THE LAW OF CONTRACT
Rights are clearly property and possessions. Under English Common
Law I may do as I please and that means I may trade my rights for as much as
my imagination sees fit so long as I exercise a duty of care. I exercise my
duty of care by application of the ICHOR TRUST COVENANT. Pursuant to Curry
v Misa (1875)”…some right .. “being tradable property, Metropolitan
Asylum District v. Hill (1881) 6 App. Cas. 193;42 Digest 7051222 Per Lord Blackburn “An
Act is not in the absence of clear language to be construed as taking away
property without compensation, and on those who seek to establish that the
legislature intended to take away the private rights of individuals lies the
burden of showing that such intention appears by express words or necessary
implication.” When rights are protected by the sanctity of contract the
necessary implication is that it takes IMPERATIVE WORDS OF EXPRESS MEANING
BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER IN PRIMARY LEGISLATION to take away the rights
in question. Metropolitan Asylum District v Hill (1881) 6 App. Cas. 193;42
Digest 7051222 also states, “Where the terms of a statute are not imperative,
but permissive, the fair inference is that the legislature intended the discretion
as to the use of the general powers thereby conferred, should be exercised
in strict conformity with private rights.” My view is further supported
by Carlil v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, Ltd., (1893) and Allen v. Gulf Oil Refining
Ltd. (1981). Further, taking into consideration Blade v Higgs (1881) 10CBNS
713, the Theft Act 1968 s2b …rights being…..intangible property
and an attempt to defeat the ICHOR TRUST being an attempt to defeat a trust
according to the Theft Act 1968 and the COVENANT as stated below invoking the
sanctity of contract. Maintaining the sanctity of contract is the supreme public
interest and supreme public policy consideration because all global trade depends
on maintaining the sanctity of contract and not bringing the sanctity of contract
into question
