Management Law (3010)
Question 1
In Nazi Germany, the government passed laws dispossessing Jews and others of their
property, such as homes, motor vehicles etc. Property was sold to other German people
eligible to own property. Following the war, a dispossessed Jewish survivor of a
concentration camp takes legal action in a West German court for the return of “his”
house. The new owner contends that he bought the house lawfully and that the plaintiff
(the Jew) has no legal entitlement to it.
Who should be successful in court? Explain your reasoning?
Question 2
During WWII in Germany, a woman reported to the authorities the illegal activities of her
husband (who opposed the Nazi regime) as she was required to do by law. In post-war
Germany, a law was passed rendering the woman’s action illegal. She was convicted of
causing her husband’s deah.
Was the post-war, retroactive law valid? If so, was it any more valid than the law that
bound her to inform on her husband during the war? Which law should take precedence?
Explain your reasoning.
Question 3
You are the Attorney General of Canada and receive two separate applications for the
extradition of two persons from Canada to face criminal charges in two foreign
jurisdictions. You have discretion to decide whether or not to extradite an individual.
(a) The first application is from the Attorney General of Texas for the extradition of a man
who has allegedly committed the murder of a store owner in an armed robbery. The man
has dual Canadian and US citizenship and, if convicted of the crime could receive the death
penalty if so decided by the judge. Explain your reasoning
(b) The second application comes from a middle-east country seeking the extradition of a
woman on charges of adultery. Four years previously, the woman left her husband in the
middle-east country, settled in Canada and entered a common law marital relationship
with a man with whom she had two children. Her husband still resident in the middle-east
country informed the authorities in that country of his wife’s crime of adultery. That
country applied for the woman’s extradition to stand trial. Adultery is punishable by death
in that country. Explain your reasoning.
4. At the time of the Emperor Hadrian, Roman law required that the governor of a prison
was responsible for carrying out an execution in the manner and at the time and place
decreed by a court. The only exception to this legal rule was if the governor had in his
possession a writ issued by the Emperor pardoning the prisoner to be executed. A governor
who failed to follow the rule was himself liable for execution.
On one occasion, the governor of a prison received oral notice from a messenger of the
Emperor that a pardon had been issued for a prisoner due to be executed a week later. The
message indicated that the pardon would be delivered prior to the planned execution.
In fact, the written pardon did not arrive before the appointed time for the execution.
However, in view of the oral message the governor stayed the execution and the written
pardon duly arrived two days after the appointed time for the execution. The delay was due
to the messenger’s incorrect reading of the map issued to him.
As the Emperor’s delegate in the community, responsible for upholding the law, you are
faced with a dilemma. It is clear that the governor broke the rule that required him to
carry out the execution of the prisoner at the appointed time and place. Did the law require
the governor’s execution? If so, did the law also require you to uphold the law by executing
the prisoner, in view of the fact that he ought to have been executed before the late arrival
of the written pardon. As the death penalty applied to anyone who negligently caused the
death of another person, should the messenger also be executed for being late, thus causing
the death of both the prison governor and the prisoner?
Explain your reasoning.