Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) State Rights, Commerce Clause Gibbons v. Ogden, was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the power to regulate interstate commerce was granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Exiled Irish patriot Thomas Addis Emmet and Thomas J. Oakley argued for Ogden, while William Wirt and Daniel Webster argued for Gibbons. In 1808, the government of New York granted a steamboat company a monopoly to operate its boats on the state's waters, which included bodies of water that stretched between states. Aaron Ogden held a license under this monopoly to operate steamboats between New Jersey and New York. Thomas Gibbons, another steamboat operator, competed with Aaron Ogden on this same route but held a federal coasting license issued by an act of Congress.
Describe the pricing strategy you used during Scenario C of the Simulation Exercise. During scenario C, my strategy was focused on two main goals: 1. Increasing net profits and 2. Maximize capacity utilization consistently to 100% every month. Increase monthly net profits goal was achieve by strategically increase the rental price in cities with high demand and growing market share.
A question of law concerns the application or interpretation of the law-such as whether flag-burning is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Development: How does jurisdiction relate to persons and property? How does jurisdiction relate to corporate contracts? Particular courts has jurisdiction (can exercise in personal jurisdiction) over any person or business that resides in a certain geographic area. On the other hand, because corporations are considered legal persons, courts use the same principles to determine whether it is fair to exercise jurisdiction over a corporation.
3. If so, are magic Zillions liable for any of Mr Laurent’s injuries? 4. Is Bella liable for any of Mr Laurent’s injuries? LAW: Statute: Partnership Act 1891 (Qld) s5: Carrying on a business with a view of profits s6: Determining the existence of partnerships s8: Power to bind firm s12: Liabilities of partners s13: Liability of the firm for wrongs s20: Liabilities of incoming partner Common Law: Canny Gabriel Castle Jackson Advertising Pty Ltd v Volume Sales Pty Ltd (1974) – ‘carrying on a business in common with a view of profit’ Khan v Miah (2000) - ‘a view to profit’ Molinas v Smith (1932) - ‘binding on partnerships.’ Polkinghorne v Holland (1934) - ‘partners liable joint and severally’ Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co (1912) - ‘partners liable joint and severally’ APPLICATION The Partnership Act defines a partnership as “the relation which subsists between persons carrying on a business in common with a view of profit”.
The beginnings of the current financial crisis were set in motion by the changing elite consensus on Capitol Hill in 1977, when congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). [1] After the Civil Rights movement in 1955-1968 elite consensus included the notion of legislated social equality or Affirmative action. [2] Program’s like the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (also known as the Fair Housing Act) and the CRA of 1977, were enacted by government elites who had accepted the view that it is the government’s responsibility to ensure the fair treatment of individuals in communities and organizations. The CRA attempts to provide the “underprivileged” access to housing by requiring institutions to provide credit to all parts of the community
Case Study 2 Lauren Grippo What indications occurred in the 2000 – 2006 housing market that a bubble bust was eminent? Within mainstream economics, it can be posed that that real estate bubbles cannot be identified as they occur and cannot or should not be prevented, with government and central bank policy rather cleaning up after the bubble bursts. The pre-dominating economic perspective is that economic bubbles result in a temporary boost in wealth and a redistribution of wealth. When prices increase, there is a positive wealth effect (property owners feel richer and spend more), and when they decline, there is a negative wealth effect (property owners feel poorer and spend less). Explain the concepts of loss aversion, value attribution, and group dynamics.
In 1998, Gresco Investments Limited acquired the Palace. The same year they received the approval from the Budapest Heritage Board to reconstruct it into luxury hotel while retaining its original appearance of Art Nouveau
The Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protect Act of 2010 establishes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and requires it to establish five divisions including the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity. [1] In addition, as a federal financial regulator, the Bureau has a duty affirmatively further fair housing under The Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended. [2] The term ‘‘fair lending’’ is defined in the Act to mean” fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory access to credit for consumers.”[3] This definition provides the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with the discretion to broadly interpret and define what constitutes a fair lending violation under the Act. General Powers The Office of Fair Lending and Equal
Part A: Analysis Business Model Seagate and Deal Rationale #1: Why is Seagate undertaking this transaction? How suitable is an LBO for a technology firm like Seagate, and what are the potential sources of value creation in the transaction? Motivate your answer. The Seagate management believes that the company needs heavy and intensive that are not feasible if Seagate Inc. remains a public company. Other capital re-organizations alternatives involve significant tax liability and considering the present state with Seagate being a public company, tax liability will result in loss of wealth for the shareholders since it involves corporate taxes as well as personal tax liability.
To reposition its water as a premium product, Healthy Spring will require an increase in its advertising and promotion budget of $900 daily. What is