The fight against crime begins by understanding why people commit crime. What causes crime, how crime can be handled and prevented has been the subject of discussion as long as the society has existed. There are two competing approaches to crime, namely the classical criminology and positivist criminology. Each of these approaches denotes some important ideas in the long history of how crime should be understood and prevented. As such, modern criminal justice system, either intentionally or unintentionally, is modeled along criminological theories.
It is well established in the English law of employment contracts that employee covenants are enforceable if they are to protect the legitimate interest of a business, extend to a period that is necessary to protect the business interest and are reasonable. (Brake brothers Limited v Ungless; kynixa limited v Hynes and others)
Co-ownership is the terminology often used to describe a type of property ownership in which two or more people are simultaneously entitled in possession or to an interest on the same property (Hoffman, 2011). The law governing co-ownership can be traced from the statute and the common law of the United Kingdom, most specifically the Law of Property Act and the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. There are basically two types of co-ownership namely: joint tenancy and tenancy in common (common tenancy), where joint tenancy is a kind of co-ownership in which each individuals (property co-owners) are fully entitled to the whole of the estate in question.
There has been an ongoing debate about the scope of a state's right of self-defense against an actual armed or imminent attack by non-state actors. According to Subsection-B of 13-404. Justification-self-defense, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect him against other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force. Therefore it is justified to say that, the law of self-defense should allow householders to commit acts of extreme violence against intruders without any legal sanctions.
Unconscionability of cases relating to promissory estoppels is numerous and this very factor has been used to determine cases justly. It has been used to overcome weaknesses in promissory estoppels where cases were ruled without consideration of all the facts on the table. According to Winshart (), promissory estoppels apply in exceptional cases where there is no consideration and is not to be used to enforce a promise. It should supplement and not usurp consideration in cases. Besides, it should be understood that promissory estoppel cases are not fully recognised under contractual law but rather depend on the context in which the case is presented. Thus, the extent to which the cases are determined will depend on consideration attached to it. Contracts are only enforceable if they have consideration, formalities or promissory estoppels.