Income Tax in short

An income tax is a tax levied on the income of individuals or business (corporations or other legal entities). Various income tax systems exist, with varying degrees of tax incidence. Income taxation can be progressive, proportional, or regressive. When the tax is levied on the income of companies, it is often called a corporate tax, corporate income tax, or profit tax. Individual income taxes often tax the total income of the individual (with some deductions permitted), while corporate income taxes often tax net income (the difference between gross receipts, expenses, and additional write-offs). Various systems define income differently, and often allow notional reductions of income (such as a reduction based on number of children supported).

Indemnity- easy for one to understand......

"To restore the victim of a loss, in all or in part, by payment, repair or replacement.

"To save harmless; to secure against loss or damage; to give security for the reimbursement of a person in case of an anticipated loss falling upon him.

"To make good; to compensate; to make reimbursement to one of a loss already incurred by him.

"In my opinion, the concept of indemnity has central to it the idea of compensation, of making good, of paying moneys to a person, to reimburse them for losses sustained."

Differences between legal capacity in an ordinary contract and insurance contract?

Insurance contracts in all countries are subject to the same basic law that governs all types of contracts but also to some legal principles that have been developed to handle the legal problems associated with insurance. Beyond the necessary contractual conditions, certain elements are peculiar to the insurance policy.
Generally an insurance policy is unilateral and only the insurer is obligated to act. It is also a conditional aleatory contract.
As a contract of "utmost good faith" (uberrimae fidei) a certain degree of honesty is presumed from both parties. This principle imposes a higher standard of honesty-on the two parties than is usually expected in an ordinary contract.
To avoid a contract a "warranty" (a statement contained in the contract and requires that a particular condition exists) must be false, or a "misrepresentation" (a statement made by the insured to the insurer on which the latter relies to price the contract) must be false and materially important. Concealment of these factors will be considered to be made with intent to deceive . The insured has an obligation to inform the insurer about facts that may be materially important.

The Importance of Insurance in Business

Despite continuing educational efforts many people lose much of their income each year to some sort of fraud, identity theft, bad investments, get rich quick, or to good to be true schemes. Some individuals seem to be particularly prone to such loss; it may equal their yearly savings, or even erase them. It is difficult to identify the type.

They can be found in the lowest strata of society or in high financial district offices. Wherever they are they seem to look for opportunities to lose their money in questionable deals. They become the prey of a lifelong parade of tricksters who continually descend upon them as though by instinct. Neither legislation nor education can stop the practice. Such predisposed suckers will fight both law and understanding, continuing to insist on their right to be free ó and cheated.

There are also whole classes of people, racial or vocational minorities most often, who fail to benefit from either protective law or instructive publicity. In our high tech civilization, these groups remain economically depressed, not only because of their low earning power and susceptibility to cyclical unemployment, but also because they are unable to handle whatever money they do get their hands on, and are constantly preyed upon by a marginal business community still using nineteenth century ethics.

It is difficult to blame any individual sunk in this morass of low dealing. Too few dollars are being spread too thin at this level. Most of the businessmen involved would love to move "uptown" or "downtown" and play it clean. They never clear enough profit to get out of the rut themselves. If often appears useless to subsidize the depressed groups with additional cash. The fact is that they are rooked out of half of what they do get.
Above this level, among the vast majority of Americans, from the lower middle class on up to the wealthy, we find a persistent apathy regarding daily money loss through shenanigans or carelessness. Literally hundreds of thousands of professional criminals make a parasitic living out of fishing in the daily stream of cash. They range from perfumed, silk-suited con-men to grubby panhandlers, all making an excellent tax-free living.

In another category we find the respected business manager or assistant who is tempted to tap the till. Recorded reasons for business failures have never considered the possibility of such factors going undiscovered during the brief life of unsuccessful enterprises. Insurance companies have plenty of information to indicate the importance of such loss as a constant factor in business.

Basic to the situation is the faith the businessman has in those he hires, even when he has not the slightest idea who they really are. The main cause of day-to-day individual loss is carelessness coupled with the lack of ability to count up the simplest numbers. Surveys among store clerks and money tellers show that great numbers of them frequently miscount. So do the customers. We have pursued the subject further in How to Beat Employee and Customer Stealing.

Losses to individuals through carelessness, ignorance of newest swindling techniques, or general inability to handle money wisely can often put a family into the red, undermining an otherwise solid future. Here then, for your information, is a survey of current gyps, dodges, deals, angles, and gimmicks. Recognizing a cheat when you see one is the best way to beat him at his game.

Breach of Contracts and Remedies

Breach of contract is a legal concept in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance. If the party does not fulfill his contractual promise, or has given information to the other party that he will not perform his duty as mentioned in the contract or if by his action and conduct he seems to be unable to perform the contract, he is said to breach the contract.

Remedies of Contract:

(a) He may be discharged from further performance.

(b) If he has done anything under the contract, he has a right to sue on the quantum meruit, a cause of action distinct from that arising out of the original contract, and based upon a contract created by law.

(c) He has a right of action on the original contract, or term of the contract broken, and may maintain:

(1) A suit to obtain damages for the loss sustained by the breach.

(2) A suit to obtain specific performance of the contract by the other party.

We have seen that if a contract is discharged by the breach the party injured is exonerated from further performance, provided he treats the breach as a discharge. Where he relies on a discharge, his remedy is by setting up his discharge as a defense in an action brought by the other party on the contract. In addition to his right to a discharge from performance, he has a right, if he has done anything under the contract, to sue on the quantum meruit for compensation for his partial performance.86 This cause of action is distinct from that arising out of the original contract. It is based upon a new contract, generally called an implied contract, but really a quasi contract, or contract created by law, because of the receipt by the other party of the benefits of such performance. In addition to these rights, the party so injured by a breach has a right of action based upon the original contract or term of the contract broken. This remedy exists not only where he is discharged by the breach, but also where he is not discharged, or where, though he was entitled to claim a discharge, he has preferred to waive such right, and go on with the contract. His remedy in this case is of two kinds: (1) He may seek, in a court of law, to obtain damages for the loss he has sustained by himself taking the initiative and bringing an action for damages, or by waiting until the other party sues him, and then asserting his right by way of recoupment, counterclaim, or cross action. He may resort to this remedy whether he claims a discharge by reason of the other's breach or not. (2) He may, in the case of certain contracts and under special circumstances, obtain specific performance of the contract by the other party, by bringing a suit in equity for that purpose. Of course he would not be entitled to such performance unless he performed the contract on his part, or offered to perform it, and therefore he cannot resort to this remedy where he claims a discharge from further performance.

Nemo dat quod non habet

Nemo dat quod non habet, literally meaning "no one [can] give what he does not have" is a legal rule, sometimes called the nemo dat rule, that states that the purchase of a possession from someone who has no ownership right to it also denies the purchaser any ownership title. This rule usually stays valid even if the purchaser does not know that the seller has no right to claim ownership of the object of the transaction (a bona fide purchaser); however it is often difficult for courts to make judgements as in many cases there is more than one innocent party. As a result of this there are numerous exceptions to the general rule which aim to give a degree of protection to bona fide purchasers as well as original owners.

Passing of Title Case Study

Ruling Court Case. Sedgwick Vs. Cottingham

Sedgwick, who resided in Portlandville, Iowa, was engaged in the purchase and sale of grain. Cottingham was engaged in milling at Benton, Wisconsin. Sedgwick and Cottingham made an agreement whereby the former was to ship a car load of wheat to the latter, to be delivered at Council Hill, from whence it was to be hauled by Cottingham to his mill. In pursuance of the terms of the contract, the car of wheat was placed on siding at Council Hill, and Cottingham was notified by the railroad company of its arrival. A day and a half later, before Cottingham could get it unloaded, the car containing the wheat was washed from the side track by an unusual and extraordinary freshet and the wheat was lost. Sedgwick sues for the price of the wheat. Cottingham contends that the loss was not his.

Mr. Justice Seevers delivered the opinion of the Court: "When the car containing the wheat was placed on the siding at Council Hill, Sedgwick's duties in respect thereto were over. Title to the wheat then passed to Cottingham. Title having passed, the wheat was then at the risk of Cottingham, loss occurring he, as owner, must bear it." Judgment was given for Sedgwick.

Intersting