Current California Tort Law Dubbed by Prosser the "little brother of conversion," the tort of trespass to chattels allows recovery for interferences with possession of personal property "not sufficiently important to be classed as conversion, and so to compel the defendant to pay the full value of the thing with which he has interfered." (Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed.1984) § 14, pp. 85-86.) Though not amounting to conversion, the defendant's interference must, to be actionable, have caused some injury to the chattel or to the plaintiff's rights in it. Under California law, trespass to chattels "lies where an intentional interference with the possession of personal property has proximately caused injury."
It is important to recognize the regulation impact statement that is not prepared in connection with the issuance of AASB 13 as the amendments made are minor in nature. What can make AASB is adoption of a wider scope of proposed issues. Some of these issues are write-downs of sound assets required under the current implementation of fair-value accounting which adversely affect market sentiment. The provision on AASB should accommodate well the write-downs margin that impacts in a downward spiral that may lead to large-scale fire-sales of assets, and destabilizing, pro-cyclical feedback effects. These damaging feedback effects worsen liquidity problems and contribute to the conversion of liquidity problems into solvency
The final account that is on the balance sheet under the net assets and fund balances of the balance sheet would be the unrestricted net assets account. This account can be a target for the organization for an intentional misstatement because they could show that they have more assets that are unrestricted when realistically they could be restricted. Being able to show the difference would involve a detailed inspection. The auditor should do analytical procedures and substantive tests in order to detect these
Stein should sue. Alternately, if Stein wants to sue Gortino for fraud to cancel the sale or come up with a different settlement, she can do that. Discussion 2: How does this doctrine act as an exception to the elements and requirements of a contract? This doctrine can act as an exception because, according to Reinstatement Section 90, the promise doesn't have to be "so comprehensive in scope as to meet the requirements of an offer that would create a binding contract if accepted by the promisee" ("Hoffman v. Red," 1967). Also, the promissor has to expect that, upon the promise, it will induce action by the promisee.
• the man could sue Maria for unjust enrichment. • Maria would have to pay whatever a court finds to be "fair." • the man could sue Maria for breach of an implied, unilateral contract. 4. The power of preemption is derived from • the Supremacy Clause.
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”.
Q: What are the risks associated with arbitration? A: The risk of arbitration exists objectively, because it is irregular behavior of arbitration, so the risks of arbitration lead to the arbitration process and eventually leads to the unfair business and interests. Also if parties do not offer evidence, they may have an unfair result. Q: Why might a company prefer to settle disputes by litigation? A: Litigation is the final step to resolve a dispute.
An option to file a cross-complaint against the plaintiff is presented at this point if the defendant thinks it is necessary to seek damages they may incur because of the plaintiffs suite. The plaintiff has to file a reply to the defendant’s cross-complaint if the defendant takes such
The question is whether the competition is covered by statutes implying that refund of competition fee is attainable should the competitor be unfit to take on the competition. Jenny cannot take the law of frustration in consideration, because it will only bring an advantage to the opposite party, and not to her, hence the law of frustration sets aside the contract. Law There are three reasons why terms may be implied into a contract. First, where a term is required to give business efficacy to the contract these terms are generally known as terms implied by fact. Secondly, where terms flow from the obligations of the common law or statute these terms are called terms implied by law.
An unintentional tort is when a person is liable for harm that is the foreseeable consequence of his or her actions due to negligence (Cheeseman 2010). The consequence of torts result in damages owed to the injured party. The law specifically provides rectification to persons and entities that are harmed by the tortuous actions of others (Cheeseman 2010). Tort damages are monetary damages that are intended to compensate