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 Keighley‚ Maxted & Co v Durant (1901)‚ A was authorized by P to buy wheat at 44s 3d a quarter on a joint account for A and P. Wheat was unobtainable at this price and‚ therefore‚ A agreed to buy from T at 44s 6d a quarter. Though he intended to buy it on behalf of himself and P‚ A contracted in his own name and did not disclose the agency to T. The next day P ratified the purchase at the unauthorized price but‚ in due course‚ P and A failed to take delivery. It was held by the House of Lords
Premium Appeal Contract
James Leamon Johnson & Wales University Law 2001 Professor Bertron 01 Feb 2014 Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Martinez Briefly explain the opinion. Which of Martinez’s claims were successful and which were not? Why (what was the court’s legal explanation)? In this case‚ Martinez brought forward three claims. First‚ he claimed strict product liability based on defective design of the tire. Martinez also claimed negligence and gross negligence. In their ruling‚ the jury found that the defective design
Premium Jury Tort Law
does Miller fit the profile of the average fraud perpetrator? How does he differ? How did these characteristics make him difficult to detect? Miller fit the profile of the average fraud perpetrator is that he has seem to look like everyone else in the business world who is well liked and seem to be an ideal employee. Purpose of Miller is trying to gain the trust of his employer and colleagues. That’s why Miller works so hard on the constant energetic attempt to conceal his fraud. Miller differed
Premium Fraud Theft Criminal law
referred to as the “Lochner Era”‚ the Supreme Court of the United States protected businesses by rejecting State-regulated economic regulations (Choudhry 2004‚ 6). This precedent was revisited in the 1937 landmark Supreme Court Case‚ West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish‚ which involved‚ Elsie Parrish‚ a chambermaid at the West Coast Hotel‚ who sued the Cascadian Hotel (owned by the West Coast Hotel Company‚) for not having been paid the legal minimum wage (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law). In 1932‚ a
Premium Employment United States Supreme Court of the United States
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services‚ Inc. 545 U.S. 546 (2005) Facts of the Case: In 1991 about 10‚000 Exxon dealers sued Exxon Corporation in federal court‚ alleging that the corporation had engaged in an extensive scheme to overcharge them for fuel. A jury found in favor of the plaintiffs‚ but the District Court judge certified the case for review on the question of supplemental jurisdiction. Some of the multiple plaintiffs in the case had claims that did not meet the minimum amount necessary
Premium United States Appeal Law
Case 1: McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green‚ the Supreme Court holds that a charging party can prove unlawful discrimination indirectly by showing‚ for example‚ in a hiring case that: (1) the charging party is a member of a Title VII protected group; (2) he or she applied and was qualified for the position sought; (3) the job was not offered to him or her; and (4) the employer continued to seek applicants with similar qualifications. If the plaintiff can prove these four elements‚ the employer must
Premium Law United States Discrimination
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
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
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