Asfar and Co v Blundell (1896) 1 QB 123 Court of Appeal (Lord Esher MR‚ Lopes and Kay LJJ) Dates no longer merchantable as dates Facts A vessel‚ on board which dates had been shipped‚ was sunk during the course of the voyage‚ and subsequently raised. On arrival at the port of discharge it was found that‚ although the dates still retained the appearance of dates‚ and although they were of some value for the purpose of distillation into spirit‚ they were so impregnated with sewage and in such a
Premium Shipping Cargo Transport
Facts: Touche(defendant)‚ a public accounting firm was hired by Fred Stern & Co. to audit its record and to prepare and certify a balance sheet exhibiting Fred Stern financial health. Touche was aware that this balance sheet would be shown by Fred Stern to shareholders and banks for financial dealing. Touch certified greater assets than liabilities to be in excess of $1million of which in fact the business was actually insolvent and the statement prepared by Fred Stern was false. Fred Stern said
Premium Securities Act of 1933 Accountant Profession
In article “You Asked for it‚ You got it…Toy Yoda: Practical Jokes‚ Prizes and Contract Law” by Keith A. Rowley‚ the professor of the University of Nevada‚ is discussing a case of Berry v Gulf Coast Wings Inc. The case gathered a lot of attention of the legal world and extensive press coverage at the time. A 26-year-old Jodee Berry was working as a waitress in Hooters restaurant in Panama City‚ Florida. In April 2001‚ all the waitresses were informed by their manager‚ Jared Blair‚ that a month-long
Premium Contract
S.H.A.R.K. v. Metro Parks Serving Summit County United States Court of Appeals‚ Ninth Judicial District 499 F3d 553 (2009) MOORE‚ Presiding Judge Rule of Law: The Privacy Protection Act (PPA) and the First Amendment rights were brought into question by the Plaintiffs. The judges ruled out the violation of the First Amendment rights and focused on the Privacy Protection Act as the main claimed offense. FACTS: Steve Hindi is the founder of S.H.A.R.K‚ a non-profit corporation that exposes
Free Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution
MY TRADING JOURNEY 14TH October 2014 X` Introduc?on INTRODUCTION MY TRADING JOURNEY LESSONS WHAT I REALLY WANT TO TELL YOU 2009 ～ 2012 River Valley High School X` Introduc?on INTRODUCTION MY TRADING JOURNEY LESSONS WHAT I REALLY
Premium Years in the future
address. He also stated that the court had ordered garnishment of Ms. Wright’s wages and she needed to contact him to settle the matter. The jury found that these words were defamatory and assessed the general damages at $40‚000. Judgment was confirmed by D. Wilson .J. The appellant submitted that the spoken words were defamatory however the jury’s assessment of damages is patently excessive and out of proportion with the proper compensation for the type of injury suffered by the respondent and should be
Premium Jury Law Tort
Case Brief Assignment: State v. Kelbel Monique Ramirez JS 143 Professor Peterson Case: State v. Kelbel Facts: Kyle John Kelbel was convicted of first-degree murder‚ past pattern of child abuse‚ in violation of Minnesota state statute section 609.185(5) and second-degree murder‚ in violation of Minnesota statute 609.19‚ subdivision 2(1). He was sentenced to life in prison for the death of Kailyn Marie Montgomery. Kelbel appealed‚ and argued that the district court failed to instruct
Premium Jury Law Murder
Robey v. Hinners Facts: In 2005‚ Robey who runs his business in Sikeston‚ Missouri sold a used 2002 Cadillac Escalade to a Kentucky resident‚ Hinner‚ over ebay auction. As Robey advertised‚ the car was “clean‚ better and average” and with an “ 1 month/1‚000 mile Service Agreement”. After Hinner bought the car‚ he realized that the car was not as advertised. Robey argued that since he was not a resident‚ and the lack of personal jurisdiction that he should be dismissed. Issue: Even though
Premium Jurisdiction United States Appeal
In this case‚ former sales managers for State Room had accused the company of not paying them for the extra duties undertaken. The court held that these employees had no authority when it comes to the setting pieces or even enters into contracts unless the management has negotiated the favorable terms (Breger & Edles‚ 2015). The court further decided to rely on a previous decision to arrive at the new decision. The case under reference was Reich v John Alden Life Insurance Co 126 F.3d (1st
Premium Fair Labor Standards Act Overtime Working time
BlackBerry v. Co-Founders After announcing open for purchase‚ BlackBerry has already agreed to a non-binding offer from Fairfax. Before the deadline (Nov.4) of Fairfax’s offer‚ BlackBerry can still accept higher offer from others‚ thus co-founders of BlackBerry‚ who own 8% shares of BlackBerry‚ are running a bid. Negotiation Environment Number of Parties: Two Parties. One is the rest 92% of BlackBerry’s shareholders (represented by the CEO and the board of BlackBerry). The other is a potential
Premium Stock market Stock Negotiation