Defendants' argument is not persuasive. In Towler [v. Sayles, 76 F.3d 579 (4th Cir.1996)], the plaintiff relied on the theoretical possibility that agents to whom she had sent her screenplay "could have sent the work to" the alleged infringer. Id. There was no evidence that the agents had sent the work to the defendant, only the plaintiff's suggestion that such a transmittal was hypothetically possible. This, the Fourth Circuit concluded, was not adequate proof of access.
Abel was then able to track the painting to Kenyon and file an action to retrieve ownership. Abel was awarded ownership of the painting through two common law doctrines: law of gifts and law of conversions. Kenyon v. Abel, 36 P.3d 1161, (Wyo. 2001). The superseding decision in Kenyon v. Abel was determined through the use of common law.
Neither Moore nor MBM appeared at the sale or took steps there after to redeem the property. On August 16, 1979, MBM came to know about the tax sale. By then the redemption period had run and Moore still owed appellant $8,237.19. • In November 1979, Adams filed a suit in state court seeking to quiet title to the property, but in opposition to Adam’s motion MBM contended that it had not received enough adequate notice of the pending tax sale and the opportunity to redeem the
However, the courts found that there was no duty owed by the defendant as Lord Denning stated that impose duty on defendant in such circumstance will lead to “no end of claims” . The courts sometimes can reluctant to impose duty on professionals such as police force. It is argue that the effectiveness of the police will be undermined when they are working with restrictive rules. One example is Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, Miss Hill’s mother claimed that the Constable of West Yorkshire failed to apprehend the murder at an earlier stage which subsequently led to her daughter’s death. Lord Keith dismissed this action and stated that “In some instances the imposition of liability may lead to the
There isn't enough information to decide if Stein suffered a loss. If she ends up having termites now or in the future, has to pay to eliminate the termites, or finds damage to the house due to previous termites, then yes. d. Can Stein sue for damages? If any of the things I've mentioned in question "c" happen, yes. Stein should sue.
Here, it would be affirming that there was a binding contract, but insisting that the obligation of Proudfoot had not been performed. This would make Proudfoot liable for damages. If the nonperformance were deemed to “erase” the element of consideration, Proudfoot could say that there never was a contract because of the failure, and therefore, no damages could be recovered for the breach of a contract that did not
Sullivan and GWI were doing business as usual without a renewal of contract. Sullivan believed that because GWI never renewed their original contract that they would continue with the way things was with the original contract. Sullivan never thought to make a new contract for the new agreement with Kaleidoscope and cancel the old contract. GWI can try to argue a breach of contract with Sullivan because they terminated their business with GWI and gain exclusive right to distribute GWI products with the same arbitration provisions as before, but there was no actual contract. GWI consented to the agreement of Kaleidoscope Distribution Agreement along with Sullivan.
535 - Total Population - Tolerable misstatement - Control risk - Types of confirmation Q7: A major issue in verifying the ending balance in property, plant and equipment is the possibility of legal encumbrances. Discuss what specific concern do you have. Describe the procedures your firm will perform to obtain evidence about existing legal encumbrances. Solution: Chapter 19 Who owns the property? Is it pledged?
Unquestionably, the decision to change the schedule of production staff was made by managers and directors with no direct knowledge of, and perhaps without consideration of, any employee’s religious affiliation or needs. Based on Walker Toy Company’s policies and procedures to comply with EEOC guidelines, a reasonable person may also agree that management felt this was not an important consideration, as they could have easily made accommodations in line with Title VII if Mrs. Miller had made her needs known. The reasonable person test is pervasive in case law as a factor in determining whether the employee’s resignation was reasonable. The case of Barrow v. New Orleans Steamship Ass’n (1994), established that certain factors are significant in determining constructive discharge: “(1) demotion; (2) reduction in salary; (3) reduction in job responsibilities; (4) reassignment to menial or degrading work; (5) reassignment to work under a younger supervisor; (6) badgering, harassment, or humiliation by the employer calculated to encourage the employee's resignation; or (7) offers of early retirement on terms that would make the employee worse off, whether accepted or not." This case supports my recommendation to litigate because Mrs. Miller was not subjected to any of these tactics, nor does she make any claims that any of these tactics were used toward her.
Which party has the burden of proof in the case? Which level of proof will be used? The party seeking damages (plaintiff), in this case Mr. James Mitchell and the union, has the burden of proof. This case would be considered a civil matter and would be guided by the principles and procedures commonly found in settling civil lawsuits and in regulatory agency cases. This includes presenting “clear and convincing evidence” as the level of proof that must be offered in order for the plaintiff to win the case (Clear and Convincing Evidence Law & Legal Definition, n.d.).