Issue The challenge in this case is to make a decision whether the book written by David is legitimately legal does not against the copyright of earlier published articles‚ or it is classified as an infringement work that copy the existed paper. Rules This particular case concerns about intellectual property law that emphasize on copyright law protection. Copyright is the exclusive rights to protect the original work from copied by the other people. The law of copyright does protect the expression
Premium Property Copyright Intellectual property
Commerce 2603 Summer‚ 2013 Assignment Case Distribution Date: May 15. 2013 Jim Jones was a B.Comm student at Ivory Tower University in Halifax‚ and played hockey for the "Commerce A11-Stars” in the ITU inter-faculty league. Bob Black‚ of the ITU Law School‚ played for the "Law School Lumpers" in the same league. One evening‚ Jim checked Bob heavily into the boards during a game. Bob retaliated‚ as he fell‚ by slashing Jim across the back of the neck with his hockey stick. The slash
Premium Automobile
their ordinary‚ dictionary meaning‚ with no exceptions. Lord Esher stated in R v Judge of the City of London Court (1892) that this should be done even if it leads to a ’manifest absurdity’. Judges who follow this rule‚ only apply the law and do not try to interpret the law. Advantages • Provides the will of parliament • Maintains the separation of powers • Encourages consistency Disadvantages • Harsh results • Absurd results • Rigid/ mechanical • Defeats parliaments intentions - Whiteley
Premium Marriage Parliament
Facts: A Case of Cold Pizza Lee Chambers‚ the Defendant was driving 10 km over the speed limit while making pizza deliveries using the company van. To avoid hitting a dog‚ he had incidentally skidded sideways on a patch of ice and crashed into another vehicle. Alice White‚ the plaintiff who was not wearing a seatbelt at the time had suffered numerous injuries. The Plaintiff had sued Lee Chambers and Vinnie’s Pizza Ltd. for general and special damages along with cost of car repairs‚ and loss of
Premium Tort Tort law
wCASE LAW * STILK v MYRICK (Law Of Contract: Rules of Consideration-m/s 18) Facts: the captain of a ship promises his crew that if they shared between them the work of two seamen who had deserted‚ the wages of the deserters would be shared out between them. Held: the promise was not binding because the seamen gave no consideration. They were already contractually bound to do any extra work to complete the voyage. * HEARTLEY v PONSONBY (Law Of Contract: Rules of Consideration-m/s 18) Facts:
Premium Contract Contract law
[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
Page 1 All ER Reprints/[1914-15] All ER Rep /Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheep Breeders ’ Association and another - [1914-15] All ER Rep 900 Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheep Breeders ’ Association and another [1914-15] All ER Rep 900 Also reported [1915] 1 Ch 881; 84 LJ Ch 688; 113 LT 159; 59 Sol Jo 478 CHANCERY DIVISION ASTBURY J 4‚ 25 MARCH 1915 31 MARCH 1915 Arbitration - Submission - Article of company - Application for membership of company and acceptance Rule for all disputes
Premium Contract
McCormick v Nowland (1985) ATPR 40-852 This case is to be contrasted with McCormick v Nowland (1985) ATPR 40-852 in which the vendor’s real estate agent falsely represented that the vendor’s house was made of brick and that the swimming pool in the back yard was adjacent to a public park. The Court here held that a real estate agent owes a duty of care to a purchaser with respect to the information supplied about the property. Pincus J found that the agent had been negligent in respect of the
Premium Real estate Law Common law
approached a Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum‚ Ahmedabad (rural) and demanded Rs 5 lakh from the company towards compensation. During the hearing‚ the consumer forum sent the sample to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation’s laboratory for analysis. After hearing the case‚ the consumer forum asked the company to return the amount of Rs 8 back to Rajan. Besides‚ the forum also asked the company to pay Rs 4‚000 towards compensation for causing mental torture and towards litigation cost. Rajan was not
Premium United States Service of process Gujarat
“self-protection”‚ is carefully reviewed by assigned third party arbitrator. It is understood that any claim of medical malpractice‚ including any claims from Nittany Regional Medical center‚ arbitration party has carefully reviewed of legal laws and previous similar cases prior to binding this arbitration clause. The Arbitration party has concluded that suspension of Mr. Kevin Hyer was not fair‚ therefor we have come up with that suspension of Mr. Kevin Hyper shall be removed from his record and Nittany
Premium Nursing Arbitration