Anas Aldehishy أنس الدهيشي

It appears that most communities discard violence because of the harm it causes when it occurs.   Indeed, there are many forms of aggression, starting from what is happening between individuals to violence involving a crowd. As the Slovenian scholar observed, ‘the obvious signals of violence are acts of crime and terror, civil unrest, and international conflict’. [1] Therefore, crimes must be prevented before they develop into major criminal offenses such as robbery with violence. To curb crimes, we need to put legal boundaries on people. Apparently, if there are no laws, aggressive conducts might culminate into immense violence, which can cause massive destruction over a long period of time, and the community must pay for such damage. For instance, in 2009, the bus that was carrying the Algerian team was attacked by throwing stones on it before the match with their host; Egypt national team. Three Algerian players were injured because of the violent incident. [2] Egyptia

The rule of confidentiality is an old term that can be found in the history of lending transactions, and some commentators have suggested that reserving borrower information began more than four thousands year ago during the Babylon period. [1] In common law countries, the privacy law is derived from common law and equity. In fact, the duty to uphold secrecy is usually implied in contracts between creditors and their customers, otherwise the duty is imposed by equitable obligations of fair treating and good conscience. [2] Moreover, Jeremy Birch suggests that information related to financial transactions is similar to property and that the law of property should apply to this kind of data. [3] In Foster v the Bank of London , Erle CJ asserted that the bank, as a third party, could only receive the information “insufficient assets” about its customer. [4] Thus, the confidentiality obligation is a strict right for debtors and the bank’s customers and cannot be breached.

Impacting the judicial process, there are three aspects that might affect the contract interpretation approach: the function of the lawyers, hierarchy of judges and understanding of parties. If any of these is omitted or misused in the role they exercise toward a contract, the construction of that agreement becomes more complicated. These ingredients are necessary for, what is assumed as, complete justice. 1.    Attorneys’ Role The legal community might reconsider the ways that lawyers create ambiguity in contracts, which could help courts to avoid looking at a number of agreement disputes. As Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury has stated, ‘often the skill of the drafting lawyer is in producing obscurity, rather than clarity, so that two inconsistent interests can feel satisfied with the result.’ [1] Indeed, barristers in Australia have been described as ‘expert at manufacturing ambiguities’, which obviously causes other lawyers or the judges to have to work hard to inte