Vian v. Carey Case Brief: Facts: Defendant Mariah Carey is a famous‚ successful‚ and wealth entertainer. Plaintiff Joseph Vian who used to be Carey stepfather is suing her. Vian claimed to have orally agreed with Carey to market singing dolls in her likeness. History: A motion of summary was given after the U.S. District court of New York saw the case. Issue: The issue is whether the objective circumstances indicate that the parties intended to form a contract Holding: Under the law of New York
Premium Contract Contract
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
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
Tiffany & Co - Case Write-Up 1) In what way(s) is Tiffany exposed to exchange-rate risk subsequent to its new distribution agreement with Mitsukoshi? How serious are these risks? 2) Should Tiffany actively manage its yen-dollar exchange-rate risk? Why or why not? 3) If Tiffany were to manage its exchange-rate risk activity‚ what would be the objectives of such a program? Specifically‚ what exposures should be actively managed? How much of these exposures should be covered‚ and
Premium United States dollar Exchange rate Foreign exchange market
commonly 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)
Premium Employment United States Supreme Court of the United States
United States v. E.C. Knight Co. Background: Decided in 1895 with a 8-1 vote. Six companies dominated the North American sugar refining industry: American Sugar Refining Co. and four Pennsylvania refineries who together‚ made up 98% of the refined sugar manufactured. A lone Boston company held the remaining 2%. The United States sued using its newly passed Sherman Anti-Trust Act (passed in 1890) declaring any attempt to monopolize trade or commerce to be illegal. This case marks the Sherman Anti-Trust
Premium
Issue: The court case New York Times Co v. Sullivan was a significant case in 1964. The plaintiff‚ L.B. Sullivan‚ the Commissioner of the City of Montgomery‚ Alabama sued the defendant‚ The New York Times (along with four other African American Alabama clergymen) in an Alabama court‚ for the printing of an advertisement in the March 29‚ 1960 edition of the newspaper over libel accusations. The full page ad titled “Heeding Their Rising Voices” condemned the actions of violence that were occurring
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Brown v. Board of Education
education and diminished intelligence. The accused is unable to read or write and according to his testimony is not even able to count money. As a result‚ this has made his testimony unclear and there are several inconsistencies. The result of the case was that the appeal was dismissed and the guilty charge was
Premium Critical thinking Jury Audience
Case Study Analysis Discussion Questions 1. E+Co chose to target and nurture local entrepreneurs for their expertise in the local needs. The locals are in the best position to find the most desirable combination of need and the most appropriate clean energy solutions. So by providing investment capital and business development solutions to local entrepreneurs and businesses rather than starting and managing the businesses themselves‚ E+Co is demonstrating that while they have some of the answers
Premium Entrepreneurship Venture capital Investment
2011). This response will explore Vygotsky’s concepts of co-construction‚ zone of proximal development‚ transfer of cognitive tools‚ and internalisation. According to the sociocultural lens of Vygotsky‚ ‘children not only develop‚ but are developed (by others)’ (Eun‚ 2010‚ p.402). Thus‚ a positive classroom environment‚ with secure relationships between teachers and students‚ is fundamental in nurturing
Premium Education Learning Educational psychology