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.
Who held them and why? How did the Supreme Court choose from among them and why? What were the effects of this choice? The Lochner case is one of great significance because it deals with such issues as police powers, Laissez-Faire ideal, and due process. The Bakeshop Act regulated the amount of hours that bakery employees were allowed to work and restricted them to ten hours per day and sixty hours per week.
Citation: Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) Parties: Luis E. Melendez: Petitioner Facts: Petitioner was tried in state court on charges for distributing cocaine and trafficked in cocaine, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws and the prosecution entered into evidence certificates signed by state laboratory analysts, which stated that evidence seized from the petitioner was cocaine. The state called no witness to allow cross examination on the veracity of the report, but relied instead on a state law allowing affidavits of lab analysis to be admitted. Petitioner objected to admission of the certificates, claiming that their admission violated his right under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to confront the analysts who signed the certificates, but the trial court overruled the objection and admitted the certificates under Mass. Gen. Laws.
BUSN 513 Case Study 2 Case Study 2 – SK Hynix 1. Within the SK Hynix case, three arguments – property, fair competition and confidentiality – come into play. The first argument is that trade secrets are property and would have belonged to Toshiba/Sandisk as intellectual property; that the research data on the cutting edge NAND-type flash memory was a direct result of Toshiba’s labor and thus belonged to the company. Boatright clarifies further in the text by saying, “it would be wrong for a worker in the factory to disclose the details of a manufacturing process to a competitor, especially if the employee had been sworn to secrecy”; however, Boatright also says that ownership of a trade secret doesn’t confer a right to exclusive use but only the right to have the secret wrongfully acquired by others. In the case of Wexler vs Greenberg, we found that the owner of a trade secret is protected against the use of the information by others when it is wrongfully obtained by impermissible means (like theft).
A jury convicted Respondent. Statement and Discussion of the Legal Issues in Dispute: There are two issues regarding Section:10(b) and Section:14(e). The first issue is whether Respondent violated Section:10(b) and Rule 10b-5 when he misappropriated nonpublic information to personally benefit through the trading of securities. The second issue is whether Rule 14e-3(a) exceeds the SEC’s rule-making authority as granted by the Securities and Exchange Act. Subject Court Final Decision: Respondent did violate Section:10(b) and Rule 10b-5 because all of the element of the rule were met.
The answer admitted the allegation. Paragraph 2 of the complaint alleged that the defendant is a manufacturer of the Squealer I and Squealer II bacon slicer. The answer admitted the allegation. Paragraph 3 of the complaint alleged that the defendant is responsible for manufacturing, design, servicing, and repair of the units, as well as making sure that proper warnings, signs, and instructions were present. The answer denies the allegation.
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.
On asking about freight cost to Murphy, Peter came to know that after the order would be delivered, Peabody will claim that some carpet was damaged in shipment to the store and Peter would be expected to forge a damaged freight report for defective merchandise compensation board of Scott’s Carpet and to rectify this Peabody would be offered a discount equal to the cost of shipping the rolls of carpet back to the warehouse for replacement. Peter was notified that this is a standard practice that is followed by most of the suppliers. Peter was basically being asked to lie in very simple words but Peter since his childhood was taught not to lie or steal. Peter reviewed the conversation and realized that he had two options either to quit or to simply ignore the conversation with Murphy as there was no official documentation that Murphy had
Georges Krammer, an employee of the French company Technip, whichalong with KBR was a member of the consortium, was charged by the French governmentfor embezzlement. When Technip refused to defend Krammer, he turned around and aired what he perceived to be Technip’s dirty linen. This included the payments to Tesler to secure the Nigeria LNG contracts. 3. Given the known corruption of the Abacha government in Nigeria, should Kelloggand its successor, KBR, have had a policy in place to deal
[Tom v S.S. Kresge Co., Inc 633 P.2d 439( Ariz. App. 1981)] Negligence is what the Mae Tom can claim as the tort. However, I strongly believe that she can recover from her juries with the claims she currently has against Kresge’s. The store owner failed to protect the customer’s from injuries which it is required to keep the store in a safe condition for the customers. There would be no accident if the store floor was not wet from in the first place.