Best wishes from the whole team at Augustin & Bugg to our colleagues, clients and supporters. We hope that you will have a rewarding Christmas and New Year time with family and friends and look forward to working with you again in 2015! Stuart...

…are not infrequently quite different in Legal English. Why torture your language skills about deficiencies (“dee fish in sea”) when you can have simple defects or faults. Why do lawyers always pronounce in lieu as “in loo”? Well, the whole thing gets much worse when you mix in national and regional dialects, accents and pronunciation. For example, if you ask an Australian lawyer about libel (Beleidigung), because of the Australian way of pronunciation you may be understood to be referring to some sort of tag (label)! If you want to learn Australian (“Strine”) pronunciation a good place to start is a book entitled Let Stalk Strine by Afferbeck Lauder (= alphabetical order) aka Alastair Ardoch Morrison. Mr Morrison died in 1998 but his pronunciation guides live on and you can even find him in Wikipedia. Here are a few examples for your future antipodean legal conferences: “Emma chisit” – How much is it? “Egg nishner” – air conditioner So, tie your kangaroo down, mate –and give it a fair...

It is getting to that time of the year again when the northern hemisphere starts to get a bit colder and the leaves are turning shades of brown and red before falling to the ground. The snow may not be here yet but with the drop in temperatures it would seem to be a very appropriate time to discuss freezing orders and the support and enforcement of arbitral proceedings and awards. See Bugg’s Boilerplate for this month on arbitration issues. In international commercial matters we should wrap up warmly and be prepared! Stuart...

It is an old maxim of barristers that you should not ask a witness a question in court to which you do not already know the answer. We are also told that we are our own worst lawyers. Both principles proved to be very true in the following record of a U.S. criminal case, much to the loss of the accused: United States Court of Appeals District ofColumbia Circuit. Joseph NANCE, Appellant,v.UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Defendant was convicted of robbery. From the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Edward A. Tamm, J., the defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals, Bastian, Circuit Judge, held that evidence that the accusedasked a witness at the preliminary hearing how the witness knew it was the accused when he had a handkerchief over his face was properly admitted at the trial as an admission, since there was no compulsion to ask the question, even though the accused was not a lawyer and may have been in unfamiliar surroundings, and that the evidence sustained the conviction. Evidence that at preliminary hearing accused asked witness “How do you know it was me when I had a handkerchief over my face?” was properly admitted at trial for robbery as evidence and an admission of guilt. 299 F.2d 122, 112 U.S.App.D.C....

It is a common device (and incentive) in the business world to provide for success fees in the event of certain results occurring. But does the performing party have to demonstrably cause such events? Could we claim a success fee for the sun rising in the morning? A recent English High Court case approaches this matter as a question of contract interpretation in a business context. Miscellaneous: Lawyers ask questions all the time. That is often what they get paid for. But the skill is in asking the right questions at the right time and knowing when not to ask a question at all. A convicted criminal in the United States finds this out the hard way on page 2. Stuart...

Last month we had UK “dog law”, so I thought we could balance it out by crossing the Atlantic Ocean and look at the “lemon law” website of what would appear to be a legal advocate for the Californian citrus industry.   But if you were to know that so-called lemon laws in the U.S. relate to defective products (originally automobiles cf. German Montagsauto ), then perhaps the website makes a bit more sense: For more than 15 years, lawyer Elizabeth Agmon Gayle has been one of California’s premier Lemon Law legal advocates. As a highly experienced California lemon law attorney and former counsel for a major auto manufacturer, Ms. Gayle has extensive knowledge of both sides of the California Lemon Law. As a client-focused attorney, she has seen countless cases to successful conclusion for many consumers, both those owning or leasing high-end foreign cars and those with moderately priced domestic vehicles.Ms. Gayle works directly with consumers to dispute cases with both auto manufacturers and dealerships.What is The Lemon Law?Lemon Law is the common term used to describe a body of consumer protection laws in California outlined in the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. It got its nickname because people have traditionally referred to troublesome vehicles as “lemons.”The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act requires the manufacturer of a new or used vehicle sold or leased with a manufacturer’s written warranty to buy back or replace a vehicle that hasn’t been repaired within a reasonable number of repair attempts. The California Lemon Law covers various vehicle types, including cars, trucks, vans, SUVs, motorcycles, motor homes as well as boats....