Facts of the case are registration of the name Golf.tv was offered for auction from the website of The TV Corporation International .TV Corporation International intended to transfer the Golf.tv domain name to the person or entity that submitted the highest bid. TV Corporation International had claimed that the auction for TV names would be fair and open. Lim made a bid for $1,010 and that was the highest bid received by The TV Corporation International. The TV Corporation International confirmed the bid by sending an e-mail to highest bidder , which was the plantiff Lim. He authorized the charging of his credit card, The TV Corporation International charged the credit card.
Conclusion: We can say that, Valley home is more likely to loose the case against Ace Minerals if we put together all the arguments in the above analysis. 2. Issue: The second issue is to determine whenever Valley Homes could use the promissory estoppel in this case Rules: In a common law a promise made without consideration is not enforceable by law. The two exemptions to this rule are promissory estoppel and sealed documents Promissory estoppel: In the law of contracts,
Challenges RIM Faced Protecting Its Intellectual Property One of the biggest challenges RIM faced by protecting its intellectual property was from a patent lawsuit filed in 2000. NTP was a patent holding company based out of Virginia. The company offered to license patents related to RIM’s wireless email system. They believed they owned the intellectual property behind BlackBerry. Since RIM’s CEO, Mike Lazaridis did not respond, NTP filed a lawsuit.
“The Future of Gambling.” Pbs Frontline, Pbs, 26 Apr. 2007, www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gamble/procon/future.html. Accessed 11 Jan. 2018. Coeyman, Marjorie. “State Lottery Benefits to Education Are Exaggerated.” Legalized Gambling, edited by Mary E. Williams, San Diego, Greenhaven Press, 1999.
The Court also rejected counterclaims asserted by Amazon, arising out of Toys R Us's alleged failure to maintain levels of inventory sufficient to meet customer demand. The Court's 132 page decision provides a window into the negotiation of a highly complex transaction, in which the parties have competing visions of the structure of the transaction, and settle on contractual language that does not fully express those visions, or resolve the parties' conflict. In resolving this dispute, the Court elected not to base its determination on the literal meaning of the words ultimately accepted by each side. Instead, it strove to find their intentions in entering into this Agreement, and to give effect to those intentions. In so doing, the Court found that it was the parties' intention, under their agreement, to make Toys R Us the exclusive toy retailer allowed to market on Amazon.com.
First, they say that it was no intention that brings to the legally binding agreement. But the court held that there was legal intention because it was a commercial transaction and intention was presumed. Another argue by the company said that the ad was just an invitation to treat (not a contract). But the court held that a newspaper advertisement was generally offers to treat, which in other word could be said specifically as an offer. Then, the company also argue that Mrs. Carlill did not make an acceptance or agreement to the offer, as one of a contract element.
as a whole” test laid down by Lindley MR in Allen as inappropriate in the context of competing rights and interests of shareholders.18 The court drew a distinction between two different types of constitutional alterations. For alterations not involving “expropriation of shares or of valuable proprietary rights attaching to shares” it is sufficient if the special resolution is passed regularly, is not ultra vires, not beyond any purpose contemplated by the constitution nor oppressive.19 With respect to alterations that do involve expropriation of shares, or valuable proprietary rights attached to shares, different considerations apply. The majority laid down a twopronged test, holding that amendments to the constitution permitting expropriation are only permissible if: • the power is exercisable for a proper purpose; and • its exercise will not operate oppressively in relation to minority shareholders.20 Ibid at 386. Contra this reasoning see Brett W King, “Use of Supermajority Voting Rules in Corporate America: Majority Rule, Corporate Legitimacy, and Minority Shareholder Protection” (1996) 21 Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 895 at 907. 13 Vanessa Mitchell, “Gambotto and the Rights of Minority Shareholders” (1994) 6 Bond Law Review 92 at 102.
Breach of Contract Analysis Leigh Dankovich BUS 206 Ginger Devine, J. D. In the scenario outlined that ABC Corp. brings a lawsuit against Mr. Jones alleging breach of contract and requesting money damages or specific performance of the contract. In the scenario the facts show that ABC Corp. and Mr. Jones were engaging in the offer-acceptance process. In the course of the process Mr. Jones submitted a counter offer to ABC Corp but neglected to specify a date and time that ABC Corp must accept the offer or it would be withdrawn. Since ABC Corp. deems that it accepted the counter offer with in a reasonable time and that Mr. Jones did not withdraw his counter offer prior to making his purchase with XYZ Corp. a legally enforceable contract was established. The offer-acceptance process is a fairly common approach to establish an agreement.
Argument against hedging The most important argument against hedging this type of risk is that a corporation needs to, in exchange for hedging, (i) give up the upside of commodity prices going down (in futures, swaps and collar) or (ii) pay premiums (in options) or (iii) both. If J&L purchases futures or swaps and the fuel price goes down, J&L needs to pay the agreed price (which is above market price). Similarly, if J&L purchases collar and the fuel price goes below floor strike price, J&L needs to pay the floor strike price (which is above market price). If J&L buys call options on futures, it needs to pay premium for the
With operations in 24 countries and population footprint of 960 million people, it wanted to enter the internet and fixed lines business. It pursued Mannesmann as it thought that the merger would benefit the combined entity, however the activities of Mannesmann thwarted this move. Mannesmann was partners with Vodafone in some telecom circles, however it entered into direct competition with Vodafone by raising a bid for Orange in October 1999. Orange was one of the last mobile companies in UK which was not part of any large telecommunications group. Vodafone made attempts to attract Mannesmann to discuss the merits of a merger.