the interview.8 When these
elements are established, courts generally consider communications between company counsel and an employee to be within the scope
of the company's attorney — client privilege.9
The Society designed and
tested a Management System for Ethical
Legal Practice (MSELP), which includes 10
elements based on existing ethical rules, as well as tools and resources to support enhanced quality
of practice.
The Court concluded that Ms. Flatt's evidence did meet the second
element of the family status
test — that breastfeeding during work hours is a
legal obligation — and concluded that breastfeeding in this case was a personal choice.
The leading Court
of Appeal authority (Express & Echo v Tanton [1999] IRLR 367, [1999] All ER (D) 256) envisages a tribunal disapplying a substitution clause if it is a «sham», but this is in itself a difficult
test for a claimant because a strict view
of it requires proof
of a deliberate attempt to evade
legal responsibilities, almost an
element of mens rea (see Real Time Engineering Ltd v Callaghan [2006] UKEAT / 516/05).