Balfour v. Balfour вЂ“ Case Quick Summary
Brief summary of Balfour v. Balfour, 2 E. B. 571 (1919).
Mr. Balfour (D) and Mrs. Balfour (P) occupied Ceylon and visited Britain on a holiday. The plaintiff remained in britain for medical therapy and the accused agreed to mail her a certain amount of money monthly until she could come back. The accused later asked to remain separated and Mrs. Balfour sued for reparation; indemnity; settlement; compensation; indemnification of her conjugal rights and for alimony equal to the quantity her husband had consented to send. Mrs. Balfour acquired a decree nisi and five weeks later was granted a great order to get alimony. The bottom court came into judgment in favour of the plaintiff and organised that the defendant's promise to deliver money was enforceable. The court placed that Mrs. Balfour's consent was satisfactory consideration to render the contract enforceable and the defendant appealed. Issues
1 . Must both parties intend that an agreement be lawfully binding to be an enforceable contract? 2 . Under what circumstances is going to a court docket decline to enforce an agreement between husband and wife? Holding and Rule
1 . Yes. Each must aim that an agreement be legally binding to be an enforceable contract. installment payments on your The courtroom will not enforce agreements between spouses that involve lifestyle. Agreements among husband and wife more than matters that affect their daily lives are not subject to contractual model, even when concern is present. Spouses normally aim that the terms of their negotiating can be different as situations develop. The court kept that it was assumed that the celebrations made the agreement while husband and wife and did not want that it could possibly be sued upon. The the courtroom held that as a matter of public coverage it could not really resolve conflicts between husband and wife. Disposition
Judgment for individual Mrs. Balfour reversed.
Contracts linked to the cultural aspect of matrimony will not be enforced by the courts. Contracts between spouses linked to business relationships can be enforced, however. Tennis courts are willing to support negotiated divorce settlements and written transactions of support. See Burnham v. Remarkable Court of California to get a law college civil process case brief involving a problem of personal legislation in connection with a divorce lawsuit.
Sharon v. Zehmer
Hamer v. Sidway
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
LawnixCase BriefsComplete Cases IndexCivil ProcedureConstitutional LawContractsCriminal LawOutlinesPropertyTorts В
Leading of Kind
Bottom of Form
Over 750 SETS OUT
Stereotypes Focus Protecting Projection
The Ohio State University
N. Keith Payne
University of North Carolina, Church Hill
Protective projection may be the process of perceiving one's unfavorable qualities in others. The present research shows how stereotypes guide and justify the projection of specific characteristics onto specific group members. In several studies, the authors demonstrated that people who knowledgeable a threat to a specific dimension with their self-concept selectively activated this dimension within a stereotype and derogated stereotyped others with this dimension. That they further showed that stereotyped individuals are more likely to serve as focuses on of output than are nonstereotyped persons. These outcomes demonstrate the functional function of stereotypes in leading and constraining motivated self-enhancement.
Keywords: projection; stereotyping; availability; self-threat; compen- satory self-enhancement
Can stereotypes reveal even more about a perceiver than a
person perceived? In respect to hypotheses of defensive
projection, stereotypes may do exactly that (Allport, 1954;
Newman & Caldwell, 2005). Projection is a process of
perceiving one's unfavorable qualities in others as a way
to protect your self-image (A. Freud, 1936; S. Freud,
Sources: Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of misjudgment. Reading, MA: Addison-
Baumeister, 3rd there’s r. F., & Scher, H. J. (1988). Self-defeating habit pat-
terns among regular individuals: Review and evaluation of common
Biernat, M., & Manis, M. (1994). Shifting specifications and stereotype-
Bodenhausen, G. V., & Wyer, 3rd there’s r. S. (1987). Social cognition and interpersonal
reality: Details acquisition and use in the laboratory plus the
Bramel, D. (1963). Number of a concentrate on for protecting projection. Jour-
nal of Abnormal and Social Mindset, 66, 318-324.
Burish, Capital t. G., & Houston, B. K. (1979). Causal projection, similarity
discharge, and dealing with threat to self-esteem
Campbell, D., Miller, N., Lubetsky, J., & O'Connell, At the. (1964). Variet-
ies of projection in trait attribution
Clement, L. W., & Krueger, J. (2002). Sociable categorization moderates
Devine, S. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: All their automatic and
Edlow, D. W., & Kiesler, C. A. (1966). Ease of refusal and protective pro-
Epstein, Ur., & Baron, R. M. (1969). Intellectual dissonance and pro-
jected hostility toward outgroups
Filigran, S., & Spencer, T. J. (1997). Prejudice as self-image repair:
Affirming the self through derogating others
Feshbach, S., & Vocalist, R. Deb. (1957). The consequences of fear arousal and
suppression of dread upon cultural perception
Freud, A. (1936). The ego and the mechanisms of defense. London:
collected documents of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 1). London, uk: Hogarth. (Origi-
nal work published 1924)
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, T. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing ingroup bias: The com-
friday ingroup id model
Gilbert, D. Big t., & Hixon, G. (1991). The trouble of thinking: Activation
and using stereotypic values
Govorun, Um., Fuegen, T., & Payne, B. E. (2005). [The a result of projec-
tion on self-ratings]
Halpern, J. (1977). Projection: A test with the psychoanalytic hypothe-
Higgins, E. T. (1996). Expertise activation: Availability, applicabil-
eness, and salience
Holmes, G. S. (1968). Dimensions of projection. Emotional Bulletin,
Holmes, D. H. (1978). Projection as a protection mechanism. Psychologi-
cal Program, 85, 677-688.
Holmes, M. S., & Houston, N. K. (1971). The protective function of
Horney, K. (1939). New ways in psychoanalysis. Nyc: Norton.
(2004). The output of implicit and specific goals. Record of Per-
sonality and Social Mindset, 86, 545-559.
Kunda, Z., Davies, G. G., Adams, B., & Spencer, T. J. (2002). The
energetic time course of stereotype account activation: Activation, dissipa-
Kunda, Z .., & Spencer, S. T. (2003). When do stereotypes come to mind
and when perform they color judgment? A goal-based theory of stereo-
Lambert, A. J., Cronen, S., Chasteen, A., & Lickel, N. (1996). Non-public
Mikulincer, M., & Horesh, N. (1999). Mature attachment style and the
perception of others: The role of projective components
of Personality and Cultural Psychology, seventy six, 1022-1034.
Murstein, B. We., & Pryer, R. S i9000. (1959). The concept of projection: A
Newman, L. S i9000., & Caldwell, T. T. (2005). Allport's " living inkblotsвЂќ:
The role of defensive discharge in stereotyping and prejudice
Newman, M. S., Caldwell, T. D., Chamberlin, N., & Griffin, T. (2005).
Newman, T. S., Bad, K. T., & Baumeister, R. N. (1997). A fresh look at
shielding projection: Believed suppression, accessibility, and