Category: Law

A lawyer who has not studied economics is very apt to become a public enemy” Brandeis J. Law schools do not generally teach anything about business, as opposed to business law. As a result, lawyers learn about business legal forms and contracts, but nothing about the non-legal imperatives of running a business like corporate finance, marketing, or corporate strategy. Furthermore, as members of an inherently conservative profession many lawyers resist engaging in any topic that goes beyond the four corners of their legal brief (“I only give legal advice”).

This is highly problematic for business, because every legal problem comes within a business context, and lawyers who are not willing or able to understand that context cannot give good advice; Brandeis J.s dictum is as applicable with respect to business knowledge as it is with respect to economics, and there remains a significant knowledge gap between the practice of law and the practice of business.

In some cases lawyers address this knowledge gap by specializing not only in a particular field of law but also in a particular industry, and in this way they develop industry expertise in substitution of more general business knowledge. At the same time the scale of the knowledge gap can be masked by the natural hubris of the legal professionlawyers who are at the pinnacle of every information and decision making-tree they are associated with can suffer from the illusion of knowing more, not less, than their clients.

A great deal has been written about alternatives to lawyers billing by the hour, or lawyers working from home instead of at a desk in a big law firm, but in my view these topics are relatively trivial. A much more significant topic is bringing business financial and strategy tools into the practice of law in order to develop a multi-disciplinary approach to the delivery of legal services.

In a litigation context for example the focus of lawyers should not be on winning their clients case but on solving the underlying business problemsthe disputes which were the reason clients came to them in the first place. One very simple example of this would be to compare the cost of litigation with the cost of buying the other sides companyif the two numbers bear some similarity then a rare opportunity for a litigator to participate in value creation instead of value destruction may exist.

Business clients want to know how much their case will cost, how long it will take, what the risks are, and the probable result. These four basis elementscost, risk, time, and reward, are the foundation of the financial analysis of any business proposal, and there is no reason why lawyers cannot make reasoned and reasonably reliable assessments of these elements in any given legal contextthe law is no more uncertain than many projects undertaken by business, and in many cases is substantially more certain.

Once we have attached numbers, or a range of numbers, to the four elements then we can financially model them the same way we can model any other business proposal. We can start with a simple spreadsheet comparing cost to risk-discounted reward, or add time to give a net present value calculation (which will show how high the reward would have to be to justify the risk over time, all other things being equal). Nor does it stop therewe can go on to decision tree modeling to assess the value of certain choices and options, and use sensitivity analysis or tornado diagrams to identify the assumptions in the model around which most of the risk in the model revolves; this in turn allows us to go back and further assess the assumptions.

I am aware of no lawyers anywhere in the world who consistently adopt this multi-disciplinary approach in their practices. Discovering such lawyers, and developing a framework with readers to put some flesh on the bones of this theoretical multi-disciplinary approach, is a key objective of this Journal.

Duty of care in Donaghue -v- Stevenson 1932 was defined as exercising such care out of the box due in such ‘acts or omissions which you may reasonably foresee is planning to injure persons so directly affected which you ought reasonably to obtain them in contemplation’ and Caparo Industries -v- Dickman 1990 referred and situations whereby it may be fair, just, and reasonable to impose.

This duty is owed to 1 in physical proximity: e.g., in Haseldine -v – Daw 1941 to user of a lift negligently repaired, Buckland -v- Guilford Gas Light 1941 to child electrocuted by low cables upon climbing a tree, although not with a mother for shock nor for miscarriage to a single who had previously been being who the motive force along with the rider couldn’t to have known which were around in King -v- Phillips 1953 and Bourhill -v- Young 1942; so they can one out of legal proximity: e.g., in Donaghue -v- Stevenson 1932 for illness of consumer from manufacturer’s drink purchased by another, and not if immune as public policy in Hill -v- Chief Constable 1988, or as barristers or judges – Saif -v- Sydney Mitchell 1980; as well as to one with blood-ties: e.g., in McLoughlin -v- O’Brien 1982 to a mother who by news of accident ‘it was obvious that you will find affected’ ~it may be owed for financial decrease in special professional relationships -Mutual Life Assurance -v- Evett 1971, for careless words not provided clear as being without responsibility -Hadley Byrne -v- Heller & Partners 1964, and for serious nervous shock -Reilly -v- Merseyside RHA 1994.

The injury, additionally, if reasonably foreseeable is -Fardon -v- Harcourt 1932, negligence may entitle to damages, even punitive, Rookes -v- Bernard 1964, although if contemptuously claimed to as few as the smallest coin of the realm, e.g., without costs and nominal in Constantine -v- Imperial London Hotels 1944.

Circumstances in which a duty of care can be breached, except in the case of specific torts like libel or trespass -or underneath the Rylands -v- Fletcher rule where lawfully but at your own peril manufactured any unnatural by using land and excluding cases of immunity and circumstances the place where a statutory duty properly exercised infringes the right -such as the disturbance brought on by the noise of aircraft taking of or landing – however , not if improperly exercised: Fisher -v- Ruislip-Northwood UDC 1945, such circumstances can be regardless if a risk is know and never objected to: Smith -v- Charles Baker & Son 1891, indeed in which a risk is known and has now been consented to: Bowater -v- Rowley Regis Corp. 1944 ~even if you have contributory negligence: Stapley -v- Gypsum Mines Ltd 1953 -indeed even if despite instructions.

The typical is that of the ‘reasonable man’; if injury was risked: Bolton -v- Stone 1951 ~6 times in 3 decades meant not and also the degree of the danger is proportional as far as of care required; the seriousness of the injury risked too is proportional the amount of care necessary: Paris -v- Stepney BC 1951 -more to employee blind within a eye, rather than the total nevertheless the sort of the injury on such basis as: British Railways Board. -v- Herrington 1972; a social value whether justified danger: in Fisher failure were justified in war-time black-out to get up shaded lights to protect yourself from public nuisance to the cyclist, in Watt -v- Hertfordshire CC 1954 buying the wrong vehicle in this area of accident was justified by the valuable time that is going to have already been lost in enabling there help; the cost-benefit consideration: in Latimer -v- AEC 1953 to have done in excess of reasonable could have made raise the risk too remote by comparison -except should there be a statutory duty including in the Health & Safety Acts; that standard in the example of an expert’s negligence is, instead -Latimer, of an ‘reasonable expert’.

The link between the breach of duty as well as the resultant damage have to be proven to exist ought to be fact or perhaps a couple of law. Hmo’s is susceptible to the ‘but for’ rule: in Barnett -v- Chelsea etc. Hospital etc. 1968 breach by the failure on the doctor to call hasn’t been the caused of death, McWilliams -v- Sir Arrol 1962 failed since the safety-belt would not are actually worn if supplied, in Cutler -v- Vauxhall motors 1971 the operation on a graze had been recently ordered on an ulcer on the site than me and would be a pre-existing condition; but, just isn’t broken a causative link by way of consecutive cause and did not lessen a subsequent injury the initial factors in Baker -v- Willoughby 1970, nor necessarily disentitle multiple causes when on the balance of probabilities the link considerably was the explanation: McGhee -v- National Coal Board 1973; where harm or some of it is coming from a third party’s breach the ‘but for’ rule still refers to whether he type of injury happens to be seen: Hogan -v Betinck Colliers 1949.

Aforementioned only applies in the event the breach isn’t too remote, plus it wasn’t in Wieland -v- Cyril Lord Carpets 1969 the fact that fall elsewhere and later had resulted through the necessity to discard bi-focal glasses brought on by the driver’s negligence; the special sensitivity in the claimant wouldn’t matter -‘egg-shell skull’ rule: Robinson -v- Mailbox 1974 -‘one has to take the victim as he finds him’; inside Wagonmound 1961 during the time of the breach that oil spilled could burn on sea-water could hardly reasonably, as well as in Doughty -v- Turner Mfg. 1964 as a result of state expertise, are actually foreseen; employing Bradford -v- Robinson Rentals 1967 the frostbite was on account of providing a van without having a heater.

The claimant’s proof can go on to the defendant: Steer -v- Durable Rubber 1956; no less than some evidence is necessary of negligence even if ‘facts speak for themselves’ -they will not in case the claimant can’t say so what happened: Wakelin -v- LSWR 1886, negligence could be inferred from lack of explanation by defendant, for virtually any by claimant legally Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 proportionate reduction is made.

Since June 1999 the term De Facto has been used to describe the relationship between the two adults (over the age of 18 and including couples of the same sex) who:

1. live together; and
2. are not married; and
3. are not siblings, parent or child of the other party.

The Family Law Act defines De Facto relation as one where the couple is not married and are not related to each other and they are in a relationship and living together. A general requirement for De Facto couples is that they have been living together for a period of at least 2 years or they have a child together.

Other criterias to determine a De Facto relationship include:

1. how long the relationship has lasted;
2. whether the parties live together under one roof;
3. what the arrangements are between them in respect of their assets and finances;
4. whether they have come to own assets together since the commencement of their relationship, etc

Previously De Facto couples were not governed by the federal laws except when there were matters in respect of children. All other matters were governed by state and territory laws.

However, recent changes on 1 March 2009 allows De Facto couples to make applications to the Family Courts for orders in respect of division of property and maintenance for couples in a De Facto relationship. De Factor partners have a responsibility to provide financial assistance to their former De Facto partner if they are unable to maintain themselves and meet their own reasonable expenses from their income. The amount of support depends on the needs of the applicant partner and what the respondent partner can afford to pay.

The amount of non-financial contribution by either party will also be taken into account when considering the division of property.

An application for maintenance will have to be made within 2 years of the breakdown of the De Facto relationship.

Parties can choose not to be governed by the new laws by entering into an agreement which outline the distribution of property division and outline maintenance provisions if a relationship ends. These types of Agreements are called Binding Financial Agreements and can be entered into when both parties have obtained independent legal advice.

At LAC Lawyers we are available to assist you in the event of a breakup of your relationship with your partner and provide you with sound legal advice in respect of your rights and entitlement.

Our thoughts create feelings, which in turn create vibrations that are either positive or negative. The Law of Attraction states that “like attracts like” and that what you focus your attention on will expand.

The first step to using the Law of Attraction is to get clear on what it is you do want. A powerful gift of divorce is it can give you a clear picture of what you DON’T want, which you can easily use to get clear on what you DO want. I am currently a single gal and it took me only about five minutes to create a list of over 60 qualities I don’t want in a future partner. I went over my list asking myself the question, “What do I want?” instead. The answers to that question allowed me to generate a list of qualities I would like in a partner. It was empowering and a lot of fun to get clarity!

The second step is to give your desire attention. Your job in the second step is simply to maintain a positive focus on your desire, knowing that as you do so the universe is aligning people and circumstances to match that vibration. You don’t have to know “how” exactly all of this will transpire for you. Let the universe do its job!

The all-important third Step is: Allow

You won’t reap the benefits of the first two steps unless you get the third step right, which is to allow or receive your desires. Esther and Jerry Hicks explain that there is an unending stream of abundance available to us. Our ability to accept the abundance that is always offered is where our challenges lie.

Imagine a river flowing downstream. When you are open to receiving your desires, you’re in your boat headed merrily downstream. (If you recall the lyrics of “Row, Row, Row Your Boat” now, it’s actually a pretty deep philosophical song!) In fact, you could even choose to drop the oars and go with the flow. Step three has you going with the flow and enjoying the scenery along the way (even if the view was somewhat different than you thought it would be).

Tools to Reduce Doubt

Many people aren’t comfortable dropping the oars in their boat and going with the flow. What do your doubts sound like? Perhaps your inner critic tells you “I don’t deserve this,” “I’m going to be alone forever” or “I’m not good enough.” Doubt impedes your ability to receive because it sends out a negative vibration. You start to put your attention on what’s wrong and the Law of Attraction kicks in to give you more of what you’re putting your time and energy on. Not only are you gripping the oars, but you’re starting to head your boat upstream against the current.

The more you can reduce your doubt, the more powerfully and quickly you’ll be able to manifest your desires. People often get impatient with the gap between where they are now and where they want to go. They give up right before they cross the finish line. One way to handle your doubts is to become aware of your doubts or limiting beliefs. Treat the words “because” and “but” as big red flags. Anything you say or think after using those words is likely a version of your limited beliefs about yourself.

Reducing your doubt, even slightly, will make it easier for you to attract what you want. Esther Hicks advises you to “soften and reach for thoughts that bring you relief” as a way to gently turn your boat from “upstream” thoughts back into the downstream current. If you feel controlled by your limiting beliefs, hire a coach to do some internal emotional housecleaning with you. (If you’d like to learn more about the kind of coaching I offer, please visit my coaching website.)

You can clear yourself of doubt by consciously collecting evidence that you are on the right track. Celebrate a stranger holding the door open for you or the unexpected check in the mail. There will be a lag time between articulating what you want and manifesting it in your reality but there will be signs along the way that you’re on track that can keep you fuelled and in a positive state of attention.

The third way to help you receive is gratitude. Take the time to feel deep appreciation and gratitude for your life as it is right now. Look at the people in your life, even the ones you don’t particularly like, and be grateful for the lessons you’ve learned and the relationships you’ve created.

Take Action!

1. What’s up, Doc? Over the next 7 days, keep a list of your doubts and limiting beliefs. Notice what thoughts come after you use the words because” or “but.”

2. Soften into Relief. Look at your limiting beliefs and ask yourself what thought could you choose instead of which would offer you relief. Are there any people in the world who have found happiness in life after divorce? Can you see yourself as in the process of being one of them? Write down a gentler thought that starts to turn your boat downstream.

3. Collect your evidence. Keep a list of all the positive people, circumstances and situations you start to encounter and celebrate your role in attracting them to you.

4. Take a Spiritual Vitamin. Give yourself a daily dose of gratitude by writing at least 10 things for which you are grateful.

While Toyota is definitely taking the brunt of recalls lately, other vehicle manufacturers have troubles of their own: GM is currently being sued over a 2009 Chevrolet. The owner of the Chevrolet claims he experienced repeated problems that caused him to fear for his safety.

This is not the first time GM has been sued for safety issues – in 2009 a wrongful death suit was filed against them for defective seat belts. 2009 also saw a recall of almost 1.5 million mid- and full-size Buick, Chevrolet, Oldsmobile and Pontiac vehicles because of an engine oil leak problem that could pose a fire risk.

This kind of defect in a vehicle is precisely what the lemon law is about. It protects consumers from the harm or loss caused by purchasing a defective vehicle. Who has what rights and what duties in lemon law matters? It seems clear. The consumer has the duty to present the vehicle to the manufacturer or its representative, the dealership, in order that they are able to diagnose the defect and repair it. Along with the duty, the consumer has a right to expect the dealership to repair the vehicle honestly and expeditiously.

What are the rights of the manufacturer? Simply put, they have the right to expect that the consumer will present their defective vehicle at an authorized dealer for repair in a timely manner, and that the consumer properly maintain the vehicle. The manufacturer should have no other expectation. They should not expect a consumer to perfectly describe the defect they are experiencing or any other limiting requirement.

Of the thousands of lemon law clients we have spoken with, it is extremely rare that a manufacturer makes a legitimate offer to buy back or replace a defective vehicle. In each of these cases no hint of awareness of their affirmative duty was present.

Not all manufacturers or dealerships are the same. Some, certainly not enough, really do have the consumers best interests at heart.

If however you find yourself with a defective vehicle and a manufacturer who is not ready to step up and replace or refund as they should, find yourself an experienced lemon law attorney. Do your homework. Look at their record. See what others who have used their services have to say.

Be certain they offer you a free case evaluation without delay. Never be afraid to ask hard questions. Its important and it can determine the outcome of your lemon law case.

About Norman Taylor & Associates

Norman Taylor & Associates has been assisting consumers since 1987. Our goal is to provide individuals who have the misfortune of purchasing a defective vehicle or goods, and who have recourse under the Lemon Law, with the highest quality legal representation. With a twenty-three year history of successful cases, Norman Taylor & Associates has established its reputation as a firm of consumer advocates that gets the job done. We represent California residents of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura and Santa Barbara counties.