IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION‚ PRETORIA CASE NO: CC113-2013 DATE: 2014-09-11‚ 12 In the matter between THE STATE and OSCAR LEONARD CARL PISTORIUS Accused BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE MASIPA ASSESSORS: ADV J HENZEN DU TOIT ADV T MAZIBUKO ON BEHALF OF THE STATE: ADV GERRIE C NEL ADV ANDREA JOHNSON ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE: ADV BARRY ROUX SC ADV KENNY OLDWAGE INTERPRETERS: MS F HENDRICKS JUDGMENT VOLUME 42 (Page 3280 - 3351) iAfrica
Premium
Kingsford Charcoal Case Alex Lau Marketing Management Professor Wright 3/26/2013 Introduction Grilling is engraved in American culture as well as a highly seasonal activity. Kingsford Charcoal is in the business of selling charcoal for grills. Even though Kingsford increased its market share in 2000‚ their forecast indicates they will not reach the initial revenue mark. With the charcoal market’s growth slowing‚ and the gas grill market gaining market share‚ Kingsford needs to revise its
Premium Marketing Price Advertising
illegality‚ and no right of action exists in respect of anything arising out of the transaction. In such a case the maxim In pari delicto‚ portior est conditio defendentis applies‚ and the test for determining whether an action lies is to see whether the plaintiff can make out his claim without relying on the illegal transaction to which he was a party. Halsbury 2nd Ed. Vol. VII p. 173. Case referred to Bowmakers Ltd v Barnet Instruments Ltd (1945) 1 KB 65; (1944) 2 All ER 579 1953 1 MLJ 239
Premium Pleading Complaint Automobile
Arbiters and the commission. (a) The Labor Arbiters shall have theoriginal and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide within thirty (30) working days after submission of the case by the parties for decision‚ the following cases involving are workers‚ whether agricultural or non-agricultural: 1. Unfair labor practice cases; 2. Those that workers may file involving wages‚ hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment; 3. All money claims of workers‚ including those based on non-payment
Premium Employment Trade union National Labor Relations Act
Supreme Court of the Philippines The Supreme Court of the Philippines (Filipino: Kataas-taasang Hukuman ng Pilipinas) is the country’s highest judicial court‚ as well as the court of last resort. The court consists of 14 Associate Justices and 1 Chief Justice. Pursuant to the Constitution‚ the Supreme Court has "administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof".[1] The Supreme Court complex occupies the corner of Padre Faura Street and Taft Avenue in Manila‚ with the main building
Premium Law Supreme Court of the United States Court
GSBA521B Term III‚ Fall 2012 Professor Ku Case—Blaine Kitchenware‚ Inc.: Capital Structure Assignment: Your team’s task is to recommend to the Board of Blaine Kitchenware (BKI) whether the firm should undertake the leveraged recap. In doing so‚ please address the four questions below. Teams 1-6: your task is to recommend for a leveraged recap with quantitative and qualitative support Teams 7-13: your task is to recommend against a leveraged recap with quantitative and qualitative support
Premium Weighted average cost of capital Capital structure Finance
Yellow Submarine Gourmet Fast-food Restaurant Time Context: Middle of March 2000 Point of View: Paulo M. Lao Central Problem: Sudden decrease in sales due to declined customer traffic during the last 3 days. Statement of Objectives Must Objectives: Completely overhaul the marketing plan of Yellow Submarine. Want Objectives: Formulate major initiatives for growth and long term survival of the business including: Introduction of new product lines Market Penetration Market Development
Premium Customer service Marketing Customer
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-13954 August 12‚ 1959 GENARO GERONA‚ ET AL.‚ petitioners-appellants‚ vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION‚ ET AL.‚ respondents-appellees. K.V. Felon and Hayed C. Cavington for appellant. Office of the Solicitor General Edilberto Barot and Solicitor Conrado T. Limcaoco for appellees. MONTEMAYOR‚ J.: Petitioners are appealing the decision of the Court of First Instance of Masbate dismissing their complaint
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Religion Conscientious objector
CASE ANALYSIS: WENDY’S Submitted by: Cabantugan‚ lisl camille e. Manalo‚ Christopher Lawrence Pangilinan‚ jamabelle Hm203 The Problem and Background Wendy’s (Formerly branded as Wendy’s Old Fashioned Hamburgers before late 2012) is an international fast food chain restaurant founded by Dave Thomas on November 15‚ 1969‚ in Columbus‚ Ohio‚ United States. The company decided to move its headquarters to Dublin‚ Ohio‚ on January 29‚ 2006. It has been owned by Triarc (now
Premium Fast food Hamburger Wendy's
specifically for this text that supplements this case. 1. Hard Rock’s 10 Decisions: This is early in the course to dis- cuss these in depth‚ but still a good time to get the students engaged in the 10 OM decisions around which the text is structured. Product design: Hard Rock’s tangible product is food and like any tangible product it must be designed‚ tested‚ and “costed out.” The intangible product includes the music‚ memorabilia‚ and service. Quality: The case mentions the quality survey as an overt
Premium Management Cost Supply chain