Procedural History: Plaintiff brought suit against defendant for fraud and breaches of warranty. Summary judgement granted in favor of defendant by the District Court. Plaintiff appealed claiming genuine issues of material facts exist. The Facts: Plaintiff bought a used car from Defendant‚ a used car dealer. Defendant offered no warranty‚ but told Plaintiff that the car had been inspected and was accident free. Plaintiff purchased a service plan through Defendant to be administered by a
Premium Automobile Law English-language films
Robinette Facts: Defendant was speeding 30 miles over the speed limit in a construction zone. A police officer stopped him‚ asked for the Defendant’s driver’s license which he produced. The officer ran a computer check which showed that the Def. didn’t have any previous violations. The officer asked the Defendant to step out of the car‚ turned on his video camera mounted on the officer’s vehicle and verbally warned the defendant for speeding‚ and then returned his license. After returning his license
Premium Law Police Supreme Court of the United States
Dick Smith Foods is an Australian known organisation that appeals to the Australian population to buy its products over cheap international imports. Strategic management and strategy is a key factor when trying to compete and the external and internal environment needs to be analysed to do it effectively. By using business level strategy Dick Smith can compete with its competitors and achieve its goal of being one of the main brands that Australians prefer to buy. Strategic management
Premium Strategic management
Swan v. Talbot‚ Phelan v. Gardner‚ Marron v. Marron Case Briefs Jennifer Beverly PA205-02 Professor Byron Grim June 20‚ 2011 Case Briefs Citation: Swan v. Talbot‚ 152 Cal. 142 (Cal. 1907) Facts: George Swan‚ plaintiff‚ sold James R. Talbot‚ defendant‚ a portion of personal property. Swan was inebriated at the time the deal was prepared. The portion of the property sold to Talbot was valued at $21‚949.86. Talbot paid Swan $10‚604.32‚ this included $200 in coin that was paid to Swan
Premium Appeal
After careful review by the trial court‚ the judge awarded CNAC $94‚304.79 as well as the additional expenditures accumulated as a result of the trial. The initial decision dealt with just the two companies‚ excluding Holberg individually. Before the case was closed‚ while motions could still be placed into action‚ the plaintiff requested to modify the
Premium Law Contract Supreme Court of the United States
Case Brief 1. CASE: Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. Inc. 556 U.S. 868 (2009) 2. FACTS: A West Virginia jury issued a verdict against respondents (“Massey”) in the amount of $50 million. After the verdict‚ knowing that the West Virginia’s Supreme Court of Appeals would consider the appeal‚ Blankenship‚ the chairman‚ CEO and president of Massey contributed $3 million to help Benjamin run for office in that court in West Virginia’s 2004 judicial election. Benjamin won the election in a close
Premium Jury United States Supreme Court of the United States
James Donalds – Case Brief Practice R. v. Sparrow‚ [1990] 1 SCR 1075 Facts: Sparrow was charged under s. 61(1) of the Fisheries Act with the offence of fishing with a drift net longer than permitted by the terms of the Indian Food Fishing License. Sparrow admitted to committing the act‚ but claimed that he has the aboriginal right to fish under s. 31(1) of the Fisheries Act. Therefore‚ the Act is inconsistent with s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act‚ 1982 and is invalid. He was unsuccessful
Premium Law United Kingdom United States
You’re applying to Harvard Business School. We can see your resume‚ school transcripts‚ extra-curricular activities‚ awards‚ post-MBA career goals‚ test scores and what your recommenders have to say about you. What else would you like us to know as we consider your candidacy? There is no word limit for this question. We think you know what guidance we’re going to give here. Don’t overthink‚ overcraft and overwrite. Just answer the question in clear language that those of us who don’t know your world
Premium Thing Harvard Business School Question
estimate the value of the card. The expert said that even in a tough economy the card would likely bring $80‚000 at public auction. Mrs. Covington brings an equitable action to rescind the contract‚ get her card back and return the $1 to Michael. Case: Elizabeth Covington vs. Michael Ferrell (2010) Facts: Elizabeth Covington versus Michael Ferrell. Plaintiff: Elizabeth Covington brings an equitable action movement to court against Michael Ferrell to receive legal relief for Michael Ferrell having
Premium Baseball
Case Brief: Sutter v. Hutchings Case Name‚ Citation & Court: Sutter v. Hutchings‚ 254 Ga. 194‚ 327 S.E.2d 717‚ Georgia Supreme Court‚ decided 1985. Parties & Procedural History: Trial Court level: Plaintiff Sutter sues Defendant Hutchings. Defendant filed summary judgment motion‚ and court granted judgment in favor of Defendant. Plaintiff appealed. First appeal: Ga. Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals again to Ga. Supreme Court. Facts: Mrs
Premium Appeal Law Court