Boston Global Action

Contract law is one of the most important area of the law that affects us all in our daily lives. Although we seldom sign a written document, we go into shops daily, we travel on public transport, we park in parking lots – these are largely all contracts into which we bind ourselves to terms and conditions. We may not be strictly aware of it, but we all participate in contractual obligations on both sides of the fence every single day. It is therefore no surprise that the issue of when exactly a contract is formed is of the utmost importance in regulating commerce and life as a consumer. Furthermore, how can we enforce our contracts, and what rights do we have under these contracts that we agree to almost subliminally day in day out. In this article, we will look at some of the key issues surrounding contract formation, and general principles of the law on contract, which govern transactions we experience in our daily lives.

In general laymen’s terms, we think of a contract as a detailed written document, and we understand that when we sign that dotted line, there’s no turning back. Actually, that’s a myth. Of course, there is definitely the possibility of receiving a written contract to sign, and indeed this would be legally binding. However there is a very real possibility of being legally bound to a contract that you don’t even realise exists. A contract can be formed by way of simply verbally saying you agree to buy some item. That is sufficient to bind you in law for most transactions, and on that basis it would be perfectly feasible to found a claim for breach. Of course, the difficulty then arises in proving what was said, which is why in practical terms more often than not a written document is used for transactions of a substantial nature. This avoids the problem of frivolous claims as to who said what and when such and such a term was agreed, which can lead to complications and lead to lengthy litigation Read more…

In commercial terms, the world revolves around insolvency. Insolvency is the process whereby one’s entire patrimony (i.e. the totality of one’s assets) is liquidated in order to satisfy his total debts that have grown beyond his means. Insolvency procedures are problematic in that they mean liquidation of personal assets such as one’s home and one’s car. Unfortunately there are few ways to avoid insolvency, which most normally occurs through poor judgement or ‘bad luck’. Fortunately, there are numerous ways in which the potential implications of insolvency procedures can be minimised to prevent loss of assets. For the lay-man, this can involve certain minor legal procedures which could ultimately save a fortune. For creditors, this can be particularly bad news. In this article we will look at entirely legal ways in which you can potentially avoid losing assets in insolvency procedures.

If you are running a small business, or likely to do so in the next decade, you must act on the following immediately to protect your assets. Alternatively, if you foresee yourself amassing significant unsecured debt in the coming years, you should also act similarly. Allowing a ten year margin, which might seem a lot, will prevent any challenges on sequestration and ensure that the assets you have ‘alienated’ no longer form part of your estate. The alienation ensures that the assets from which you will still benefit cannot be received by your creditors in consideration for any debts you accrue.

The first thing to consider is incorporating a limited liability company, or indeed several, within which to house your business operations. Conducting your business through a company may mean more paperwork, but it also removes you personally from any liability. Of course, your company can still be liquidated, but we will look at ways to avoid losing your business assets shortly. If you choose not to run through a corporate body, there are still ways in which you can minimise the potential for losing your assets. Read more…

For those who do not know, parole is a program that is used to allow criminal offenders early release from the prison system. It is designed to reflect prolonged periods of ‘good behavior’ and reform and rehabilitation, although it has come under a great deal of criticism at many different levels for allowing criminals to roam free before serving their time. Parolee’s are not given a free pass into public however; a parole officer monitors them at all times during their free time to ensure their behavior is appropriate and to ensure no further criminal activity is being undertaken. The parole officer is essence acts as the guards did in prison monitoring the behavior and movements of the offenders, with the difference being that the offender is allowed to integrate back into society on a graduated basis to avoid the chance of reoffending and any potential danger to the public. In this article, we will look at some of the key arguments for and against parole as a method of rehabilitating and reintegrating prisoners back into society.

Some argue that releasing inmates early is a hazard to the safety of society. Others argue that there should be stricter guidelines in place to determine, who is eligible for parole. This has been a very touchy issue with several states in setting up specific guidelines that determine parole eligibility. Many victims are upset to find out that their attacker is eligible for parole; this causes great stress to the victims who were already attacked once and now feels as if they are being attacked again. Although this is clearly an understandable situation, it is also naturally important to consider the rights of the prisoner, and to reflect true reform and rehabilitation in a steady and progressive manner, thus ensuring they manage to find their way back into society after serving time without facing too many problems.

Many states toss the responsibility of the parole board between the District Attorney’s office, the Corrections Department, and the Judicial Department. Each department handles the topic of parole quite differently. They each tend to have different standards of what is acceptable eligibility, and what is not. What happens is many times someone is released onto parole that should have never been permitted release.

How does the release off offenders who are not parole material affect society? It tends to affect society by being directly responsible for rises in crime rates. Many of those who are released onto parole are people who society as a whole should be protected from. Many wonder, how do dangerous people actually manage to be granted parole.

Many do not realize that sometimes there is no specific criterion for determining parole eligibility. Some states determine parole eligibility once the prisons are over filled. They start looking to release inmates on parole once they have too many inmates, which means it is not a very careful selection process to select the inmates released.

There are some good benefits to parole; such as being able to release inmates who have served the majority of their sentence and show no signs of being repeat offenders. There are many who learned their lessons and emerge from the prisons with a goal of integrating into society and making themselves good standing members of society. Not all parolee’s aim to commit crime again, there are some who use the early release as an opportunity to rebuild their lives, and those inmates have learned from their mistakes.

While the ideals of parole are seated in good intentions, there must be better standards of determining eligibility across the country to ensure the safety of society. Society and the inmates must both benefit from the decision to release inmates into the parole programs. With the correct supervision, many inmates make wonderful parole candidates, and the program should continue, but with good supervision, careful screening and a dedicated staff of parole officers.