i. A bona fide transferee of a negotiable instrument need not be notified before it is
negotiated.
ii. A holder for value can sue on it in his name.
iii. Consideration is presumed to have been provided i.e. past consideration is good consideration.
iv. If payable to the bearer, it is negotiable by delivery.
v. If payable to the order of a specified person, it is negotiable by endorsement/ endorsement and delivery.
vi. The party liable on a negotiable instrument needs to be notified before it is negotiated.

i. Easement occurs when a person has a right over the land of another for the enjoyment of his/her property, whereas a license occurs when a person is given the right to use a particular property for a specific purpose, while the possession and control of the property are with the owner.
ii. In an Easement, the right pertains to the property, whereas a license is just a personal right.
iii. Easement right is right in rem(i.e. on third parties’ property) and can be enforced against the whole world. On the other hand, whereas a license grants a licensee gets only the right in person.
iv. An Easement can be positive (e.g. legal right to install powerlines of sewage)or negative( e.g. restricting the servient tent from using the land for specific things), whereas a license only has positive characteristics.

i. By notice: Where the tenant or the land has the right to terminate the lease before the end of the contractual period.
ii. By surrender: Where the lessee gives back possession to the lessor.
iii. Effluxion of time: Where the lease period expires.
iv. Frustration: Where a lease is frustrated if any materials part of the property is wholly destroyed or substantially destroyed and becomes permanently unfit for the purpose.
v. Forfeiture: Where the lessor has the right of forfeiture of the lease if the lessee breaks any express condition of the lease.

i. Since the parties to discussions do not necessarily need to be of equal strength and influence, in the absence of a disinterested third party, the party that is in a position to dominate the other uses that dominance to secure the other party's assent and reach a settlement. As a result, an unjust arrangement is reached, which is eventually useless.
ii. A deadlock situation can occasionally result from differences and disagreements between the parties, making it impossible to continue the conversation because they are both at a standstill.
iii. If there are negative relations between the parties in a negotiation, the parties lose faith in the negotiation process to resolve their differences and seek other alternatives.
iv. Not all issues are negotiable, particularly where the negotiating procedure involves many parties and procedures, making the court a better alternative.

i. They build public confidence in the profession’s trustworthiness
ii. They provide members of the profession with a supporting framework for resisting pressure to act inappropriately and for making acceptable decisions in what may be 'gray areas.
iii. They provide a common understanding of acceptable practice which builds a cooperative relationship amongst colleagues and allows for fairer disciplinary procedures.
iv. Through a code of ethics, those dealing with the profession see it as more reliable and easier to deal with.

i. Misuse of personal information: Companies usually data provided by customers to hyper-personalize their online experiences. However, this information is frequently misused as companies use customer information to make money or advance their goals. Additionally, politicians are known to use customer information to advance their political campaigns.
ii. Misinformation and deep fakes: Unlike the strenuous validation process used in publishing newspapers and books, the internet is flooded with real-time events and news as it breaks without fact-checking. Information on the internet is further spread and shared despite its accuracy or inaccuracy. Through the use of deep fake technology, digital imagery can now be manipulated to show people saying and doing things that never happened.
iii. Lack of oversight and acceptance of responsibility: As most companies operate through third parties and third-party-owned technology and software, it has become challenging to pinpoint where the responsibility lies when it comes to governance, cybersecurity concerns, use of big data, and management of identifiable information. Additionally, country-specific policies fail to address the global mismanagement of data.
iv. Use of Artificial Intelligence(AI): Though AI offers great business potential, there is the likelihood of its use crossing ethical lines into dangerous territory.
• There is concern about AI software being used to find individuals through facial recognition and being used to promote racial bias and track people's movements thereby inventing their privacy and restricting their freedom.
• Though AI is expected to increase the automation of low-level tasks and enable companies to use human resources on more strategic initiatives and complicated job duties, replaced jobs will lead to unemployment.
• Since AI technology inherits the bias of its creators, it is inherently flawed. AI systems therefore can make decisions tainted by human bias, and reflect historical or social inequalities.
• When AI is used to track the health status of people, it limits their privacy and movement.
v. Though autonomous technology (e.g. self-driving cars, robotic weapons, drones, etc..) offers great business potential, there is concern that this programmed technology is allowed to operate with a lot of trust without understanding, and no oversight.

Fiduciary: This refers to a relationship in which a person or organization acts on behalf of another person or persons, putting their client's interests ahead of their own, with a duty to preserve good faith and trust.

Agency by necessity: Refers to a situation that allows some person or entity to act on behalf of another when the beneficiary is unable to explicitly grant permission to do so. For example, when a person when becomes very sick and is incapacitated, he/she can appoint someone to make decisions on their behalf.

i. The main objective of a cooperative society is to provide essential services for the benefit of members, whereas the main objective of a company is to earn profit.

ii. The minimum number of members required for the registration of a cooperative is 10, whereas the Companies Act requires at least 7 persons for the formation of a public limited company and at least 2 persons for the formation of a private limited company.

iii. A cooperative society may or may not have share capital and a member cannot transfer the shares of the society, whereas a company must have capital divided into shares by its shareholders and the shares of a company are freely transferable.

i. An agent has the duty of loyalty to the principal and should not act to benefit herself at the principal’s expense.
ii. An agent must exercise due care and diligence when carrying out the responsibilities of the agency
iii. The agent must protect all confidential information of the principal, such as trade secrets
iv. The agent must obey reasonable instructions from the principal.
v. The agent must account to the principal for monies handled.

i. The seller can sue the buyer because once the property has been passed, the buyer is bound to pay the price.
ii. In case the due date of payment has passed and the goods have not been delivered yet, the seller can sue the buyer for wrongful neglect or refusal on his/her part.
iii. When the goods have been transferred to a carrier or bailee for transmission to the buyer, who has become insolvent, the seller has the right to stop the goods in transit to protect himself against the loss that may arise due to insolvency.

A promise made as a result of past consideration generally cannot be enforced because, under contract law, consideration must be something that is exchanged at the time the agreement is made, not something that occurred in the past. Past consideration is not legally sufficient to support a contract.

However, a promise to pay a debt that was eliminated by bankruptcy is enforceable because of a legal concept called "reaffirmation". This occurs when a debtor voluntarily agrees to pay a debt that was discharged in bankruptcy. The reaffirmation of such a debt is enforceable as long as it meets specific legal requirements, including court approval in some cases.

In general legal terms:

• If an arbitration award goes beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement (i.e., the arbitrators decide issues not submitted to them), that part of the award is considered ultra vires (beyond their power).
• Courts can declare that portion void.
• If the excess cannot be separated from the rest of the award (i.e., it's not "severable"), then the entire award may be considered void.

So, the statement is TRUE if the portion outside the agreement cannot be severed. If it can be severed, then only the offending part might be struck, and the rest upheld.

Would you like an example or a case reference for this?