top of page

Mysite Group

Public·46 members

45 : The Promised Day

Because of this disobedience, the Israelites living at the time are barred from entering the promised land. "Not one of these - not one of this evil generation - shall see the good land that I swore to give to your ancestors" (Deut. 1:35). The only exceptions are Caleb and Joshua, the only members of the scouting expedition who encouraged the Israelites to obey God's command (Numbers 13:30). Moses himself is barred from entering the land due to a different act of disobedience. In Numbers 20:2-12 Moses pleads to God for a water source, and God tells Moses to command a rock to become a spring. Instead Moses strikes the rock twice with his staff. Had Moses spoken to the rock, as God commanded, the resulting miracle might have satisfied both the Israelite's physical thirst as well as their need to believe that God was taking care of them. Instead, when Moses strikes the rock as if to break it open, the opportune moment passes. Like the Israelites in Deuteronomy 1:19-45, Moses is punished for his lack of faith which underlines his disobedience. "Because you did not trust in me, to show my holiness before the eyes of the Israelites," says God, "therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land that I have given them" (Numbers 20:12).

45 : The Promised Day

That his truth to bank your life on today. The word of God is filled with all kinds of promises to those who trust in him. And he will prove faithful to every single one of those promises. Not one good word of what God has promised you will ever fail. All of them will come to pass.

The Roosevelt administration also received pleas for action from individuals. In 1942, Jan Karski, a member of the Polish underground resistance, witnessed the horrors suffered by Jews both in the Warsaw Ghetto and in a transit camp near a Jewish ghetto in German-occupied Poland. Karski met President Franklin D. Roosevelt at the White House on July 28, 1943, and told the president about the dire situation Jews faced under the Nazi regime. Karski later recalled that FDR promised the Allies would win the war but that the president made no mention of rescuing Jews.

Such bonuses are nondiscretionary because the employees know about and expect the bonus. The understanding of how an employee earns one may lead to an expectation to receive the bonus regularly. The fact that the employer has the option not to pay the promised bonus does not make the bonus discretionary.

Upon evidence that on a Lord's day the defendant promised to pay the plaintiff a commission if his house was "sold," that on the same day the plaintiff introduced a customer to the defendant, and that "during the week of" a succeeding Lord's day the defendant and the customer completed arrangements for the sale, with a finding for the plaintiff, the judge must be deemed to have found that the plaintiff was entitled to a commission because the offer of the defendant to pay him a commission was accepted, and a unilateral contract arose, on a secular day.

The right of a broker to a commission promised him if he "sold" certain real estate was not affected by the fact that a deed consummating the sale was dated and delivered on a Lord's day where it appeared that the completion of arrangements for the sale to the customer whom the broker had procured for the owner had occurred on a secular day.

The plaintiff is not barred because of what occurred on Sunday, October 31. No contract was made on that day. The plaintiff promised nothing, and he was entitled to nothing for his time and effort as such. The conversation between the plaintiff and the defendant amounted to no more than an offer on the defendant's part which would ripen into a unilateral contract when the plaintiff produced a customer ready, willing and able. Des Rivieres v. Sullivan, 247 Mass. 443, 446. Elliott v. Kazajian, 255 Mass. 459, 461, 462. Chamberlain v. New England Dressed Meat & Wool Co. 279 Mass. 462. John T. Burns & Sons Inc. v. Hands, 283 Mass. 420, 422. He produced such a customer on a secular day. Thus it appears that the contract sued upon was not made on Sunday and did not by its terms call for the doing of business or work on Sunday. Cases like Merriam v. Stearns, 10 Cush. 257, Day v. McAllister, 15 Gray 433, Myers v. Meinrath, 101 Mass. 366, Stevens v. Wood, 127 Mass. 123, Stewart v. Thayer, 168 Mass. 519, Kryzminski v. Callahan, 213 Mass. 207, and Hindenlang v. Mahon, 225 Mass. 445, are not applicable. We think the case falls within a class of cases in which it has been held that a contract not made on Sunday is not rendered void by reason of the fact that preliminary negotiations or even the offer which was later accepted took place on Sunday. Tuckerman v. Hinkley, 9 Allen 452. Bradley v. Rea, 14 Allen 20, 22. Dickinson v. Richmond, 97 Mass. 45. Cranson v. Goss, 107 Mass. 439, 442. Shepley v. Henry Siegel Co. 203 Mass. 43, 45. Silver v. Graves, 210 Mass. 26, 31.

Cohn, the plaintiff, a citizen of New York, was the owner of 300 shares of the defendant's stock on October 10th. On November 7th he filed his bill in the District Court on behalf of himself and any other shareholders who might join and share the expense of the suit, asserting that the defendant's offer was not revocable. The bill depended for jurisdiction upon diversity of citizenship, and alleged generally that the subject-matter in dispute exceeded $3,000. On the other hand, it alleged that, although in October the defendant's shares had sold for more than $65, and the "rights" for between $1.50 and $2.25, they had sold as low as $22 during the week beginning October 28th, for less than $45 on October 31st, and that nobody could say "with definite knowledge whether or not this stock will sell at higher than $45 a share, the subscription price, before November 30, 1929." It prayed a declaration that the withdrawal of the offer of October 10th was unlawful, and that the defendant be directed to issue the promised warrants, which, so far as appears, the plaintiff had not sold.

We have procedures in place to deal with any suspected data security breach. If we believe that the security of your Personal Information in our care may have been compromised, we will endeavor to notify you of that development promptly taking into consideration the circumstances. If we have your e-mail address, we may notify you by e-mail. Where legally required to do so, we also will notify any applicable regulator. 041b061a72


Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...
bottom of page