Essay

[philadelphia]

I was asked to sum up a judgment. I am bound by my teacher to write between fifty and seventy words (I do not find it enough). However, I would like you to check out my grammar and why not other things that will not make sense.

By the way, I do not know why but keep thinking that I have made plenty of mistakes - surely due to I tried to use specific terms. I am not proud of it.


Here it goes:

In the village of Linz there is a club of cricket that has played on their own pitch on Sundays and Saturdays these last seventy years. Some day, a newcomer with his wife - no lovers of cricket - have built a house on the edge of the cricket ground. They happen to complain that when a batsman hits a six the ball gets butted (kicked?) into their garden. That is why the plaintiffs ask the judge to stop the cricket being played. Unfortunately, it would mean that the defendant Club will not last and that the youth will turn to other things instead of cricket. That is not cricket

Accordingly, the judge is bound to discretionary choose either the public interest or the private interest. That is to say he is confronted to issue an injonction against the club of cricket or not. That being said, the court issued that the right exercice of a discretion is to refuse an injunction and thereby prevailing the public interest over the private one. Therefore, the cricket club will not be driven out and then will allow to play on.

By the way, I have bumped into some judgments of this letigation and could note that there were as many judgments as litigations ... :s So I have taken that one on internet

Thanks for your time, folks

[Anglika]

I was asked to sum up a judgment. I am bound by my teacher to write between fifty and seventy words (I do not find it enough). However, I would like you to check out my grammar and any other things that will not make sense.

By the way, I do not know why but keep thinking that I have made plenty of mistakes - surely due to I tried to use specific terms. I am not proud of it.


Here it goes:

In the village of Linz there is a club of cricket cricket club that has played on their own pitch on Sundays and Saturdays these last seventy years. A newcomer with his wife - no lovers of cricket - have built a house on the edge of the cricket ground. They complained that when a batsman hits a six, the ball gets butted (kicked?) is hit into their garden. The plaintiffs ask the judge to stop the cricket being played to order the club to cease playing. Unfortunately, it which would mean that the defendant Club will not last have to close and that the youth young people will turn to other things instead of cricket. That is not cricket

The judge is bound to discretionary has the discretion to choose either the public interest or the private interest. That is to say he is confronted to issue , whether to issue an injunction against the cricket club or not. That being said, the court decided that the right exercise of discretion is to refuse the injunction and thereby prevailing placing/putting the public interest over the private one. Therefore, the cricket club will not be driven outforced to close and then will allow will be allowed to play on.

By the way, I have bumped into some judgments of this litigation and could note that there were as many judgments as litigations ... :s So I have taken that one on internet

Thanks for your time, folks

..

[philadelphia]

Really so useful Thanks for the great help