Scribd
Upload
23 views6 pages

Busines Law Test

Uploaded by

abelmunye055
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
23 views6 pages

Busines Law Test

Uploaded by

abelmunye055
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

HAWASSA UNIVERSITY

BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS COLLEGE


Cooperative Department
Business Law Test
Id No: 0124/15
1) “To attempt to establish a single definition of law is to seek to confine
jurisprudence within the straight jacket from it is continually striving to escape.”
Keeton. Comment. (5 Points)

The quote from Keeton reflects a profound understanding of the complexity and
fluidity of legal systems and jurisprudence. It suggests that attempting to pin
down a singular definition of law is not only challenging but also potentially
reductive.

Here are some points to consider in commenting on this statement:

• Multiplicity of Definitions: Law can be viewed through various lenses—


moral, social, political, and economic. Each perspective offers a different
understanding of what law is, indicating that a single definition may overlook
essential dimensions of legal thought.

• Dynamic Nature of Law: Law is not static; it evolves with societal changes,
cultural shifts, and technological advancements. A rigid definition may fail to
accommodate these changes, leading to an incomplete understanding of how law
operates in practice.

•Jurisprudential Theories: Various schools of thought in jurisprudence, such


as natural law, legal positivism, and critical legal studies, illustrate the diversity in
understanding law. Each theory offers unique insights, suggesting that law cannot
be confined to a single framework without losing its richness.

• Practical Implications: In practice, legal professionals must navigate a


complex landscape where laws are interpreted and applied in varied contexts. A
narrow definition might hinder the ability to adapt legal principles to specific
cases or societal needs.

•Law as a Social Construct: Law is often seen as a reflection of societal values


and norms. As these values change, so too does the law. This social aspect
underscores the idea that law is not merely a set of rules but a living entity
shaped by human experiences and interactions.
• The Role of Interpretation: Legal interpretation plays a crucial role in how
laws are understood and applied. Judges, lawyers, and scholars may interpret
laws differently based on their perspectives, further complicating any attempt to
define law uniformly.

In conclusion, Keeton's assertion highlights the limitations of seeking a singular


definition of law. It calls for an appreciation of the diversity and complexity
inherent in legal systems and emphasizes the importance of flexibility in
understanding and applying legal principles. Rather than confining jurisprudence,
embracing its multifaceted nature allows for a more nuanced and effective
engagement with law in society.

2) Ato "Abebe Lema" passed away 30 days prior to the birth of his wife "Bekellech Aselef." At
Gandhi Hospital, two hours after the baby was born, Dr. "Tollosa Gudina" made the
prediction that the kid will pass away within eighteen (18) hours. After being brought home,
the infant lived for thirty (30) hours after his birth, contrary to the doctor's forecast. By the
time he had fallen from a babysitter's arms, he passed away. No additional children are born
to Ato "Abebe Lema." The mother of the deceased kid and Ato "Abebe's" parents are at odds
about the child's viability and his right to inherit Ato Abebe's property.

A) If the child had fallen on a cozy sofa 30 cm away from his babysitter's arms,
would he still be viable? 4 points

To answer this, we need to focus on the concept of "viability." In legal terms,


viability typically refers to the ability of a fetus or newborn to survive
independently outside the womb. In this case, the child was born alive and
survived for 30 hours, which exceeds the minimum period required to be
considered viable.
A fall onto a soft surface like a sofa might have resulted in less injury compared to
a fall to the hard ground. The child's viability would not be significantly affected
by the fall itself unless the child sustained injuries that made survival impossible.
Since we know that the child lived for 30 hours, we could argue that the child was
viable—i.e., capable of surviving independently for a period of time, even though
the child ultimately died after the fall.

The fall's impact on the child's survival would likely depend on the injury
sustained (e.g., head trauma), but it’s reasonable to conclude that the child’s
viability would still be considered intact prior to the fall, since the child survived
for an extended period.

B) What would happen if the toddler hit his skull after falling to the ground? 3.5
point

If the child hit his skull after falling to the ground, it could result in serious head
trauma, which may be fatal. In legal terms, whether or not the child was
considered viable would depend on medical analysis—did the injury from the fall
cause the child's death? If the fall caused immediate fatal trauma, then the child’s
death could be attributed to that injury, and the question of the child’s viability at
the time of birth may become secondary.

However, if the fall was a contributing factor and not the sole cause of death,
then the child may still be considered viable at the time of birth, and the cause of
death (whether due to the fall or other health complications) may influence
inheritance considerations. If the fall led to death, medical experts would likely be
consulted to determine whether the fall directly caused the child's demise or if
the child had a pre-existing health condition that made survival unlikely, in which
case viability could still be disputed.
C) If the kid's father had passed just five minutes after the child was born and
the baby's death had been due to sickness rather than an accident, would you
have a different opinion on Woizero Bekellech's claim to inheritance? 2 point

This scenario involves the complex issue of inheritance rights. In many legal
systems, inheritance is based on the status of a child at the time of the parent’s
death. If Ato Abebe had died just five minutes after the child’s birth, the child
would have been considered a posthumous child (born after the father's death). If
the child survived long enough to be considered a viable offspring (even for a
short period), the question of inheritance would then depend on whether the
child’s status was recognized under the law at the time of the father’s death.

If the child died due to sickness rather than an accident, and if the child was still
legally considered alive at the time of the father’s death (even for a short time),
there could still be grounds for the child to inherit from the father. This situation
would depend on the specifics of inheritance law, including whether the child was
legally considered "alive" at the time of Ato Abebe's death, as well as whether the
sickness that caused the death was deemed to have occurred after birth.

However, if the child were never legally considered a viable or living heir (e.g., the
child was not recognized as living at the time of death due to medical or legal
definitions of death), Bekellech may not have grounds for inheritance.

In sum, the answer would depend on legal definitions of "viability" and the
specific rules governing inheritance in the jurisdiction. If the child was born alive
and recognized as having a chance to survive for a significant period, even if the
cause of death was an illness rather than an accident, Bekellech might still claim
inheritance. However, if the child was deemed not to have been viable or legally
recognized as living at the time of Ato Abebe’s death, Bekellech’s claim might be
challenged.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy