Athletes around the world are challenging the legality of strict liability drug rules that penalize those testing positive for drugs irrespective of culpability
Article Abstract:
Athletes the world over are challenging strict liability drug rules which impose punishment on those testing positive for drugs even if they are not guilty. Jessica K Foschi, a swimmer, presented much evidence of lack of knowledge on how a banned substance entered her system but has still been found guilty under International Swimming Federation strict liability rules. The American Arbitration Ass'n rejected this strict liability concept and US court decisions support this ruling. The Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland, has also rejected this strict liability standard and the same is likely to hold true for courts and arbitral panels across the world.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
A seller can't hide behind 'as is' clause; irrespective of how well-drafted they are, such provisions do not obviate the seller's obligation to disclose known latent defects
Article Abstract:
Sellers of real estate should remember that 'as is' provisions in contracts do not absolve them of the duty to disclose known latent defects to a buyer. The courts have ruled that 'as is' just means that a buyer is taking the property with all observable defects. The courts have considered each case individually, analyzing such factors as the type of defect and of property as well as the parties' sophistication. A comprehensive 'as-is' clause should have the buyer state that the property has been independently investigated and there is full satisfaction with its condition. The buyer assumes all associated risk if such an investigation is not performed.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Bill criminalizes copying irrespective of motive
Article Abstract:
Congress will probably approve a measure introduced in the Senate on Aug 4, 1995, to revise criminal copyright law. In response to a court ruling from Dec 1994, S 1122 would make duplicating a copyrighted work a crime even if the copying had no commercial motive, so long as it is willfully done and the value of the copies is $5000 or more. Illegal copying worth $10,000 or more would be a felony, the statute of limitations would increase from three years to five, and the maximum sentence would rise to 10 years from five.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1995
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Recent cases brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act hinge upon interpretations of 'disability' as well as 'essential functions' of a particular job
- Abstracts: Ban on abortion pill challenged; pregnant woman who tried to import drug loses first round in courts. Molding the courts; Clinton may be able to surpass number of Bush judicial nominations
- Abstracts: From boundary to borderland: transforming the meaning of borders through the European neighbourhood policy
- Abstracts: Blast rips the legal world; he was daydreaming at a partners' meeting; suddenly the windows blew out. The earth breathes fire, scorches lawyers: a year after a gas main blast in Edison, N.J., officials examine charges of client solicitation
- Abstracts: Legal defense funds are pols' latest perk. D.C.'s telecom ruling sets stage; court of appeals decides same issue facing 5th Circuit in pivotal case