FACTS: Appellee (Midwest Distribution‚ Inc.)‚ who is in the business of setting up cigarette product displays‚ contracted to hire appellant (Moore) in 2001 to work at its Fort Smith office. Upon accepting employment‚ appellant signed an employment contract‚ a “Service work for Hire Agreement” with appellee that contained a non-compete agreement – in which appellant agreed that for one year following the termination of employment‚ he would not compete or provide services in substantially similar
Premium Contract Employment Trial court
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. M/s. L.K. Ahuja & Co. In respect of certain contracts of work assigned by the appellant certain disputes having been arisen‚ the matter was referred to arbitration. Two awards were made and the same were filed in the court of the Civil Judge in two Title (Arbitration) Suits Nos. 37/86 and 40/86. By a common order‚ the trial court made the awards rule of court in entirety and decrees were drawn in terms thereof. An appeal was filed against the said common order before
Premium Arbitration Court Arbitral tribunal
Title: R. v. Hufsky‚ [1988] 1 S.C.R 621 Parties: Werner E. J. Hufsky – Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen - Respondent Decision: Appeal was dismissed Notions/Concepts: Constitutional Law Criminal Law Equality before the law Charter of Rights and Freedoms Arbitrary detention Unreasonable Search Refusal to provide breath sample Facts: Appellant was stopped at a random spot check by police Nothing unusual about his driving at the time of the spot check Spot check was for the purposes
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Supreme Court of the United States
and CALLINAN JJ ERMOGENOUS‚ Spyridon APPELLANT v GREEK ORTHODOX COMMUNITY OF SA INC RESPONDENT 3. BRIEF STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS. [1] The appellant alleged that he had been employed by the respondent since 18 March 1970 but had not received any entitlements to annual leave or long service leave upon termination of his employment in December 1993. The Magistrate from the Industrial Relations Court of South Australia found in favour of the appellant in the first instance but the Supreme
Premium Appeal Contract Supreme Court of the United States
however‚ later agreed with Roberts to buy the wheat at that (high) price but eventually failed to do so. Durant resold it at a loss and sued them for loss. Durant – Plaintiff at court of 1st instance Roberts – appellant in Court of appeal‚ respondent in House of Lords. K & Co – appellant in House of Lords. Issue Whether a contract made by a man purporting and professing to act on his own behalf alone‚ and not on behalf of a principal‚ but having an undisclosed intention to give the benefit of
Premium Appeal Contract
dated 23-6-2004 granted graded / running / regular pay as well as seniority from 27-7-1991 in this letter it is clearly mentioned “that those employees are considered regular from the date from where they have been given graded pay”. According to appellant when he was getting graded pay from 27-7-1991‚ from this date he was granted seniority‚ but now the honorable Secretary to the KPK finance Deptt. Vide letter No. FD(PRC) 5-2-2002 dated Peshawar the 30-10-2009 in the light of the decision of honorable
Premium Supreme Court of the United States The Honourable According to Jim
presence of weapons should not constitute section 230 (d)‚ as he believes that it imposes a certain degree of absolute criminal liability when it shouldn’t apply‚ as Vaillancourt had no mens rea present. Summary of The Facts The accomplice of the appellant
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Law United States Constitution
CHOON v GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA In this case the appellant had been arrested and detained under a warrant issued under the provisions of the Restricted Residence Enactment. The appellant had not been produced before a Magistrate within twenty-four hours of his arrest. He claimed damages but it was held that no action could be brought against the police officer as he was acting in compliance with a warrant issued by a competent authority. The appellant appealed but before the appeal was heard the Federal
Premium Law Malaysia Appeal
there was an error in law made. Holy Cross Parish‚ the appellant‚ has made it known that the contractors they hired failed to disclose any information pertaining the damages and irregularities. The appellant had the idea that the job would be performed correctly and no issues were brought to their eyes. The contractor also knew of the issues but did not inform anything to the appellant which was misleading. Also the architect and the appellant had a fiduciary relationship but because he remained silent
Premium Management Employment Project management
Lord Wright and Sir Lancelot Sandreson. The appellant: Richard Thorold Grant The material facts of the case: The underwear‚ consisting of two pairs of underpants and two siglets was bought by appellant at the shop of the respondents. The retailer had purchased them with other stock from the manufacturer. The appellant put on one suit and by the evening he felt itching on the ankles. Next day a redness appeared on each ankle. The appellant treated himself with calomine lotion but the irritation
Premium Clothing Supreme Court of the United States Supreme court