The Wu Group has always taken on a scientific approach to studying the law. Understanding trends, correlating legal frameworks and similar cases at a macro level are essential to predicting how a single case may play out. The scholarly aspect of this work allows The Wu Group to take every nuance into account and formulate an accurate representation of how a case will progress and the multitude possibilities it presents. This is why members of The Wu Group are not just lawyers. They are active questers of knowledge by pursuing multiple PhDs in various disciplines.
This methods allows The Wu Group to not only understand one particular case in depth and at an individual level, but to see the stronger trends at a far greater level, by addressing the specifics of each case and comparing them at a greater level. It allows the firm to predict the importance of a case and if it has the possibility of impacting future decisions in future cases.
Most attorneys would not correlate the legal interpretation of a legal document such as the pet agreement to the scientific process. However, after extensive research, it can be easily described as almost like a scientific experiment.
For example, every time a document is agreed upon by two parties, it is hypothesized that it is a legally abiding framework of mutual understanding. Enter the pet agreement. How does it relate to an experiment you ask? Well, think about it in a very simple way.
In a scientific method, first you begin with a hypothesis and devise an experiment to test your hypothesis. Well, what is the document prior to it being signed? It is essentially a generalized hypothesis as to what both parties will do. Then after the two parties agree to be bound by it, just like in an experiment, the document is signed and then results are seen.
What is the results of the experiment, or in this case, the document, the pet agreement? It is the same as any other when you analyze what happens after the document is agreed upon. For example, if the parties do exactly what the agreement states, then it is just as if the hypothesis was correct. What happens when the hypothesis is incorrect? Well, it is also the same in law as in science.
You have to start again. You have to determine why the hypothesis or in this case, the hypo, is incorrect and test other hypotheses until you determine why it was incorrect and how to address it. Inevitably, by every variation of the testa pohypotheses, the correct version will appear and there will be a binding contract created.
In this way, anything can be studied in a scholarly way, provided that you break it down to its simplest form. What is happening. Why is it happening? What will happen in the future as a result of the agreement. By structuring a study and an analysis in a methodical way, you can begin to underpin the reality that there is in fact method in the madness of every case number and every legal question.
When two parties execute the texas association of realtors pet agreement, they are entering into an agreement that allows the homeowner to keep a pet. If the parties fulfilled their obligations, the result would be as follows: the homeowners household would be allowed the specified animal in the household and everyone would be happy. So where does the party go wrong? Like in any experiment, there is a variable. The variable if the agreement is breached usually occurs with the dog or the cat. In its simplest form, the pet has broken an obligation. So what happens?
If there is a breach, there will be a desire to address the problem. The reason for the problem is most likely the existence of the pet. So naturally, something must happen to the pet. In the case of breach, the owner of the house may be persuaded to find a new home for the pet.
Now, if this were the result of the agreement, the parties get to return to their normal lives. However, what happens if instead of moving the pet where there are no laws and restrictions, the owner desires to keep the pet and there are simply just problems with their neighbors? Well, they may take action against the neighbor for not abiding by the agreement and getting some form of injunction against the neighbor, or they may bond together with their neighbor and take action against the pet owner.
The question becomes, was the pet owner simply a victim of circumstance which is preventing him or her from keeping their pet or was the pet owner a bad actor that was never going to fulfill all the obligations contained within the pet agreement?
Well, if this situation were to occur, the pet owner would need to retain an attorney and work lessen the damage to their pet and hopefully be able to keep the pet in the end. An expert witness retaining by the attorney would likely be needed to figure out exactly what science went wrong, or neighborship in this case, and determine whether order can be restored.