In some jurisdictions, there is a doctrine of necessity whereby one of the spouses is liable for the costs and expenses incurred for the well-being of the other spouse. This stems from the common law notion that a husband must take care of his wife and children during an ongoing marriage. For the most part, this doctrine is now gender-neutral and applies to both spouses. The doctrine of necessities is almost always used in a medical context. For example, in North Carolina, where the doctrine of necessity applies, a party may establish a case “to cover the costs incurred in providing the necessary medical services to the other spouse,” even if the spouse has not signed as a guarantor or sought the admission of the other spouse. Necessities refer to the essential that is necessary for a person to live a healthy and comfortable life. What constitutes a need depends on socio-economic status, origin and standard of living. In this way, they can include things that go beyond what is strictly necessary. Some examples of necessities include food, shelter, medical treatment and legal services. Remember contracting parties: Limitation periods are extremely important to remember and respect.
An aggrieved party`s failure to file its claim within the applicable limitation period can and will likely prevent its case from being heard in court. Although there are some exceptions, the limitation period is 4 years for written contracts and 2 years for oral contracts. It is recommended that you do not rely on exceptions and ensure that your lawsuit is filed within the prescribed time frame. It is a simple necessity. A jury awarded $350,000 to the heirs of songwriter Terry Gilkyson and concluded that Disney Enterprises, Inc. and Wonderland Music Company, Inc. (collectively, Disney) had not paid the contractual royalties for certain limited uses of “The Bare Necessities” and other works written by Gilkyson in the DVD, Blu-ray and VHS versions of “The Jungle Book.” In addition to rewarding the jury, the trial court awarded Gilkyson`s heirs an additional $699,316.40. In other words, the language used in the contracts between Disney and Gilkyson gave Disney the power to decide how the material would be distributed and whether a fee would be charged for Disney`s use of the material. In this case, Wonderland Disney did not charge any fees for the use of the songs written by Gilkyson.
Essentially, this means that Wonderland did not collect any payments and, therefore, nothing was due to Gilkyson or his heirs under the Court of Appeal and Disney`s interpretation of the contractual agreements. Almost all general and legal definitions of the defence of necessity include the following: (1) the defendant acted to avoid a significant risk of harm; 2. adequate legal means could not have been used to avoid the damage; and (3) the damages avoided were greater than those caused by violations of the law. Some jurisdictions also require that the damage be imminent and that it was reasonable to expect that the measures taken would avoid the imminent danger. All these elements reflect the principles on which the defence of necessity was based: first, that the highest social value is not always obtained through blind respect for the law; secondly, that it is unfair to punish those who technically violate the letter of the law when they act to promote or achieve a higher social value than would be the case if the law were strictly adhered to; and third, that it is in the interest of society to promote the greater good and encourage people to achieve the greater good, even if it requires a technical violation of the law. Stein, Stephanie. 1996. “No obligation to surrender for refugees who claim to be in need of defense governs Texas.” West`s Legal News (January 12). Most States that have codified the defence of necessity provide it only if the defendant`s choice of value has not been expressly contradicted by the State legislature.
For example, in 1993, the Massachusetts Supreme Court dismissed the defence of necessity of two people prosecuted for conducting a needle exchange program designed to reduce AIDS transmission by sharing contaminated injection needles (Massachusetts v. Leno, 415 Mass. 835, 616 N.E.2d 453). Their actions violated a state law prohibiting the distribution of injection needles without a doctor`s prescription. In rejecting the defence, the court found that the situation did not constitute a clear and immediate danger. The Court argued that citizens who disagree with the policies of the legislature are not without recourse, as they can try to change the law through popular initiative. To post or add a comment, register to view or add a comment, the plaintiffs argued that Disney`s obligation to pay royalties was a recurring obligation that triggered a new limitation period each time the song was used and no royalties were paid. The court accepted and applied the doctrine of accrual accounting to determine that the plaintiffs` prosecution was timely. But the court restricted it. Claimants could only claim recovery of royalties that should have been paid for a period of four years prior to the filing of the action.
While the plaintiffs have been able to claim damages over the past four years, they have certainly lost much of their claim. Levenson, Laurie L. 1999. “Strafrecht: Die Notwendigkeitsverteidigung.” National Law Journal (October 11). A defense claiming by a criminal or civil defendant that he had no choice but to break the law. For more information on necessities and the doctrine of necessities, see this Michigan Law Review. The defense of necessity is seen as a defense of justification, compared to a defense of excuses such as coercion. A harmful but commendable action is justified, while a harmful action that should be forgiven can be excused. Instead of focusing on the actor`s state of mind, as would be the case with an apology defense, the court focuses on the value of the action with a defense of necessity. No court has ever accepted a defence of necessity to justify the murder of a person for the protection of his property.
Goldberg, Stephanie B. 1993. “The need for defense is failing in Massachusetts.” American Bar Association Journal 79 (October). Defense by necessity has been used in the field of civil disobedience since the 1970s with sporadic and very limited success. The most common circumstances are public protests against abortion, nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Virtually all the anti-abortion protesters who tried to use the defense lost. The courts have argued that, because the right to abortion is constitutionally protected, it cannot at the same time be a legally recognized prejudice that justifies illegal acts. In these cases, the courts also rejected the defence on the grounds that the criminal act of protest would not prevent abortions; whereas the harm caused by the act was greater than the harm caused by the abortion; and that legal means of protest, such as protesting outside the clinic instead of entering the clinic or entering its property, were available. Therefore, according to the courts, there was no need for the protesters to break the law. In the vast majority of cases where protesters entering the property blocked the entrance to nuclear power plants, the courts rejected the need for a defense on the grounds that there is no imminent danger and that the invading protesters could not reasonably believe that their actions would stop the production of nuclear materials (see, for example, Statement v. Marley, 54 Haw. 450, 509 p.2d 1095 [Haw.
1973]). The defense has also been rejected in cases of civil disobedience with protests against the United States. Politics abroad, the problem of homelessness, lack of funding for AIDS research, harmful deforestation practices, prison conditions and violations of human and animal rights. Pearson, James O., Jr. 1992. “`Choice of Evil`: Necessity, coercion, or similar defense against State or local criminal charges based on public protest.” U.S. Legal Reports. 5. Aufl. Bd. 3. In England, it has been accepted that necessity or necessity of circumstances is available to defend a case of reckless driving in which the defendant has distanced himself from a traffic accident.
In a Scottish case, a driver who was trying to escape a robbery was acquitted of charges of driving while intoxicated, and the Scottish High Court of Justice has now fully recognised this concept outside of murder. Shana Dunning is an intellectual property lawyer specializing in trademark and copyright law. Connect with her on intellectual property issues on LinkedIn. In agreement with Disney, the Court of Appeal concluded that the interpretation of the contracts between Gilkyson and Disney was subject to Review by De Novo. The court argued that Gilkyson`s licensing rights depended on Wonderland receiving payment for the exploitation of the mechanical reproduction rights of Gilkyson`s compound material in “The Jungle Book.” In the present case, Wonderland did not receive any compensation justified by the express wording of the contractual agreements between Disney and Gilkyson. Author`s Note: Before signing a legal agreement, ask yourself these three questions: In 1963, Disney hired songwriter Terry Gilkyson to write songs in preparation for the upcoming release of the Disney movie “The Jungle Book.” Gilkyson signed contracts for every song he wrote. Disney appealed that its contract with Gilkyson had given it fifty percent (50%) of the net money Wonderland received to exploit the mechanical rights to the material composed by Gilkyson.