Charles Gardiner and other executives of the Defendant visited the plant of Major Foods and expressed satisfaction. On June 22, 1965 Nalley’s home office made a decision not to distribute the Plaintiff’s foods. The Plaintiffs then filed suit under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. HISTORY: The trail court ruled for the Plaintiffs, finding that Nalley’s, Inc had breached the terms of the contract made between them and Major Food Products, Inc. The Defendants appealed the decision of the trail court.
Congress reiterated in Section 3(c)(1)(D)(ii) of FIFRA that EPA should make administrative decisions about how much money these manufacturers would get for damages from loss of their trade secrets. Union Carbide sued because they felt that the decisions should be made by the judicial court, not an administrative agency. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that the claims challenging the arbitration provisions were ripe for decision and that those provisions violated Article III. Standing was approved for all appellants, who took a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Facts: Section 3(c)(1)(D)(ii) of FIFRA authorizes EPA to consider certain previously submitted data only if the "follow-on" and registrant has offered to compensate the original registrant for use of the data.
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 $750.00 for the “cost of security, prorated between offenders caught shoplifting within the store and the amount owing remains a just debt improperly withheld by the Defendants.” The only reason the judge in the Hudson’s Bay Company case gave for awarding the damages was that, "…the case cries out for an award of punitive damages”. The cost of shoplifting is very high, it cuts into the profit margin of the retailer and is paid for by the consumer. It requires stores to invest in more complex means of security. This could be the reason why the judge in this case felt
26.If a lessor’s tender of delivery fails to conform to a contract in any way, the lessee can reject the goods. 27.Article 2 of the UCC governs contracts for sales of goods. 28.National Ladder Company is subject to regulations issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Like other federal administrative agencies, the OSHA was created by 29.Fun-E Products, Inc., makes and sells toys. The government agency that has the authority to remove a potentially hazardous toy from the market is 30.Midwest Agri-Products Corporation offers to sell its sugar substitute to Nice Candies, Inc., only if Nice Candies agrees to buy all the corn it needs from Midwest Agri-Products, even though there are other corn sellers from whom Nice Candies could buy.
Similarly, in Hotmail Corp. v. Van$ Money Pie, Inc., supra, 1998 WL 388389 at page *7, the court found the evidence supported a finding that the defendant's mailings "fill[ed] up Hotmail's computer storage space and threaten [ed] to damage Hotmail's ability to service its legitimate customers." America Online, Inc. v. IMS, decided on summary judgment, was deemed factually indistinguishable from CompuServe; the court observed that in both cases the plaintiffs "alleged that processing the bulk e-mail cost them time and money and burdened their equipment." (America Online, Inc. v. IMS, supra, 24 F.Supp.2d at p. 550.) The same court, in America Online, Inc. v. LCGM, Inc., supra, 46 F.Supp.2d at page 452, simply followed CompuServe and its earlier America Online decision, quoting the former's explanation that UCE burdened the computer's processing power and
a) Mary- Sales of Goods Act, Consumer Protection Act, Negligence b) Myrtle – Sales of Goods Act, Consumer Protection Act, c) Bench World – Negligence, d) Agnes Ponsonby Smythe – No liabilities e) Junior blender - Capacity 2. Fully explain the liabilities involved by applying legal rules to support arguments in each instance Mary and Myrtle under the sales of goods act section 14 (2), can sue Divine Fragrances for breach of product satisfactory quality. Section 14 (2) of the sales of goods act provides that when a seller sells goods in the course of his business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied are under the contract of satisfactory quality. The inclusion of the 1994 supply of goods act section 14 (2A) further implies that a product is of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory. Furthermore section 14 (2B) lists safety and freedom from minor defects as principal factors when judging if a product sold by the seller is of satisfactory quality (Kelly, et all, 2004, pp 221).
If it was indeed suffering then we must determine why it was suffering. In order to determine the facts of this case I would recommend that both Paula and Sam are suspended, with pay, in order to conduct an investigation. If it is determined that Paula’s allegations of unwanted sexual behaviors is true, that it was motivated by inappropriate supervisory relationship, and it affected her job performance, than a hostile work environment was created and we are in violation of Title VII. In the case of Sam blocking Paula’s transfer to another department, “because she may get pregnant”, we can be held liable under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, which forbids discrimination in employment based on
Pillsbury Cookie Challenge Written Analysis of Case Advanced and Applied Business Research Prepared By: Muhammad Mudassar Shahid ERP ID (01094) Submitted To: Ms. Huma Amir Pillsbury Cookie Challenge Written Analysis of Case Advanced and Applied Business Research Prepared By: Muhammad Mudassar Shahid ERP ID (01094) Submitted To: Ms. Huma Amir Institute of Business Administration February 17, 2014 Institute of Business Administration February 17, 2014 Executive Summary This case is based on the research conducted by General Mills Canada Corporation (GMCC) to define key variables to impact the consumers so as to improve the sales of Pillsbury in their Refrigerated Baked Goods (P-RBG) category. The variables researched up on included factors such as the taste, usage and purchasing pattern of the RBG cookies. They study was also extended to the brand image and product attributes, based on qualitative research; which consisted on surveys and ethnographic studies. According the results of this study, it was found that GMCC was focusing too much up on the product itself while trading off on key consumer insights. Moreover, the target positioning of the product was a misfit for the product category.
nOakes, Senior Circuit Judge: This is a citizen's suit under the Clean Water Act * * *. The suit arises on account of the liquid manure spreading operations of a large dairy farm in western New York * * *. [T]he case proceeded to jury trial. * * * Following a jury verdict in plaintiffs' favor on five CWA violations and the state law trespass claim, the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, David Larimer, Judge, granted judgment to the defendants as a matter of law on the five CWA violations. * * * The court left standing the verdict and damages of $4,101 on the trespass count.
According to the book “Dumping is a term apparently coined by Mother Jones magazine to refer to the practice of exporting to other countries products that have been banned or declared hazardous in the United States”. (Shaw, 2005) There are other sources for the meaning of dumping though. One of these can be found at stfrancis.edu, which says dumping is “when a foreign company sells their products or services in a market at a price which is below their cost of production in order to gain market share.” (Powers) With the first definition we can see that it’s morally wrong. You are selling products that have been proven to be bad for people to use. It doesn’t matter how much damage it could cause, you are intentionally harming people.