Brown vs. Board of Education Brown vs. Board of Education is the first case to set a positive example for educators in relation to the rights of the students. This case acknowledges the fact that an African American student should be able to white student’s schools. This case was so exemplary because it was the first case to set a standard of integration instead of segregation. Brown vs. Board of Education is such a famous case because it not only gave African American students a right to a better
Premium Education Southern United States Virginia
situation that violated the MIA By Law and explain why. (8 marks) The first situation that violated the MIA By Law is this case is when Ariff Al-Hakim & Associates‚ a Chartered Accountant (CA) firm has been approached by Aminurrashid & Co‚ also a Chartered Accountant (CA) firm to undertake a financial statement audit of VCE Construdtion Work Sdn Bhd for the year ended 30th September 2011. However‚ this situation shows indirectly violation of the MIA By Law as the audit firm can ask the other
Free Auditor's report Audit Auditing
Employment Law Brief The Clapton Commercial Construction Company located in Detroit‚ Michigan‚ is planning to expand its business into the state of Arizona. It is a medium-sized company with 650 employees and possibly increasing an additional 20% in the new state. Prior to the move‚ the human resources (HR) department must be aware of applicable employment laws that may affect the business. Outlined below are brief summaries and consequences for noncompliance of the following employment laws: Title
Premium Employment Law United States
Part a) Legal position enabling expulsion of Annabel from the partnership. Step 1:- The problem at hand deals with Partnership law as governed by the Partnership Act 1895 in the absence of a written agreement. Principles of Common law and Equitable principles also apply. Partnership Act governs the partnership of ‘Health Plus’. Sec. 30 of the Act‚ as it relates to misappropriation of partnership property. The application of Sec. 39 Partnership Act 1895 and the Fiduciary Duty breached. Supreme
Premium Partnership Contract
struck his vehicle onto the plaintiff resulting in the death of her child even though the child was a fetus at the time of the accident. Conclusion: The plaintiff’s motion to recover damages for the wrongful death of her child would be denied. Under case 370 Md. 227‚ 804 A.2d 1151 in a similar suit as to the one we are doing the plaintiff was not able to recover for the loss of her child as a result of a car
Premium Automobile Family Ethics
is a mere appendage of Eastfield Ltd. This being the case‚ it is necessary to examine the exact relationship between Capital Pty Ltd and Eastfield Ltd and determine the likelihood of the courts lifting the corporate veil. Separate Entity Salomon v Salomon & Co established the key principle that an “incorporated company is a separate legal entity from its founder‚ shareholders and directors”. To further this point‚ the Albazero case provided authority within a group of companies‚ whereby
Premium Corporation Subsidiary Parent company
contractual liability. There are three differences between liability and contractual liability: A. The difference of base. Contractual liability means that due to the breach of duty‚ contractual collateral obligation of contract or violates the "contract law" provisions of the obligations. Finding out a contractual liability has to be in terms of contract. However‚ there are no needs for liability‚ which point liability are monetary damages that are sought from the offending party. They are intended to
Premium Tort Tort law
Business Law Common Law Assignment Hayley Gramson Student No. 17004217 Word Count 1003 a) In a letter dated 14/02/2011‚ the manager (Dave) of Excellent Foods (EF) outlined conditions in writing to the manager (Ben) of Safe Foods (SF) in relation to the purchase of EF. These conditions were that SF must pay the valued amount of EF‚ which totaled $120‚000‚ $30‚000 more than the original amount that SF had been prepared to pay and stipulated
Premium Contract
INDIAN CONTRACT ACT 1. S. 124 - Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar v Moreshwar Madan Mantri (Indemnity) (Plaintiff‚ at the request of the defendant‚ executed two mortgages in favour of Mohandas. Defendant wrote a letter promising to indemnify the plaintiff against any suits by the mortgagee‚ along with executing a third mortgage in place of the previous two. Plaintiff prays that the defendant obtains a release of liability from Mohandas; Issues: 1) Can the indemnified ask for performance of the contract
Premium Contract Legal terms Contractual term
Business Law Case Study Module 4 PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT: The Parties – Alex Johnson vs. Bethlehem Ice Solutions Opening Argument Those familiar with skiing know that there are risks involved when one chooses to participate in the sport. Those risks‚ however‚ should be associated with self-inflicted harm caused by mistakes that a skier may make and not unforeseen obstacles and dangerous situations. The injuries sustained by Alex Johnson on the slopes at Bethlehem Ice Solutions (BIS) were not
Premium Law Common law Contract