Financial Engineering Case Study Written Report NIKE INC.‚ COST OF CAPITAL CASE REPORT Submitted to: Mr. Mieczyslaw Grudzinski Report date: 27 February 2014 BBA Finance & Accounting Semester 6‚ Academic year 2013-2014 Group Member: Tra My Nguyen 24458 Anna Kulishova 24444 Kaihao Zhang 25545 Zakariae Mokhliss 27727 NIKE INC.‚ COST OF CAPITAL CASE REPORT INTRODUCTION Our group was assigned to produce a report on the Nike Inc.: Cost
Premium Weighted average cost of capital Stock Net present value
Questions 1-4 1. The court meant by its statement that negligent hiring and negligent retention “rely on liability on the part of an individual or a business that has been on the basis of negligence or other factors resulting in harm or damage to another individual or their property” (Luthra‚ 2011) and not on “an obligation that arises from the relationship of one party with another” (Luthra‚ 2011). The court meant that “negligent hiring and negligent retention do not rely on the scope of employment but
Premium Employment
law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable person is never negligent‚ thus the degree of care required is that of a reasonable person(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The creation of tort of negligence is a very important tool by which gaps in the law is filled. Often‚ actions require that some wrongful intent be
Premium Tort Duty of care Tort law
Community College of Baltimore County v. Patient First‚ Md. 568 (2014) Crockett v Crother‚ 264 Md. 222‚ 224 (1972) Graham‚ J. A. (2014‚ September). Maryland Court of Special Appeals Affirms Lower Court’s Finding that Indemnification Provision Applied to Negligent Venipuncture of Phlebotomy Student. Retrieved from http://www.martindale.com/appellate-practice-law King‚ D. B. & Ritterskamp‚ J. J. (1998). Purchasing Manager’s Desk Book of Purchasing Law. New York‚ NY: Aspen Publishers. Kreter v. Healthstar‚
Premium Contract Tort Breach of contract
Slovenski) were negligent with respect to their coaching techniques and the equipment they furnished to Garret Moose at the time he was injured. (2) Whether or not the harm was foreseeable. (3) Whether or not MIT was liable for the injured athlete. Rule: The jury found that each defendant‚ as well as the plaintiff‚ was negligent and that the defendants’ negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Analysis: Both the plaintiff and the defendant are negligent in this case‚
Premium Tort Tort law Law
have a cause of action in negligence against SCL’. Using common law‚ the claimant is owed duty of care‚ but we also need to consider if the duty was breached will depend if the roof tiles was due to the defendant’s negligence. If SCL were found negligent Emma would be able to make a claim against them. To identify whether Emma is really owed
Premium Tort Law Tort law
void. In the case of misrepresentation‚ false statements of facts are required to be made which knowingly or unknowingly could amount to fraud and remedy or rescission may apply. In the modern law‚ misrepresentation is classed as fraudulent‚ negligent or wholly innocent. Fraudulent misrepresentation Definition “Fraudulent” in this sense was defined by Lord Herschell in Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337 as a false statement that is “made (i) knowingly‚ or (ii) without belief in its truth
Premium Misrepresentation
(Cheeseman‚ 2013). In the case of the Bryntesen family we need to prove the elements for negligent action. Did Lithia Motors and Camp Automotive owe a duty of care to the family; they did when they signed the contract. Did they breach this duty of care: they did when the employee did not properly file their papers. Their dealerships actions lead to the family being held at gunpoint. This shows that they were negligent in their actions. To prove this‚ plaintiff needs to prove the cause of negligence
Premium Tort Law Tort law
that individual or his property. The duty of care is therefore based on: the relationship of the different parties the negligent act or omission and to be able to reasonably foresee loss to that individual. A negligent act is an unintentional but careless act which results in loss. Only a negligent act will be regarded as having breached a duty of care. Whether an act is negligent can only be considered in context. In a social care context a duty of care will usually exist where the social care worker
Premium Tort law Negligence Tort
they have the right to sue the driver? Well‚ if the driver was negligent in any way the pedestrian has the legal right to sue. For example‚ the driver was speeding‚ driving aimlessly‚ driving through a red light‚ driving drunk. Pedestrians also complain about the rise in bike traffic. This has led to more collisions between pedestrians and bike riders. The fact is that a pedestrian has the legal right to sue a bike rider that is negligent too. Of course‚ they would have to prove the negligence. For
Premium Crime Police Constable