Msaada wa swali la law of evidence

[ulimboka]

Jamani ninajaribu kujifunza sheria ya ushahidi nikakutana na swali lifuatalo
(a) A agreed in writing to sell a house to B for shillings 10,000/= or shs 15,000/=. Can evedence be given which price was to be given?

(b) A agrees in writing to sell to B for Shs 10,000/= "my white horse". A has two horses. Can evidence be given to show which of them was meant?

Nitashukuru kwa msaada wa kitaalam ikiwa ni pamoja na references which I can make to consolidate my knowledge on this.
Thank you wana JM

 

[Hofstede]

Jamani ninajaribu kujifunza sheria ya ushahidi nikakutana na swali lifuatalo
(a) A agreed in writing to sell a house to B for shillings 10,000/= or shs 15,000/=. Can evedence be given which price was to be given?

(b) A agrees in writing to sell to B for Shs 10,000/= "my white horse". A has two horses. Can evidence be given to show which of them was meant?

Nitashukuru kwa msaada wa kitaalam ikiwa ni pamoja na references which I can make to consolidate my knowledge on this.
Thank you wana JM

Acha uvivu wewe fanya assignment yako. Halafu baadaye uje kuwa mwanasheria bingwa. Swali lako ukitaka msaada peleka jukwaa la elimu. Ila ushauri wangu ni kuwa soma maana siku ya mtihani hutakuwa na mtu wa kumuuliza kwenye mtandao.

 

[ulimboka]

Thanks kwa kunishauri na kunipa changamoto! I do really appreciate i'm working on it.

 

[Buchanan]

Jamani ninajaribu kujifunza sheria ya ushahidi nikakutana na swali lifuatalo
(a) A agreed in writing to sell a house to B for shillings 10,000/= or shs 15,000/=. Can evedence be given which price was to be given?

Hiyo nyumba inauzwaje kwa Sh 10,000/= au 15,000/=? Kwa nini ina bei mbili? Anyway, fanya homework yako kama ulivyoshauriwa hapo juu!

 

[MaxShimba]

Jamani ninajaribu kujifunza sheria ya ushahidi nikakutana na swali lifuatalo
(a) A agreed in writing to sell a house to B for shillings 10,000/= or shs 15,000/=. Can evedence be given which price was to be given?

Few things here you must consider:

1. A Rider to the contract that makes and/or analyze the reasons for a contract of sale to have two purchase price.

2. The contract maybe is subject to blah blah yack yack which is disclosed in the rider and/or addendum to the contract of sale.

3. The contract is amended for the purchaser to accept the price of SH15K subject to the seller giving purchaser a SH5K Seller's concession towards closing costs and/or to cure encumbrances currently affecting the house.

Wherefore, the evedence can be given if and only if the fully executed contract of sale carries the subjections and/or stipulation which are fully explained in the rider to the contract.

 

[MaxShimba]

Jamani ninajaribu kujifunza sheria ya ushahidi nikakutana na swali lifuatalo

(b) A agrees in writing to sell to B for Shs 10,000/= "my white horse". A has two horses. Can evidence be given to show which of them was meant?

The contract must disclose the color of the horse A has and A is planning and willing to sell.

The contract must disclose the gender and color of the horse A is selling.

The contract must disclose the buyer's specification in re of the horse B is planning to purchase from A.

The contract must disclose that the purchaser is willing to buy a white horse.

The contract must say that Seller has the white horse and seller has agreed to sell a white horse to purchaser.

The contract must disclose A agreeing selling a specified and agreed horse as fully stated in the contract of sale to B.

The contract must state that seller is selling a white horse to B and be is willing to pay $10K as the purchase price of the white horse from A.

The contract must be fully executed by both the seller and purchaser explaining in detail and in specifics the terms of the purchase.

 

[Kiranga]

Jamani ninajaribu kujifunza sheria ya ushahidi nikakutana na swali lifuatalo
(a) A agreed in writing to sell a house to B for shillings 10,000/= or shs 15,000/=. Can evedence be given which price was to be given?

(b) A agrees in writing to sell to B for Shs 10,000/= "my white horse". A has two horses. Can evidence be given to show which of them was meant?

Nitashukuru kwa msaada wa kitaalam ikiwa ni pamoja na references which I can make to consolidate my knowledge on this.
Thank you wana JM

(a) either shillings 10,000 or 15,000 is to be given as agreed contractually. Any other figure, including the figures in between the two, lower than the two or higher than the two is unnacceptable, following the logical implication of the word "OR"

(b) A can decide to sell any one of his white horses.The contracted condition of selling was that the horse be white, therefore any horse of that color will satisfy the contacted condition.

 

[Kibori]

Jamani ninajaribu kujifunza sheria ya ushahidi nikakutana na swali lifuatalo
(a) A agreed in writing to sell a house to B for shillings 10,000/= or shs 15,000/=. Can evedence be given which price was to be given?

(b) A agrees in writing to sell to B for Shs 10,000/= "my white horse". A has two horses. Can evidence be given to show which of them was meant?

Nitashukuru kwa msaada wa kitaalam ikiwa ni pamoja na references which I can make to consolidate my knowledge on this.
Thank you wana JM

Kabla hujapata msaada kwa shauri au zoezi lako lazima mambo yafuatayo uyaweke bayana.

1. Nani anampeleka mwezake mahakamani kati ya Mnunuzi and Muzaji ?

2. Kwanini wanakwenda Mahakamani, Je Mnunuzi hajalipa ? au Muzaji hajatoa vitu alivyotaka kuuza baada ya kupokea pesa au hata bila pesa ?

3. Baada ya kutolea maelezo yakinifu kwenye maswali hayo hapo juu ushauri unaweza kupata pamoja na ushahidi upi wa kupeleka . Kwa lugha nyingine kama ni muzaji ndio ashitaki kutaka mnunuzi amlipe ni dhahiri kwamba ushahidi wake anaohitaji kupeleka mahakamani ni tofauti ukilinganisha kama ambavyo mnunuaji ndiye anamshitaki muzaji !


4. Lakini zaidi ni lazima ujue pia yafuatayo katika sheria ya mikataba kabla huajaanza kufikiria ushahidi wa kutoa.

• Offer hii tangazo au unawezakusema ni kauli ya kuuza kitu kutoka kwa muzaji
• Acceptance hii unawezakusema ni kauli ya kuridhia kauli kutoka kwa mnunuzi
• Consideration mostly Common law as opposed to Civil law Jurisdiction hii hapa kwa lugha rahisi unaweza kusema ni price au promise etc.

Hivyo vitu 3 hapo juu kisheria baada ya kuhikiwa pamoja na mambo mengine mtu unaweza kusema mkataba umetengenezwa. Vinginevyo hakuna mkataba.

Baada ya kujua hao ni vyema kujua pia kanunu ambazo ili mkataba kisheria uhesimike na kutambulika kuwa ni halali lazima mambo kama uyajue


Makubaliano kwa kingereza consensus of the mind lazima watu wakubaliane wachouziana na pia hicho kitu kiwe kimeelezwa vya kutosha kiasi cha kuwezakuwa identified la siovyo hicho kitu kisheria watu watachukuliwa kama vile hawajawahi kukubadina, if it creates ambiguity.

> Certainity, it is a must that terms of the contract are to be clear na sio tata .

Baada ya kusema hayo, kwa kifupi swala lako hili ninaonyesha hakuna makubaliano katika ya muzaji na mnunuzi . Hujaonyesha, ONYESHA kama unataka kufanya assignment yako vizuri au kama ni kesi amekuletewa mteja wako vyoyote tu .

Certainity wewe umesema mtu anataka kuuza kitu kwa shhilling 10.000 and 15,000 kisheria huu mkataba ni tata IT IS NOT ALLOWED kwa urahisi pengine hii ni offer tu therefore no contract as of yet . Terms of the contract need be clear and certain. Reasons being its difficutly to tell which price has the parties agreed. ( 10,000 vs. 15,000)

Swala la ushahidi wewe peleka hayo maandishi hivyo the court will tell you there has never been a contract hapo kwahiyo hayo unayoyaita wewe ni makubaliano ni ushahidi tosha wa kusaidia mahakama kama kuna mkataba au la., !

Kwa lugha rahisi hakuna mkataba hapo !


Karibu tena !

 

[ngoshwe]

Jamani ninajaribu kujifunza sheria ya ushahidi nikakutana na swali lifuatalo
(a) A agreed in writing to sell a house to B for shillings 10,000/= or shs 15,000/=. Can evedence be given which price was to be given?

(b) A agrees in writing to sell to B for Shs 10,000/= "my white horse". A has two horses. Can evidence be given to show which of them was meant?

Nitashukuru kwa msaada wa kitaalam ikiwa ni pamoja na references which I can make to consolidate my knowledge on this.
Thank you wana JM

Ulimboka, just b4 hand, I may wish to hear from yourself on how you intend to approach this academic game cos it appers a smattering at the expense of others and becoming the hero of something you dont know, hence amounting to mental or academic fishing!

Otherwise, if ur in a learnig process, I could advise you to revist your notes on essential elements of contracts and critically match them with the identified issues in your problem and compare with what you got from your evidence law class. For the purposes of reference, it is wise to consider on your own as no one in this forum knows what this for and what your examiner/ tutor wishes to get from you (normally, academic references as for assignments, are on the handouts/ Lectures or materials supplied by your tutor, unless otherwise you wish to refer to something which is even not known by yourself).

Be so kindly advised.

 

[ulimboka]

It is very true that learning is a challenging process. This is a question on the law of evidence and i was wondering wether it is the issue of the admissibility of the evidence in the court of law. But taking all into consideration i do not know whether the question has been masked by the law of contract and hence blurring my thinking. Anyway i do appreciate all the members for a piece of advice.

 

[Ngambo Ngali]

no lecturer in evidence can give you such a question. Prima facie that is a question in the law of contract.

 

[mayenga]

Cld you pls take trouble to visit section 8-16 of the Law of Evidence Act Cap 6 RE 2002? hiyo ni resgestae bwana!

 

[Ngambo Ngali]

Cld you pls take trouble to visit section 8-16 of the Law of Evidence Act Cap 6 RE 2002? hiyo ni resgestae bwana!

Dont mislead this scholar, your post may be taken seriously.

 

[mayenga]

Dont mislead this scholar, your post may be taken seriously.

Bwana Ngali u have failed to point out how am I misleading the scholar,this is the open debates where answers are given in the alternative.Unless you put it clear the extent of ma wrong,otherwise I ask you to apologize.

 

[Ngambo Ngali]

Bwana Ngali u have failed to point out how am I misleading the scholar,this is the open debates where answers are given in the alternative.Unless you put it clear the extent of ma wrong,otherwise I ask you to apologize.

Mayenga, principal ya resgestae neno la kilatini lenye maana "things done" ni exception ya sheria ya ushahidi kuwa ushahidi wote uwe hearsay. Kwenye sheria zetu inapatikana chini ya kifungu cha 8 cha sheria ya ushahidi kinachotamka kuwa:

Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction ( marginal note)
Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.

ukiangalia swali la ulimboka sidhani kama linahusu mlolongo wa vitu ambavyo sio issue , sasa resgestate inakujaje?

Zaidi ya hayo, Kifungu cha 9 kinahusu: Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue

kifungu 10: Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct

kifungu 11: Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts

kifungu 12: Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design

Kifungu 13: When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant

kifungu 14: In suits for damages, facts tending to enable court to determine amount are relevant

kifungu15: Facts affecting existence of right or custom

na mwisho kifungu 16: Facts showing existence of state of mind or of body, or of bodily feeling

utakubaliana na mimi basi kuwa res gestate ni kifungu cha nane tu vingine vyote ulivyovitaja havihusiani na resgestae kama nilivyoonyesha kwenye marginal notes.

Ulivyozungumzia principle ambayo ni inapplicable to the question na vifungu ambavyo ni irrelevant to the principle do you still need an apology from me?

 

[mayenga]

Mayenga, principal ya resgestae neno la kilatini lenye maana "things done" ni exception ya sheria ya ushahidi kuwa ushahidi wote uwe hearsay. Kwenye sheria zetu inapatikana chini ya kifungu cha 8 cha sheria ya ushahidi kinachotamka kuwa:

Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction ( marginal note)
Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.

ukiangalia swali la ulimboka sidhani kama linahusu mlolongo wa vitu ambavyo sio issue , sasa resgestate inakujaje?

Zaidi ya hayo, Kifungu cha 9 kinahusu: Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue

kifungu 10: Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct

kifungu 11: Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts

kifungu 12: Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design

Kifungu 13: When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant

kifungu 14: In suits for damages, facts tending to enable court to determine amount are relevant

kifungu15: Facts affecting existence of right or custom

na mwisho kifungu 16: Facts showing existence of state of mind or of body, or of bodily feeling

utakubaliana na mimi basi kuwa res gestate ni kifungu cha nane tu vingine vyote ulivyovitaja havihusiani na resgestae kama nilivyoonyesha kwenye marginal notes.

Ulivyozungumzia principle ambayo ni inapplicable to the question na vifungu ambavyo ni irrelevant to the principle do you still need an apology from me?

Samahani mkuu,na ahsante you are right!!!!!!!!!