Gilford Motor Co V S Horne(1933) Horne was appointed Managing Director Gilford Motor Co 6-year term. He appointed by a written agreement says he will not solicit customers for their own purposes and whether he is a general manager or after he left. In order to avoid the effect of the agreement‚ Horne left Gilford Motor Co. and started his own company. Johnson’s company provides car accessories of Gilford Motor Co’s car in a weaken price and the shareholder of Gilford Motor being his associate in
Premium Subsidiary Subsidiary Corporation
EBC I‚ INC.‚ Formerly Known as eTOYS‚ INC.‚ by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of EBC I‚ Inc.‚ Respondent‚ v. GOLDMAN‚ SACHS & CO.‚ Appellant. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. 5 N.Y.3d 11 (2005) Before Chief Judge KAYE and Judges G.B. SMITH‚ ROSENBLATT‚ GRAFFEO and R.S. SMITH concur with Judge CIPARICK. Judge READ dissents in part in a separate opinion. OPINION OF THE COURT CIPARICK‚ J. Plaintiff‚ the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of EBC I‚ Inc.‚ formerly known
Premium Initial public offering
principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.” In Bowles v. Virginia Soapstone Co.‚ the judge ruled: “expert testimony is a useful and necessary adjunct to the administration of justice‚ and a capable expert can often throw much light upon dark places; but the force of expert testimony must‚ after all‚ in large measure depend upon the reasons that the witness is able to give for the opinions which he expresses.” In Bird v. Commonwealth‚ the court found: "All persons who practice a business
Premium Law Jury Evidence law
ZHENG v. LIBERTY APPAREL COMPANY INC 88 91 998 103 Ling Nan ZHENG‚ Ren Zhu Yang‚ Yun Zhen Huang‚ Wen Qin Lin‚ Sai Bing Wang‚ Ye Biao Yang‚ Cui Zhen Lin‚ Rong Yun Zheng‚ Hui Fang Lin‚ Xiu Ying Zheng‚ Jin Ping Lin‚ Hui Ming Dong‚ Yu Bing Luo‚ Sau Chi Kwok‚ Sai Xian Tang‚ Yi Zhen Lin‚ Rui Fang Zhang‚ Mei Juan Yu‚ Mei Ying Li‚ Qin Fang Qiu‚ Yi Mei Lin‚ Mei Zhu Dong‚ Fung Lam‚ Xiu Zhu Ye‚ Sing Kei Lam‚ and Xue Jin Lin‚ Plaintiffs-Appellants‚ v. LIBERTY APPAREL COMPANY INC.‚ Albert Nigri‚ and Hagai Laniado
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Employment
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] Q.B. 256 (C.A.) Facts The Defendants were a medical company named “Carbolic Smoke Ball”. Who manufactured and sold a product called the "smoke ball"‚ a cure for influenza and a number of other diseases. The company published advertisements in the Pall Mall Gazette and other newspapers on November 13‚ 1891‚ claiming that it would pay £100 to anyone who got sick with influenza after using its product three times a day for two weeks‚ according to the
Premium Contract Invitation to treat
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.‚ 05-1074 Summary of one or more of the main legal arguments: It seems this class has made me realize how tricky the justice system can be. I have been coaxed into reading more and more about the law and realizing that everything is not as black and white as it seems. For this legal research paper I decided to analyze the law concerning pay discrimination. This is a subject dear to my heart‚ as I believe I witnessed some of this first hand in relation to
Premium Discrimination Supreme Court of the United States
LEGAL ISSUE R. Williams Construction Company v. OSHRC is a case regarding the rules and regulations of OSHA verse the practices of a construction company. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Act) is a government regulated organization that was created to ensure the safety of employees while on the job. The regulations of OSHA have been put in place to eliminate and/or reduce the number of on the job injuries and deaths. Therefore‚ legal issue of this case is whether or not the courts should
Premium Occupational safety and health Employment Construction
Middle eastern. South Asians‚ Hispanic (fast growing race) and other ethnicities need to be considered. EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores‚ Inc. No. CV-04-4731 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10‚ 2004) a lawsuit filed against Abercrombie & Fitch on behalf of a class of African Americans‚ Asian Americans‚ Latinos‚ and women allegedly subjected to discrimination in recruitment‚ hiring‚ assignment
Premium Race United States Discrimination
Ermina Dedic Legal Brief 1 Name of Case: Dow Chemical Co. v United States. Court: U.S. Supreme Court Citation: 476 U.S. 227 (1986) Parties and their roles: Dow Chemical (Plaintiffs/Petitioner) and United States (Defendants/ Respondents) Facts: Dow Chemical operates a two-thousand-acre chemical plant at Midland‚ Michigan. The facility‚ with numerous buildings‚ conduits‚ and pipes‚ are visible from the air. Dow has maintained ground security at the
Premium United States Law Appeal
1/23/2015 BURNETT v. WESTMINSTER BANK‚ LTD. | Islamicbanker’s Weblog Islamicbanker’s Weblog Just another WordPress.com weblog BURNETT v. WESTMINSTER BANK‚ LTD. BURNETT v. WESTMINSTER BANK‚ LTD. QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION [1966] 1 QB 742‚ [1965] 3 All ER 81‚ [1965] 3 WLR 863‚ [1965] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 218‚ 8 Legal Decisions Affecting Bankers 424 HEARING-DATES: 31 May‚ 1‚ 25 June 1965 25 June 1965 CATCHWORDS: Bank — Cheque — Condition restricting use — New cheque book on bank’s change to computer mechanisation
Premium Bank Cheque Contract