The courts ruled against Mack as by backdating his payment for the fertilizer, he was trying to reduce his tax liability. Tax evasion is breaking a civil statute and falls under statutory illegality. Hence, the courts deemed the agreements to be unenforceable (Weir, D. Jan, Pg 147). There are two impacts of this case on a certified general accountant (CGA). The first impact is skills development.
Christina Tezen Legal Writing Analytical Essay 9/27/15 Issue: Whether Mr. Sunoco, who owns property that has a gas station which he has never operated but leased, is considered an “owner” under Aberdeen Navigation Law §181(1), and is therefore strictly liable for clean-up costs and potential damages to the neighbors under §181(5), resulting from the underground storage tanks (USTs) leaking, when such leaking has been occurring since the day he purchased the property. Rule: Aberdeen Navigation Law §181(1) articulates that all owners and operators, previous and present, will be considered dischargers for purposes of determining liability, which prevents a defendant from arguing that it is not liable because the discharge occurred prior to its ownership. (Speonk). Although liability under the Navigation Law cannot be
Analysis of People of Hinkley vs. PG & E I. First Cause of Action: Strict Liability: Civil wrong for which there is absolute liability because the inherent danger in the underlying activity. The prima facie elements of strict liability are as follows: 1) Hazardous condition or activity: Toxic water from the PG&E plant getting into the water of the community. 2) Causation: Actual Cause: the element of negligence that connects the duty and the breach of duty to the injuries to the plaintiff. The “but for” test for causation is used.
Under California law, trespass to chattels "lies where an intentional interference with the possession of personal property has proximately caused injury." (Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1566, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 468, italics added.) In cases of interference with possession of personal property not amounting to conversion, "the owner has a cause of action for trespass or case, and may recover only the actual damages suffered by reason of the impairment of the property or the loss of its use." (Zaslow v. Kroenert, supra, 29 Cal.2d at p. 551, 176 P.2d 1, italics added; accord, Jordan v. Talbot (1961) 55 Cal.2d 597, 610, 12 Cal.Rptr. 488, 361 P.2d 20.)
If Pat does files a suit of wrongful discharge, we will be able to argue that he was fully aware of the at will employment policy. If he argues that reception of the personnel manual is an implied contract, we will have precedent from the Dillon v. Champion Jogbra, Inc. case, 819 A.2d 703 (Vt. 2002), in which the judge ruled that it was not a breach of contract when another company fired an employee without cause (Jennings, 2006). In this same case the judge argued that it is the right of the company to modify the employee agreement (or personnel manual). Our personnel manual is ambiguous (as are most manuals). Any attempt to challenge the at will status will be difficult because it will most likely be left up to the interpretation of the judge or
LAW 421 Week 4 – Individual Assignment Agency Questions Question #1 – Lennie Edison Issue Can Vulcan be held responsible for the negligence of its employee Edison under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior? Rules of Law Victim-Unlucky (plaintiff) Respondeat Superior- Course and Scope of Employment Scienter of Vulcan Negligence of Edison Joint and Several Liability-Vulcan and Edison Comparative Fault Vulcan-the employer Respondeat Superior- Frolic and Detour Edison is solely liable Coming and going rule Edison-the employee (defendant) Not responsible for accident with Victim-Coming and going rule Comparative fault Analysis Victim-Unlucky Edison was negligent and caused accident with him. Vulcan as his employer is jointly and several liable under doctrine of respondeat superior (agency law). The best fact is that Edison was “always on call” which means that requirement of “course and scope of employment” is met 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Vulcan has scienter requirement for conduct of Edison.
The tortfeasor’s act was the proximate cause of injuries or damages. Damages were incurred. (Textbook p.150) ANALYSIS The fact remain that there was an accident, an injury occurred from the accident and negligence was evident. Officer Ruthless was negligent but was justified in the decision. He had to uphold the curfew law.
Unlike under unjust enrichment, however, a plaintiff can recover under quantum meruit even if he confers no benefit on the defendant. See, e.g., Barnes v. Lozoff, 20 Wis.2d 644, 123 N.W.2d 543 (Wis.1963) (allowing recovery for architect who created blueprints that were valueless to the defendant because defendant did not own some of the land at issue in the blueprints). Under quantum meruit, damages are “measured by the reasonable value of the plaintiff's services,” and calculated at “the customary rate of pay for such work in the community at the time the work was performed.” To take advantage of the more liberal recovery rule of quantum meruit, a plaintiff must prove two elements, both relating to the parties' course of conduct. As explained by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, to recover under quantum meruit, the plaintiff must prove that “the defendant requested the [plaintiff's] services” and “the plaintiff expected reasonable compensation” for the
Unit I Case: Sackett v. EPA (2012). Anonymous Anonymous Facts: Michael and Chantell Sackett & Environmental Protection Act are the parties within the lawsuit disputing if the Sacketts are responsible for violating the Environmental Protection Act (Sackett v. EPA 2012). The disagreement was over the Sacketts challenging the issuance of a citation from the EPA because the Sacketts were violating the Clean Water Act by placing field material on the property. The Clean water act forbids the dumping of any contaminants by anybody without the proper certification permitting the discarded materials to be dumped in a body of water (Sackett v. EPA 2012). The Sacketts did not believe that their property violated the Clean Water act, requesting a hearing with the EPA, which was denied by the United States District Court for the District of Idaho (Sackett v. EPA 2012).
* Once reduced to dominion and control substances become an object of absolute ownership 2. Rule of Capture and Ownership at Extraction * Kelly v. Ohio Oil Co. (Ohio 1897) * Whatever gets into a well belongs to the owner, no matter where it came from * As long as operations are legal on own property nothing can be done to stop or limit landowners use * Oil or gas belongs to the person who can reach and draw it out of the ground as long as it is reached through their property. 3. Ownership of oil and gas after extraction * Chamblin exploration Inc. v. Western Bridge and Steel CO., Inc. * Does refiner lose title to refined hydrocarbons when they escape from him into the ground, are refined hydrocarbons subject to the law of capture when they escape into the ground * Owner does not lose title unless it is shown that he has abandoned