Facts This is the who, what, when, where, and why of the case. Remember this is a brief, so you can just summarize. A suit was filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas against the defendant for breach of an express warranty under Kansas law, the plaintiff claim that the item that was acquired failed to perform, the jury deliberated that the plaintiff should receive damages, and yes it was a breach of a contractual agreement, usually when you purchase a good unless its stated as is, you are assuming that the item is in reasonable condition. Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise. Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description Plaintiff argued, the defendant appealed the decision, and claim that the suit was barred by the Kansas statute of limitations, the defendant state that because the plaintiff signed a disclaimer he agreed to a limited.
| The accident not happened on the 30th of September 2003 | The recognition has no effect to Biovail’s financial statement. (revenue has been recognized before the accident happened) | The recognition has no effect to Biovail’s financial statement. (revenue not recognized yet because the delivery still not occurred) | 3) The revenue recognition requirements in accordance with U.S GAAP. i) Persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists; It seems clear that there is an ongoing relationship between Biovail and the Distributor and that certainly there was a bill, purchase order and/or invoice in order to support this sale. ii) Delivery has occurred or services have been rendered; The delivery was never realized due to the truck accident happened on the 30th of September 2003. iii) The seller’s price to the buyer is fixed or determinable;
McPhail v Doulton concerned a discretionary trust where Mr Baden executed a deed settling a non-charitable trust for the benefit of the staff of Matthew Hall & Co Ltd and their relatives and dependents, an issue arose as to the ‘object clause’ which identified the beneficiaries as ‘relatives’ and ‘dependants’, it was argued that these terms were uncertain and the validity of the trust was challenged. Previously this discretionary trust would have received the same treatment as a fixed trust and the test for certainty of objects would have been the same as that in IRC v Broadway Cottages, ‘a complete list test’ where a list of the possible beneficiaries is drawn up. However, in Mcphail v Doulton the House of Lords chose to adopt the ‘is or is not test’ used in Re Gulbenkian's settlements, this simply requires
| | INCORRECT | | | are entitled to damages under the doctrine of substantial performance, however, the builder will be entitled to partial compensation. | | CORRECT ANSWER | | | Instructor Explanation: | Chapter 13 p. 443 | | Points Received: | 0 of 10 | 2. | Question: | (TCO B) Federal Administrative Regulations for Administrative Agencies can be found
Add Special Merchant ii. Mutual Assent: Mutual Assent requires that the essential terms of the contract are sufficiently definite and certain and that both Abe and Bob agreed to those terms. The problem in this case is that the price term “cheap” and the price is dependent on
Financial Decision Making Essay Explain the theoretical rationale for the NPV approach to investment appraisal and compare the strengths and weaknesses of the NPV approach to two other commonly used approaches. Introduction Net Present Value (NPV) is defined as the different between an investment's market value and its cost. NPV rules states that we will accept the project if it creates a positive NPV, and will reject the project if the NPV < 0. In other words, NPV is a measure of how much value being created today by undertaking investment. Managers need to make investment decisions and calculating NPV can help them to see the likelihood of investment being profitable.
Then, the company also argue that Mrs. Carlill did not make an acceptance or agreement to the offer, as one of a contract element. But the court concluded that she did accept the offer by buying and using the product as directed. Lastly, the company argued there was no communication between them to do an acceptance or agreement. But then, once again, the court did not agree with them and said that it was a unilateral contract and the communication of acceptance did not have to be made. Therefore, to the case of Karen with the Slim Sally’s ad, it can be concluded as a unilateral contract, not an invitation to treat.
Firms can enter into agreements with the bondholders that are designed to decrease the cost of debt. There are two types of protective covenants. Negative covenants prohibit the company from taking actions that would expose the bondholders to potential losses. An example would be prohibiting the payment of dividends in excess of earnings. Positive covenants specify an action that the company agrees to take or a condition the company must abide by.
This test was examined in the Carparo Industries Plc. v Dickman case. The defendant had an account audited that didn’t reflect a previous loss and debts in the bookkeeping records, instead, profits, putting the claimants in a belief that, the company in question is worth investing in. Afterwards, the claimants found out the audited account didn’t reflect exactly the true previous and current status of the company financial dilemma. Based on the principles of the three-part-fold, the House of Lords ruled against the claimant that: the defendant owes no duty of care to the claimant in such circumstances.
BUS203 – Task two The tort of negligence concerns the legal implications of unintentional or careless conduct and provides an action plan to provide compensation to the plaintiff for damages caused by the defendant’s carelessness. It creates liability for harm that was foreseeable and preventable. Scott, the plaintiff, would have an action in negligence to claim compensation for the damages of personal injury he suffered due to Matt, the defendant’s, careless conduct. In order to succeed in negligence Scott must establish three legal elements of the action to prove his claim against the defendant. These three legal elements; that a duty of care was owed to Scott by Matt, that Matt was careless in failing to provide that duty of care and that Matt’s carelessness caused Scott’s damages, must be established and proved by Scott on the balance of probabilities.