104767 IS GEORGE ENTITLED TO PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO STOP THE FAIR. APPLICABLE LAW. Contracts that involve the sale of goods are governed by the UCC and services and other contracts are governed under the common law of contracts. Here, since the contract involves the renting of a booth to George by Fairco the modern common law would apply to resolve any contractual issues between the parties. LIABILITY THEORY.
It appears that the employer intentionally disposed of the parts. The disposal of these parts may prejudice the client's ability to recover in any product liability lawsuits against the corporations involved in the manufacture, distribution, inspection, or servicing of the conveyor. • What section of Am.
The Attorney-client privilege is a concept of honor, trust, respect. There countless policies listed under privilege act. The first is the privilege ensures that one, who seeks advice, can be freely open with his or her attorney without any cost to them. This means it cannot be held against them with their attorney.
Under the good faith and fair dealing practices, participants engage with each other in a fair and equitable manner, acting in good faith (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2007). The real estate agent was acting on behalf of Cost Club and entered into an agreement to purchase the site in question. Based on this promise, the company is responsible, even though “the company” did not sign off on the agreement, our representing party did endorse the agreement. Therefore, if the customer pursues the instance, Cost Club will be held accountable. Here again, is an opportunity to ensure the employee is fully aware and understands the company’s acquisition intentions and
The buyer can be expected to satisfy all obligations under the contract.The contractor can be expected to perform all contractual obligations”. In other words, the percent of competition method can be used if there can be an accurate estimate of the cost. The contract has to be very specific about the exchanging of goods or services. The two parties agree to
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.
Brat Simpson and Arty Dodger case. However, there is a similar case in terms of the damages being sought, the Hudson's Bay Company v. David James White case. In this case, the Hudson's Bay Company sued Mr. White seeking punitive damages and damages for the surveillance, investigation and apprehension of Mr. White arising out of his shoplifting activity. In the result, the plaintiff was awarded "…judgment for trespass against the defendant in the nominal $300.00. The judge in the Hudson’s Bay Company case awarded the plaintiff damages for surveillance and investigation; this is similar to what is being sought in the Northland Corp v. Brat Simpson, Arty Dodger case, the action against the defendants is for the amount of $750.00 for the “cost of security, prorated between offenders caught shoplifting within the store and the amount owing remains a just debt improperly withheld by the Defendants.” The only reason the judge in the Hudson’s Bay Company case gave for awarding the damages was that, "…the case cries out for an award of punitive damages”.
The negligence was certainly made by the driver , but in what capacity. Proximate: This form of negligence requires foreseeability of what happened Causation: The basis upon which a lawsuit may be brought to the court Negligence: would be carelessness except the following did occur: The tortfeasor was under a duty to use due care. The tortfeasor breached that duty of due care. The tortfeasor’s act was the actual cause of injuries or damages. The tortfeasor’s act was the proximate cause of injuries or damages.
Target was in breach of section 53 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) which prohibits misleading and deceptive conduct. The ACCC through the court case enforced penalties against the non-compliance of this section of the Trade Practices Act and acted in the interest of consumers. The ACCC helped to protect the need of consumers to have honest and non-deceptive advertising. The Federal Court ruled that Target did engage in misleading and deceptive conduct and ordered that Target publish corrective ads in newspapers and on Television and apologise to all consumers who were misled by the company’s deceptive advertising. ACCC v Target Australia Pty Ltd (2001) FCA shows the effectiveness of the law, through criteria of enforcement particular to the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).
Customers´ accounts receivable balance 2. How is customer service improved? Now customers get exactly what they want, as inputting errors are eliminated. Also now customers have full information about price changes, special offers, promotions. Another important point is that now salesman has full information about inventory availability, so if customer ordered something, he can be sure that it is available and he will get it.