Essay Sample on Separation of Powers: The Three Branches of Government

Introduction

Separation of powers is a fundamental principle whereby responsibilities and powers are separated or divided among different branches such as the executive branch, legislative branch, and the judicial branch. Each branch tends to have its separate powers, and no branch is allowed to exercise the powers of other branches. The executive branch exercises the executive powers, the legislative branch exercises the congressional powers while the judicial branch exercises the judicial powers. This, however, does not mean that branches do not have powers over each other. There is always the need for a check and balance system between the three branches. Sufficient interplay should also be developed between the three branches, for instance, the executive branch should propose legislation, and parliament should debate and pass the law while the judiciary should uphold the parliament acts. The officials of each branch are usually selected using different procedures, and they also tend to serve different terms in office.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

In New Zealand, there is no formal separation of powers. For instance, there tends to be no separation of powers between executive and legislature, and there is also no separation of personnel between the two branches (Hubbard, Thomas, & Varnham, 2012). The New Zealand government has developed the MMP electoral system committee whose role is to ensure that the executive does not dominate the legislature. There tends to be numerous evidence of mixing of functions between the legislature and the executive. For instance, the legislative branch tends to have the capability to delegate its lawmaking duties to the executive branch. On the other hand, the judiciary tends to be subordinate to parliamentary regulation or control. In most cases, the parliament can exercise its lawmaking duties to assess judicial decisions. There is no specific way in which the judicial branch can control the legislative branch. For instance, the parliament can pass any law, and the court must apply the law without questioning it. In some cases, there tends to be an overlap in membership between the judiciary and the executive. For instance, the high court judges may be asked to exercise an executive function such as a royal commissioner for a commission of inquiry. The judicially also tends to have the capability to limit the executive powers mainly through the administrative laws and judicial reviews. The New Zealand government tends to lack a complete application of the theory of separation of powers due to the west minister system

The Three Elements Required to Establish a Tort of Negligence

There are there main elements through which the plaintiff can prove the tort of negligence in a particular case or scenario. These elements include, first, duty. When analyzing a negligence case, the first step is usually to determine whether the defendant owed the case plaintiff a particular duty. There are usually two kinds of duties that a defendant could owe the plaintiff. The first is the duty to care. This tends to be the duty to conduct yourself like a reasonable individual while acting under similar circumstances. In negligence's case, we tend to assess the defendant's actions and try to determine if a reasonable individual would have acted in the same manner or way the defendant acted had the reasonable person been in the same situation the defendant was in.

In case, the defendant's behavior is in line with the reasonable person's behavior; the defendant is considered to have fulfilled his or her duty to care (Hubbard et al., 2012). In some cases, the defendants tend to owe the plaintiff a legal duty to care in a particular situation for instance, in a case where one is expected to operate a vehicle safely with a particular level of due care. The second duty is the special duty that is usually imposed by a statute that may exist in addition to the regular duty to care, for instance. The federal government implements a law that requires all the homeowners to shovel snow from sidewalks that are in front of their residential houses. Due to this law, every homeowner across the country tends to have a special duty to the pedestrians to ensure that the sidewalks are clear. To determine the duty, one must assess the relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff and determine whether or not the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff.

Secondly, breach of duty. This element tries to determine if the defendant breached his duty by doing or not doing something that a reasonable individual would have done under similar circumstances. The defendant can breach his or her duty either by acting in a particular way or failing to act in a particular way (Luntz, Hambly, Burns, Dietrich, Foster, Grant, & Harder, 2017). This means that the defendant can breach his or her duty either by behaving or acting in a way that violates the reasonable man's test or by not acting in a certain situation where he or she is required to act. Thirdly, cause. This element requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant's negligence caused or trigged his injury. A person may have acted negligently, but the case plaintiff can only recover if the negligence somehow triggers the injury. For instance, it would not be fair to sue a person who was negligently texting and driving for a completely unrelated fender lender that took place across the street just because the motor vehicle driver was negligent.

Advise IRL Whether They Are Likely to Succeed in a Claim Against Cautious Accounting

According to the case, international resource-limited is in huge trouble since the company was not well managed before it was sold. Major errors had been committed by the previous management, for instance, the machineries were not well managed thus creating a health risk, tree replanting did not take place due to poor management, and planning, therefore, much of the forest is covered by useless vegetation. These errors are likely to lead the company into huge financial troubles and losses. According to the case, the accounting company was aware of the poor management activities but failed to make an appropriate report about it; therefore, the international resource company is seeking compensation for the mistakes. Based on the governing laws, the accounting company should compensate the international resource company for their mistake. In this case, the accounting company violated the tort law, whereby based on the law of negligence, the accounting company conduct took the form of omission. For instance, the law indicates that it is ones to act when the defendant has created the danger. Although the accounting company was presented with the relevant documentation concerning the issue, the accounting company choose not to report on it; therefore, it was the accounting company's failure. Also, according to the law, one has the responsibility to act when contracted to do so. When asked to conduct a certain task, one should perform it thoroughly to minimize errors. Violation of these laws. Based on the violation committed by the accounting company, they should take up the responsibility and make the appropriate compensation plan to the international resource company for the mistakes they committed.

References

Hubbard, J., Thomas, C., & Varnham, S. (2012). Principles of Law for New Zealand Business Students. (5th ed.). Auckland: Pearson. Retrieved from https://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10063/4307/thesis.pdf?sequence=2

Luntz, H., Hambly, D., Burns, K., Dietrich, J., Foster, N., Grant, G., & Harder, S. (2017). Torts: cases and commentary. LexisNexis Butterworths. Retrieved from http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/71222