A. Known Facts John wanted to extend his house and built an office from there. He approached Sue after locating an advertisement from the Yellow Pages. As Sue’s price did not seem reasonable‚ John then approached Drawit Pty Ltd‚ which charged a hundred dollar less. John paid a deposit. Later‚ John went to Franks Hardware and Timber Yard. He made known to Frank‚ the sole proprietor‚ the purpose and requirement of the materials and placed an order. John signed a standard form contract
Premium Contract Contract law
Case: M.Caratan V. Commissioner (71-1 USTC ¶9353) ISSUE: whether the employee-taxpayers were entitled to exclude from their gross incomes the value of lodging furnished to them by their employer‚ M. Caratan‚ Inc.‚ under section 119 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. FACTS: The company‚ M. Caratan‚ Inc‚had a policy‚ established by the taxpayers in their capacity as corporate officers and directors‚ that required supervisory and management personnel to reside on the farm. Company-owned lodging
Premium Corporation Taxation in the United States Tax
she is a victim of a medical malpractice and of Texas’ newly reformed tort laws. Texas lawmakers unanimously passed a tort reform package in 2003 which topped noneconomic damages that a plaintiff could receive in medical malpractice at $250‚000. That became the negligence standard for emergency care. It also required an expert witness to substantiate evidence of negligence before a trial. Tort reform advocates approve the law as a way to reduce frivolous lawsuits against health care providers and organizations
Premium Medicine Health care Physician
Legal Issues in Management Final Case Study Christine Stout Southern Oregon University Business law – case study The case study of John and Stacey has so many complicated elements that apparently all the stakeholders involved apart from the two mentioned could sue or be sued against. This paper assumes that this is the scenario for this paper. The characters involved are John and Stacy‚ a restaurant owner‚ the owner of a townhouse‚ the owner of the mink on which John tripped and subsequently
Premium Contract Law
Case Digests in Administrative Law by Mark Anthony N. Manuel 2012 PEOPLE vs. VERA G.R. No. L-45685 November 16‚ 1937 FACTS: This case involves the constitutionality of the old probation law. Respondent Cu Unjieng was convicted by the trial court in Manila. He filed for reconsideration which was elevated to the SC and the SC remanded the appeal to the lower court for a new trial. While awaiting new trial‚ he appealed for probation under the provisions of Act No. 4221. Judge Tuason of the
Premium Separation of powers Legislature Law
This case is a perfect illustration of the importance of having clear and concise and up to date policies and procedures. It is cases like this that show the benefits of being accredited and helps to bring understand to the very reason the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies standards were developed (CALEA‚ n.d.). This case had several areas of concern‚ many of which could have been avoided by having a policy like we have been speaking about. One of the first issues is the practice
Premium Law Common law Crime
Cipla v Roche – Generics Industry Rejoices! For the last two years‚ the Delhi High Court has been the battle ground for a pharmaceutical war between Roche and Cipla over Roche’s patent for the anticancer drug ‘erlotinib’‚ sold by Roche as ’Tarceva’. On 24 April 2009‚ the Division bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed Roche’s appeal against the refusal of a single judge to grant an injunction restraining Cipla from manufacturing‚ offering for sale‚ selling and exporting its generic version of ‘erlotinib’
Premium Patent application Patent Patentability
The doctor believes that providing treatment for Martin as soon as possible is best thing to do since the doctor catches the bladder cancer early before it spreads to other body parts‚ and cause more damage. As soon as Martin agrees and the doctor starts the procedure‚ the better chance Martin has of living a full life. Martin refuse to listen to anything the doctor and other health care team have to say. He clearly made his mind that the doctor has no idea what he is talking about and denying treatment
Premium Patient Physician Medicine
PBUS01—Summer 2013 Final Project Name: Alice 1. Case Name‚ Citation‚ and Court PETROLEUM REFRACTIONATING CORPORATION v.KENDRICK OIL CO. 65 F.2d 997 (1933) No. 774. Circuit Court of Appeals‚ Tenth Circuit. 2. Key Facts A. The Kendrick Company ordered a special grade of oil 1‚500‚000 gallons‚ 10% more or less from the Petroleum Corporation on January 15‚ 1932. B. Under the terms of the contract‚ the Petroleum Corporation agreed either to sell and deliver the oil or to discontinue making
Premium Contract Law Consideration
ARAÑES VS. OCCIANO (Judges Solmenizing Marriage) Mercedita Arañes filed charges against Judge Salvador Occiano of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Batalan‚ Camarines Sur with Gross Ignorance of Law. Occiano solemnized Arañes’ marriage without the requisite marriage license in latter’s house which is outside judge’s jurisdiction. Arañes was not able to claim her right to inherit his deceased husband’s property and she was deprived of receiving her husband’s pension. Occiano avers that the ceremony
Premium Marriage Psychology Family therapy