E&Y reasoned this as it creates an exception to the general rule of reserving for expected future product returns at the gross sales price and deferring the recognition of an equal amount of revenue. This justification is invalid. The company’s customers are not “ultimate customers,” but are wholesalers that sold their product to retailers. In addition, Medicis’s returns were not returns of products in exchange for products of “the same kind, quality, and price,” but of unsalable product for
Attorney Paul J. Fishman announced. David Findel, 45, of Monmouth County, N.J., was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Peter G. Sheridan in Trenton federal court. He had previously pleaded guilty to an information charging him with wire fraud. According to the information to which Findel pleaded guilty and statements made in Trenton federal court: Findel is the former CEO of Worldwide Financial Resources (“Worldwide”), which was in the business of originating residential home loans. Worldwide worked with borrowers to prepare mortgage applications and qualify the borrowers for home mortgages.
Leah Earp 1. Ronderos should win the lawsuit because the property was rightfully Schock’s already and Ronderos is not a merchant therefore the risk of loss is Schock’s. 6. The dealer cannot reclaim the automobile because the buy was a good faith purchaser and the dealer can only make a lawsuit against B. 10.
c) Eric may not represent the seller’s interests to the detriment of the buyer. Correct 5. What is the only real property interest that shareholders have in a cooperative? d) Fee simple defeasible. INCORRECT 6.
Discussion 1: Mutual Agreement a. Can the contract for sale be canceled because of fraud? Yes, Gortino had reckless disregard for the truth and knew his statement about the termites was false. Technically, Stein didn't even have to ask; what Gortino did was intentional concealment. b.
Under California law, trespass to chattels "lies where an intentional interference with the possession of personal property has proximately caused injury." (Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1566, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 468, italics added.) In cases of interference with possession of personal property not amounting to conversion, "the owner has a cause of action for trespass or case, and may recover only the actual damages suffered by reason of the impairment of the property or the loss of its use." (Zaslow v. Kroenert, supra, 29 Cal.2d at p. 551, 176 P.2d 1, italics added; accord, Jordan v. Talbot (1961) 55 Cal.2d 597, 610, 12 Cal.Rptr. 488, 361 P.2d 20.)
. BUCHANAN-SALLY HEARSAY/NONHEARSAY Hearsay An out of court statement offered for evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Here, Buchannan, and agent in the DEA, will testify that he spoke with Sally, whose son overdosed on cocaine. The facts do not directly indicate if Sally’s son received his cocaine from Danforth. However, Sally’s reaction of fainting when she saw the photograph of Danforth can be inferred that she recognized the Defendant, Danforth, who sold the drugs to her son who overdosed.
The Court argued that the constitutional right to privacy was limited to matters relating to “marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing education.” The publication of records of official acts, such as arrests, did not fall under the rubric of privacy rights. Reputation alone is not constitutionally protected interest. The three justices (minority opinion) disagreed with the findings of the majority. The dissenting opinion reasoned that the decision justified that intrusive action defamed and stigmatized the respondent as a criminal. Justice Brennan, writing for the minority, reasoned an illegitimate and improper enforcement of law that assaulted the constitution (Chicago Kent College of
There is loads of evidence that can prove the theory of the mafia murdering JFK. First of all JFK’s father Joseph Kennedy used the mafia to get the support in key states and that could explain why he won by less than 0.5%. Evidence number 2 is that he had an affair with a godfather’s girlfriend. When his death was announced and everyone was in shock a thousand miles away at a restaurant in Tampa Florida a celebration was under way where mobster Santo Trafficante raises his glass and toasts the assassination of JFK. For mafia don Carlos Marcello in New Orleans and Johnny Recelly in Chicago it is also welcome news.
It applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961). If evidence falls within the scope of the exclusionary rule led law enforcement to other evidence, which they would not otherwise have located, then the exclusionary rule applies to the related evidence found subsequent to the excluded evidence as well. Such subsequent evidence has taken on the name of “fruit of the poisonous tree” (Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 1920). The Exclusionary Rule is a court-created remedy and deterrent, not an independent constitutional right. Courts will not apply the rule to exclude illegally gathered evidence where the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent or remedial benefits.