Frigaliment v. B.N.S Facts: Frigaliment sued B.N.S. There were two contracts that involved selling chickens. In the first contract B.N.S was in agreeance with selling 75‚000 pounds of 2.5-3 pounds of chicken‚ to Frigaliment. 50‚000 pounds of chicken at 2.5-3 pounds at a higher price were agreed in the second contract. B.N.S fulfilled the first contract with two shipments. The first shipment fell short. B.N.S made up for the short shipment in their second shipment. Frigaliment accused B.N.S of shipping
Premium
Opinion on the Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue Case As the opinion delivered by Justice Stevens‚ the U.S. Supreme Court intended to answer the significant question in Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue‚ Inc. (Mosley case) that “whether objective proof of actual injury to the economic value of a famous mark is a requisite for relief under the 1996 Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA)”. 1 Contrary to lower courts’ holdings‚ the Supreme Court stated in a unanimous decision that it is not enough to claim
Premium Trademark Property Supreme Court of the United States
ASHCROFT v. FREE SPEECH COALITION 198 F. 3d 1083‚ affirmed. ( No. 00-795 ) (6-3) Kennedy‚ A. for the majority. FACTS: In Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition‚ the Supreme Court was given the task of deciding whether or not the Child Pornography Prevention Act or CPPA violated the First Amendment. If a violation of the First Amendment was proven the CPPA would have been found unconstitutional. The Free Speech Coalition‚ a part of the adult entertainment industry‚ felt that the language and ultimately
Premium
Derek Brown Professor Janet Smith Employment Law BA370 1 August 2011 BACHELDER V. AMERICAN WEST AIRLINES The legal issue in this case is Penny Bachelder claims her employer‚ America West Airlines‚ violated the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 ("FMLA" or "the Act") when it terminated her in 1996 for poor attendance. Bachelder countered that according to the regulations implementing the FMLA‚ she was entitled to have her leave eligibility calculated by the method most favorable to her. Under
Premium United States Law Employment
Citation: Powell V U.S. No. 405‚ Supreme Court of the United States‚ 1968‚ 392 U.S. 514‚ 88 S. Ct. 2145 L. Ed 2d 1254‚ 1968 U.S. 1140. Facts: Leroy Powell was arrested December‚ 1966 for public intoxication‚ which is in violation of Texas state law. Powell was found guilty and fined. He appealed and at trial Powell argued that he was not at fault for his behavior due to chronic alcoholism‚ which is a disease. He further argued that punishing him for his behavior was cruel and unusual behavior‚ a
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Law
investigators get the training and knowledge they need prior to conducting even one interview. They also should have classes yearly that reinforce and go over any changes in the law. One case that every company with union employees need to understand is the landmark case of NLRB v. J. Weingarten‚ Inc. (CASE INFO) During the course of an investigatory interview‚ the employee asked for and was denied the presence
Premium Police Interview Interrogation
Kelo v. City of New London 125 S.Ct. 2655 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 2009) Facts: In 1998‚ the city of New London‚ Connecticut‚ authorized a $3.5 million bond issue in support of plans initiated by the New London Development Corporation (NLDC). This decision followed a state designation of the area as a “distressed municipality” and the closing of a US Naval facility‚ which employed over 15‚000 people. The NLDC plans proposed the development of about 90 acres of land in the Fort Trumbull area of New London
Premium Eminent domain Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
The competitive advantage of the College Football Hall of Fame has the potential to be very strong. What makes the CFHOF hard to duplicate is that it offers a hands-on‚ personalized‚ customer experience that is driven by technology. The CFHOF also has an ideal sized facility‚ which allows for the technology-driven attraction to get a good value for the cost of operations. An attraction that is too big might find it too expensive to depend so heavily on similar technology‚ while a facility too small
Premium Marketing Strategic management Higher education
Running head: Terry v. Ohio‚ 392 U.S. 1 Case Brief of Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 October 4‚ 2014 Facts At approximately 2:30 in the afternoon‚ while patrolling a downtown beat in plain clothes‚ Detective McFadden observed two men (later identified as Terry and Chilton) standing on a street corner. The two men walked back and forth an identical route a total of 24 times‚ pausing to stare inside a store window. After the completion of walking the route‚ the two men would
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Terry v. Ohio
agent that she ought to follow up on the legitimate instruction of the principal. Ian should not cheated Sarah. She must followed Sarah instruction to sold artwork. To obey the principal’s instructions- Section 164‚ Contracts Act 1950 . In Bostock v Jardine‚ the agent was liable when he bought more than he was directed to buy. Ian must showing accounts and return of undue profit. It is the duty of an agent that she ought to keep up the records appropriately and submit it to the principal on her
Premium Fiduciary Agency law Agency