ADR Clause Business Law 531 March 3‚ 2009 Veronica M. Moss University of Phoenix Professor: Benjamin Cormier ADR Clause Every dispute‚ disparity‚ or question which may at any time arise among the team members‚ relating to or taking place in regard to the functions of the learning team or any matter relating to the relations of the learning team members or the leadership of the learning team shall be sent to an appropriate arbitration party which shall be resolved by binding
Premium Dispute resolution Arbitration Alternative dispute resolution
Entrepreneurship Law Final Exam 1. Who owns the CadWatt Solar cell technology? What rights‚ if any can SSC claim on it? SSC owned the technology‚ because the invention related to the SSC’s business and he had used some of SSC’s resources (namely‚ his SSC computer and SSC training sessions) when developing it. 2. What can Pierre do to make his departure from SSC amicable? Should he have left sooner? What ongoing obligations does he have to SSC? Pierre should consider returning
Premium Venture capital Initial public offering
[Cite as Pusey v. Bator‚ 94 Ohio St.3d 275‚ 2002-Ohio-795.] PUSEY‚ EXR.‚ APPELLANT‚ v. BATOR ET AL.; GREIF BROTHERS CORPORATION‚ APPELLEE. [Cite as Pusey v. Bator (2002)‚ 94 Ohio St.3d 275.] Torts — Wrongful death — Employer hires independent contractor to provide armed security guards to protect property — Inherently dangerous work exception — If someone is injured by weapon as a result of a guard’s negligence‚ employer is vicariously liable even though guard responsible is an employee of the
Premium Security guard
The preliminary issue in the question is fast food restaurant is vicariously liable for the Cathy’s negligence. Since the concerns about the law of tort‚ the following analysis will focus on the possible tortuous liability instead of the potential breach of the contractual obligation and the criminal acts. In principle of vicarious liability‚ to make an employer liable for a wrong committed by an employee‚ the plaintiff must establish that: 1. defendant is an employee ( as opposed to an independent
Premium Tort law Employment Vicarious liability
from the High Court decision in Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Dredge “Willemstad” (1976). Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Dredge “Wilemstad” (1976) and Perre & Ors v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) has been important cases in the history of Tort Law. Negligence is a complex term including advertent and inadvertent acts and omissions where there has been a failure to take reasonable care to prevent loss‚ damage or injury to others whom they could reasonably have foreseen might have been injured
Premium Tort Common law Tort law
In the case of the State of confusion scenario‚ there could be many questions‚ and hypothetical answers surrounding this case. However‚ in this case both parties‚ Tanya Trucker and the State of Confusion are technically private entities; therefore‚ logically both parties should go to a civil court. In civil court‚ the plaintiff Tanya Trucker can charge State of Confusion in civil litigation and reimburses the plaintiff for loses caused by the defendant’s behavior of forcing it to use a certain type
Premium United States Constitution United States Congress Injunction
International College of Business and Human Resources Development Common Law Assignment 1 BMT: 387-09-09 Task 1(P1) A contract may be defined as an agreement which legally binds the parties. A party to a contract is bound because he has agreed to be bound. The underlying theory then is that a contract is the outcome of ‘consenting minds’. Parties are not judged by what is in their minds what they have said‚ written or done. Contracts are
Premium Contract Tort Common law
MULTIPLE CHOICES 1. Employment and Labor Regulations - Major Labor Relations Acts‚ Norris-La Guardia Act‚ Injunctions Prohibited‚ “yellow-dog” contracts. C.16‚ p.481 Employees agree not to join a union or risk being fired if they do. 2. Employment and Labor Regulations - Major Labor Relations Acts‚ The Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959‚ what does the Landrum-Griffin Act provide to protect union members? C.16‚ p.482 Act intended to assure that union members are protected from improper actions
Premium Supreme Court of the United States
home. He has not notified the Department of Environment and Conservation that he owns a magpie. Has Jerry breached the Act Apply (a) the literal rule‚ and (b) the purposive approach. Issue 1 Has Jerry breached the Act according to the literal rule Law According to the literal rule of statutory interpretation‚ we should always begin by reading a legal text literally‚ with words and phrases given their ordinary and natural meanings Fisher v Bell 1961 1 QB 394 Application Did Jerry permit a magpie to
Premium Meaning of life
Definition – the law of Trust determines the relationship among trustee‚ trustor and beneficiaries over the property. Trustor means owner of the property‚ which enjoys extended bundle of rights over his property. Trustee is a person who manages the property. Beneficiary: A beneficiary is anyone who receives benefits from any assets the trust owns. We have two types of trust. First division of types: First is Inter Vivos - the management of the property during one’s lifetime. Mortis Causa –
Premium Trust law Fiduciary Trustee