According to the first element of gifts, a present intention to give the gift must be made, and it was not. Abel did not anticipate on giving the painting to the Salvation Army; thus, it does not constitute as a gift. The second area of common law in which this case influenced was the law of conversion. “Conversion occurs when any person treats another’s property as their own, denying the owner possession and rights of ownership.” (Barnes, 621). The Salvation Army exercised dominion over the painting which denied Abel any rights to
Generally, the case focused on Federal Express Corporation’s request for expedited discovery of depositions and document production, and preliminary injunction. The defendant claimed that the preliminary injunction was invalid since it had discontinued use of the name Federal Espresso in June 1997. Furthermore, the defendant claimed additional charges of attorney-client privilege, trade secret, use of broad language, irrelevance, and burdensome litigation. Evidence was presented at hearings held on January 16, 1998 and February 3, 1998 with oral arguments on March 2, 1998. The U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary S. Pooler denied Federal Express Corporation’s request for a preliminary injunction and all associated claims.
Memo To: Attorney Janet Jones From: Jennifer Calderone Date: 4/3/12 Re: Sherman vs. Church of the Divine Light CC: Professor Steven Zakrocki, Tort Law (PA310-01) Introduction: Mr. and Mrs. Rob Sherman want to sue the Church of the Divine Light for the negligent actions used by the church on their minor child, Rob Jr. The Sherman’s want to start legal proceedings against the church to cover the damages caused by the church in using unethical practices on their child. Tort law is a category of civil law, which provides protection against a civil wrong. The Sherman’s have hired us to determine if they will have a successful case against the Church of the Divine Light.
Belleville Woman Guilty of Fraud (February 17, 2012) Stephen R. Wigginton, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois, announced today that Stephanie Reeves, 35, of Belleville, Illinois, has entered a plea of guilty in federal district court on February 17, 2012, to a one count information charging that Reeves committed bankruptcy fraud by falsely claiming that she was in bankruptcy, in order to stop collection efforts by a business to which she owed money. At her plea, Reeves admitted that she utilized the bankruptcy documents of another person by placing her name on the court forms and then sending them to a lender in order to gain benefit of an automatic bankruptcy stay to which she was not entitled. The charges resulted
It was heard at London, January 10, 2005. 2. What is the central legal issue or dispute. If there are two, what are they? Central legal issue or dispute is that plaintiff sues the defendant for damages for breach of contract.
The plaintiff did not lock his toolbox as there had not been any incidences while he was employed there. There was a break in and $43,000 of the plaintiff’s tools and several of the defendant’s. The shop had a fence secured by gate and heavy chain and padlock as well as a spotlight. On 1/31/01 the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and the hearing for that judgment took place in Transylvania County on 3/15/2001 with the order being filed three days later on 3/18/2001. The plaintiff appealed the decision on 3/30/2001 on the grounds that the trial court erred in their decision, basing it on the fact that no one had been apprehended and confessed to the crime.
They were proposing to become the exclusive distributor to Major. On June 22, 1965, Nalley’s home office in Washington made a decision not to distribute Major’s products, refusing to give a reason. No final agreement was ever executed between the parties. “In his trial testimony Gardiner stated that he had always had ‘lurking’ in his mind questions about Major being able to operate successfully” (Cole, 1972). Immediate efforts by Major to secure other distribution for its products proved unsuccessful.
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”.
TO: JOHN SMITH, A&A TOY CO. PRESIDENT FROM: DIVISION MANAGER Date: OCTOBER 1, 2002 SUBJECT: FORMER A&A EMPLOYEE CLAIMS RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE UNDER TITLE VII THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 AGAINST A&A TOY CO. It has come to the attention from our legal team that a former employee has filed claims against A&A Toy Co. under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Former employee reports religious discrimination and constructive discharge after new scheduling policy was implemented. Former employee claims accommodations were not completely fulfilled on their behalf, in turn being discriminated against ultimately causing constructive discharge from A&A Toy Co. The following memorandum includes a detailed report on constructive discharge as a legal concept, areas covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, A&A Toy Co.’s response to these claims, and resolutions to these claims for A&A Toy Co.’s future.
The interoperability was never put into place for reasons that can only be speculated on. There are assumptions that Grant Holcomb the architect of the proposed system had a conflict of interest that may have profited him. There are also allegations that Greg Meffert, Nagin's chief technology officer, stated that the technology wouldn't work. Many controversial issues of being unethical by several parties involved in this system caused a delay that unfortunately wasn’t in play for Katrina. Interoperability is dangerous to the concept of Federalism because although New Orleans was granted money to fund the system by the national government, at the state level, it was never implemented.