Старая форма входа


Set  1

1. The court has jurisdiction the matter.

2. The defendant was charged embezzlement.

3. The plaintiff is seeking compensation the defendant's negligence.

4. The witness was called to testify the events.

5. The judge decided to dismiss the case prejudice.

6. The lawyers argued the admissibility the evidence limine.

7. The accused was taken custody pending further investigation.

8. The contract explicitly states that the rights are transferred perpetuity.

9. The parties are currently in dispute the ownership the property.

10. The court's decision will have implications the future copyright law.

11. The defendant's actions led to significant damages the plaintiff's reputation.

12. The judge granted an injunction to prevent the defendant contacting the witnesses.

13. The accused decided to represent themselves court.

14. The contract was deemed void being pari delicto.

15. The new law has raised concerns potential abuse power.

16. The attorney filed a motion to dismiss the case parte.

17. The company acted virtue their contractual obligations.

18. The evidence presented cast doubt the defendant's alibi.

19. The jury found the defendant guilty all charges.

20. The plaintiff's statement added weight the allegations.

Send a screenshot of your answer results to your teacher.If more than 1 answer is wrong, reload the page and do the test over again

Additional practice.

Write explanations of the phrases set off in bold in the dialogue below:

Lawyer A (Optimistic): Well, considering the evidence at hand, I genuinely believe that there's a chance for Harvey Weinstein to mount a strong defense. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and they'll have to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Lawyer B (Pessimistic): I understand your perspective, but the sheer volume of allegations and the weight of the #MeToo movement cannot be disregarded. There's no doubt that the court will consider the principle of in pari delicto given the number of accusers and the alleged misconduct spanning years.

Lawyer A (Optimistic): While it's true that the allegations are substantial, we mustn't overlook the importance of due process. We could potentially argue that some of the claims may not be subject to the statute of limitations, allowing us to focus on recent incidents where ex post facto evidence could be pivotal.

Lawyer B (Pessimistic): I appreciate your optimism, but the ultra vires nature of his actions in the industry could further strengthen the prosecution's case. They'll likely present evidence in lieu of proving a consistent pattern of behavior, which would be detrimental to our defense.

Lawyer A (Optimistic): I see your concerns, but the court will be cautious in contemplation of preserving the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. With a strategic approach and skilled cross-examination, we might cast reasonable doubt on the credibility of some witnesses.

Lawyer B (Pessimistic): It's crucial to anticipate that the prosecution will argue with prejudice due to the emotional distress suffered by the victims. The per se evidence of harassment could sway the jury against Weinstein, given the societal shift towards advocating for victims' rights.

Lawyer A (Optimistic): While this case is undoubtedly challenging, let's not underestimate the power of a well-constructed defense. We'll have to argue in favor of Weinstein's rights while respecting the victims' experiences, finding the delicate balance between preserving his reputation and addressing the serious allegations.

Lawyer B (Pessimistic): I respect your dedication, but we must be prepared for a legal showdown without prejudice. The court's decision will have lasting implications, potentially setting a precedent for future cases involving allegations of sexual harassment.

Lawyer A (Optimistic): Agreed, this case will be an immense test for our legal system. Let's ensure we approach it with due diligence and uphold the principles of justice.

Set 2

21. The parties reached a settlement to resolve the dispute mediation.

22. The judge ordered the evidence to be excluded from the trial limine.

23. The contract specifies that any disputes will be resolved arbitration.

24. The witness testified witnessing the incident.

25. The court's decision was met with skepticism the legal experts and the general public.

26. The accused's attempt to testify their innocence was met with skepticism.

27. The company's behavior was deemed vires, leading to legal consequences.

28. The witness's refusal to testify the events raised doubts.

29. The court ruled that the decision was vires.

30. The jury found the defendant not guilty all charges.

Send a screenshot of your answer results to your teacher.If more than 1 answer is wrong, reload the page and do the test over again