Under the statue of frauds BTT would not be held liable for not distributing Strat and simple walk away from the deal. 5. No BTT cannot avoid the contract under the doctrine of mistake, because BTT had proposed on meeting its commitments by giving a verbal agreement, before all the changes occurred in their facility. They had sent Chou a fax demanding a plan of the dispersal contract after they had sent him an e-mail that Chou supposed to have switched the previous perception asking him to sketch up a contract. "A unilateral mistake is when only one party had an erroneous
I disagree with the outcome of the case; a case of this nature should not be dismissed simply because of the 180 days statutory period. Any worker that feels as though they were victims of sex discrimination should be allowed to file suit against their contractor, not only for a certain period, but for the duration of their employment. I do not agree with the courts decision to dismiss the case because Ms. Ledbetter could not present any
The US Supreme Court basically found that copyright law gave the copyright owner the right to restrict others from making their own copies of a work. However, it did not give them any rights to control what happened to books after they sold them. This case described what is now knows as the first sale doctrine, and is codified in 17 U.S.C. §109(a). The first sale doctrine basically says that once someone buys a legitimate copy of a work, they can do whatever they want with it, including sell it to others, or lend it out, or whatever.
Baker was also unable to prove a loss in sales during the time Natalie Attired was employed. The only information Baker was able to provide was the request of two patrons to move out of Attired’s section as they were offended by her tattoos. Issue/Question Presented: Is Natalie Attired’s refusal to remove her tattoo as instructed by her employer considered misconduct as defined by New Mexico Statute § 51-1-7? Brief Answer: No. Attired’s refusal to remove her tattoo does not constitute
The deal states that until it was on paper, there would be no distribution agreement. The email that was sent was never an official agreement because both partied did not physically sign the agreement, which means that it was not legally binding. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? There are several facts that weigh in favor of Chou in terms of the parties objective intent to contract.
The court papers said “Plaintiffs were led to believe and had a right to believe by their agreement that Theron would not promote any jewelry or watches”. Wearing a watch of the competitor is a material breach of contract and this is called a material breach because it will enable Reimond Weil to collect damages because of the breach. Charlize Theron can claim the defense of a unilateral mistake, the defense can claim that Theron did not know that Reimond Weil were to be worn at all occasions. The defense can be weak and even if they stand, it would make the contract void between Charlize Theron and Reimond Weil and Charlize Theron would have to return the “substantial funds” that were paid out back to Reimond Weil. I would think that Reimond Weil cannot force a specific
However, the Second Mile stated that they never knew anything about the incident, although this may not be accurate. Curley and Schultz were charged with failing to tell the police, and falsely telling the grand jury that they were never informed them about the incident. McQueary was a graduate assistant at the time and he displayed more good ethics than the organizational leadership of the school. By Curley and Schultz covering up the incident the abuse could continue because no one ever knew of Sandusky’s extreme unethical behaviors. However, McQueary attempted to do what was right by informing his superiors; but that was not enough to stop the abuse.
I think if she would have ask him questions instead of letting him do all the talking, she would have seen that he was up to no good. I think all relationship start out with interpersonal conflicts. The reason why I say that is because, no one tells the truth when you first meet someone. You never ask the question that you need to ask. And no one tell you what you need to know about them when they first meet.
In fact, a lot of degree holders do not have good health because of long time focus on studying. Moreover, she oversimplify that people who have degrees are less likely to go to prison, this make no sense without any clear and strong evidence. Actually, a degree holder who involve in crime will become very dangerous and unpredictable, this maybe the purpose of many criminal. It totally opposes the opinion of Marion Jacobs. Consequently, her argument can not help her any at all.
When Tom puts on the Ring, nothing happens. My first thought about this was that Tom is too powerless for the Ring to work. However that turned out not to be the case since Tom was described as the “master of wood, water and hill”. Later, the book mentions that Tom “is his own master. But he cannot alter the Ring itself, nor break its powers over others.” The importance is in the fact that no human or object has any power over those who are their own masters.