Accident at Work Claims By Campbell Jenny

This is a dynamic world indeed. Anything can happen at virtually any time of the day and before you realize that you are in some kind of problem, it's too late. The damage has been done. Now it's the time to pay the price and then seek compensation.
This is in simple terms as to how the insurance industry functions and accident at work claims are also a part of its functioning. When you sustain accidental injuries at workplace, then you may need to file the claim in order to receive compensation or financial assistance from the insurance providers or even your employer. In any case, you have to fill the compensation form with utmost care, omitting absolutely no details, lest the process should get delayed unnecessarily and if you are found guilty of misleading the authorities, then they may refuse point black to honour your claim.
I understand that being a person from the normal walks of life, you may not be intimately aware of the claim filing procedure and further proceedings. Moreover, most of the insurance companies leave a lot hidden between the fine prints so as to guile the innocent claimants. Well, it has been the way ever since and none of the parties can be blames. Instead, to make the process easier and less daunting what you can do is, hire a lawyer to look after your accident at work claims.
Don't worry about the fee part because under the no win no fee claim agreement, the solicitor gets paid only if he manages to win the claim. And in that case also, it's the third party who pays the fee to the solicitor while you can happily walk away with the entire claim amount.
Now I will enumerate a few things which you need to keep in mind while filing accident at work claims. First is to determine whether the accident occurs inside the work premises or not. This can be of crucial importance. If it has, then the first thing you do is to report to your immediate supervisor about the occurrences and the injuries sustained. In case you are fatally injured to do this at the moment, then make sure you do it as soon as possible.
Keep your medical record and the written consultation of the medical expert regarding the injuries safe and produce it as evidence before the insurance authorities. In any case, the insurance authorities will assign an officer to look into the whole mishap and if he is convinced with your case and its genuineness, then you will get the compensation settled.
Remember to always file the claim whenever you have an accident at the workplace because these accident at work claims can at least provide you financial assistance in getting the medical treatment done while causing no loss of salary. If you don't file the claim, then not only will you paying from your pocket for the medical expenses but also cause loss of salary while you are nursing your injuries.

Contract Law in the Comedy of Errors

Paul Raffield, University of Warwick School of Law, has published "The Comedy of Errors and the Meaning of Contract," in Shakespeare's Imaginary Constitution: Late Elizabethan Politics and the Theatre of Law(3 Law and Humanities (2009)). Here is the abstract.

This article examines the theme of contract and its symbolic connotations of societas or fellowship, in the context of Shakespeare’s The Comedy of Errors and its performance on 28 December at the Gray’s Inn revels of Christmas 1594. Central to the argument is the extraordinary advancement of contract law in Elizabethan England, and in particular the significance of the promise to the status of binding bilateral agreements. In particular, the analysis considers the promotion of assumpsit at the expense of actions for debt in relation to a society (and a legal profession) whose mores were heavily influenced by humanist notions of the individual conscience, which simultaneously bound the subject of law into an ethical association with his fellow citizens and freed him (at least putatively) from the constraints of immutable, ancient law. The Comedy of Errors provides a perceptive critique of a society which is bound together only by the market, having abandoned or mislaid the true bonds of friendship and love, through which a just community may be recognised.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

The Culinary and Contract Law

Marjorie Florestal, McGeorge School of Law, has published "Is a Burrito a Sandwich? Exploring Race, Class and Culture in Contracts," in volume 14 of the Michigan Journal of Race and Law (Fall 2008). Here is the abstract.

A superior court in Worcester, Massachusetts, recently determined that a burrito is not a sandwich. Surprisingly, the decision sparked a firestorm of media attention. Worcester, Massachusetts, is hardly the pinnacle of the culinary arts - so why all the interest in the musings of one lone judge on the nature of burritos and sandwiches? Closer inspection revealed the allure of this otherwise peculiar case: Potentially thousands of dollars turned on the interpretation of a single word in a single clause of a commercial contract. Judge Locke based his decision on 'common sense' and a single definition of sandwich - 'two thin pieces of bread, usually buttered, with a thin layer (as of meat, cheese, or savory mixture) spread between them.' The only barrier to the burrito's entry into the sacred realm of sandwiches is an additional piece of bread? What about the one-slice, open-face sandwich? Or the club sandwich, typically served as a double-decker with three pieces of bread? What about wraps? The court's definition lacked subtlety, complexity or nuance; it was rigid, not allowing for the possibility of change and evolution. It was a decision couched in the 'primitive formalism' Judge Cardozo derided nearly ninety years ago when he said '[t]he law has outgrown its primitive stage of formalism when the precise word was a sovereign talisman, and every slip was fatal. It takes a broader view today.' Does it? Despite the title of this piece, my goal is not to determine with any legal, scientific or culinary specificity whether a burrito is a sandwich. Rather, I explore what lies beneath the 'primitive formalism' or somewhat smug determination of the court that common sense answers the question for us. I suggest Judge Locke's gut-level understanding that burritos are not sandwiches actually masks an unconscious bias. I explore this bias by examining the determination of this case and the impact of race, class and culture on contract principles.

Download the article from SSRN here.