Every business wants to know how well they will do in the near future, but when the position of a law maker is open it is almost impossible to know what the future may bring. If companies do not know if the laws being made are going to raise or lower costs of operations then how will they know if any company will still be around to continue business thus increasing cost because of the witch to a competitor. (Berr, 2010) Whether it is a local or a national election the people who are making laws will always affect any business within their jurisdiction. Any size company should always take into account that the future will not be as easy to forecast if an election is up coming. Any previous month’s numbers can not be relied upon as much as they would be able to in the past to help in the production of any Pro Forma document.
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.
Based on (Shaw, Barry & Sansbury 2009, pp. 97), there are three things which are immoral Ford Pinto has done. Firstly, Ford denied the facts that Pinto is unsafe, which is misleading the public. Secondly, the company declare that the Pinto model pass the government’s safety standards where it is not true. Another thing is that the company hides the fact where they have successfully lobbying the standards having it to be delayed for seven years, which means in between these years the customer will be risking their lives driving on such cars.
But these are limited in use to certain circumstances. The binding part of the judgement is called the ratio decidendi and later courts are bound to follow legal principles on which the decision was based if their case contains similar facts, as for example, in Donoghue V Stevenson (1932) a precedent was set that a customer could sue a manufacturer in negligence. Obita Dicta (other things said not directly related to the decision or dissenting judgements), are persuasive rather than binding precendents, as seen
Rule 8 applies a standard for pleadings that state a claim to be recoverable. In the 1963 case, Gillespie v. Goodyear (text at 555), the court ruled the plaintiff’s allegations do not disclose the who/what/when/where in their pleadings, also referred to as the ultimate facts. Here, our case lacks a statement of facts that is concisely prepared and applicable to the ultimate facts of the case. She fails to mention any of the Western Airlines employees by name, simply alluding to them as a
United Ins., 390 U.S. at 256, 88 S.Ct. 988(stating that "there is no doubt that we should apply the common[ ]law agency test . . . in distinguishing an employee from an independent contractor"); Merchants, 580 F.2d at 972-73 (same); Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220 (1957) (common law agency principles).
Over centuries, men and women have attempted to explain legal systems, delving within the idea of law, emerging with their own theories and answers. Ronald Dworkin, a relatively recent legal theorist, suggested that more lay within the law than the simple interpreting and enforcing of rules and regulations. He suggested that there is an inherently important connection between both law and morality, embedded within each legal system. Dworkin, as well as other legal theorists, continue to argue for this relationship, whilst others continue to oppose it. It is a legal debate that raises countless questions and issues, most pressing being whether the connection promoted by the likes of Dworkin is required for a legal system to be deemed valid?
It seams to be that corporations tend to take the easy route by claiming for bankruptcies leaving many creditors with losses. Although we cannot blame such corporates, in today’s time this is known as one of the hardest time to search for jobs and stay alive as a business. Looking at it form the economic view bankruptcies are not the best thing to do, especially in today’s economic many of these corporates and small businesses help contribute to our economy. Many of these bankruptcies occur due to government decisions such as drastic minimum wage increases from $11.45 to $14.00 and $15.00 by
Contract Dispute Resolution Kenneth Mitchell Strayer University Legal 440 Dr. Kristine Kassekert January 28, 2012 Contract Dispute Resolution Explain how to use the administrative and judicial processes available for contract dispute resolution. Most contract disputes occur during the performance and execution of the contract, in which case an attempt to resolve the dispute is made through informal channels or processes, such as negotiations or arbitration, while work performance continues on the contract- “Disputes” clause- (Feldman, 2009). However, when the two parties fail to reach a mutually acceptable agreement the contract officer reserves the right to impose a unilaterally binding decision. Under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, if the contractor disagrees with the contract officer’s decision the contractor can exercise the option to file an action with the appropriate agency appeal board of contract appeals or the Court of Federal Claims. The main provisions of this act include: Strengthening the authority and capabilities of the Board of Contract Appeals Giving contractors the option of direct appeal to the U.S. Claims Court, bypassing the Board of Contract Appeals Provide the government with the right to seek judicial review of the adverse Board of Contract Appeals decisions Providing contracting activities with more flexibility in negotiating and settling contract disputes Establishing new Board of Contract Appeals procedures for handling small claims Implement a requirement for certification of contractor claims, if the claim seeks relief in excess of $100,000 The disputes clause applies to all government contracts, either expressed or implied.
If the respective use a) falls within the defined exceptions; and b) is fair, then “fair dealing” applies. The copyright laws of Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, Singapore and South Africa use “fair dealing”. Unlike the related doctrine of “fair use”, “fair dealing” cannot apply to any act which does not fall within one of these categories. The third approach is to set out certain “enumerated exceptions” without any qualification such as “fairness”. It is more of an unequivocal exception.