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
European Commission case. In this case‚ with respect to product market delineation‚ the ECJ had to decide whether the trade in bananas is a separate relevant market or if this trade is part of a larger relevant market containing all fresh fruits. Consequently‚ the ECJ went with the
Premium Retailing Marketing Online shopping
her motion must be accompanied by a statement of the evidence which she intends to present if the motion is granted and which is such as to warrant a reasonable belief that the result of the case would probably be otherwise if a new trial is granted. (Emphasis and underscoring ours.) 6. In the present case unfortunately‚ defendants did not even state in the subject motion what evidence they intend to present if the Honorable Court grants their motion. Defendants’ averment that they have strong
Premium Law Court Contract
In the case of Katz v. United states‚ 1967‚ The FBI agents acted on a suspicion that Katz maybe transmitting gambling information over the phone to other people in other states. Katz was using a public phone booth to conduct the transactions of information ("Findlaw’s United States Supreme Court Case And Opinions."). The FBI agents then proceeded to attach an eavesdropping device to the outside of the phone booth to record his conversations. With all the recoding that the FBI could get‚ they
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Writing Assignment May 17‚ 2014 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Inequality in this country began when the first African slaves were brought to the North American Colony of Jamestown‚ Virginia‚ in 1619‚ to aid in the production of such lucrative crops as tobacco. The American Civil War settled in 1865‚ would only mark the beginning of equality for African-Americans. It wasn’t until 1954 that the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka‚ 347 U.S
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Brown v. Board of Education United States
In the 1950 case of P. Lorillard Co. v. Federal Trade Commission‚ P. Lorillard Co.‚ the makers of Old Gold cigarettes‚ were ordered to “cease and desist from making certain representations found to be false in the advertising of its tobacco products (Warner‚ et al.‚ 2012‚ p. 950) From a practical perspective in the 1950’s caveat emptor‚ or “let the buyer beware” is not a fair or reasonable expectation. While the careful consumer could have looked at the article‚ the culture of the time was not anti-smoking
Premium Law United States United States Constitution
Atavia Vigil Case Brief 38-1 Federal Election Comm’n v. Beaumont Facts In 2003‚ the corporation North Carolina Right to Life‚ Inc. sued the federal Election Commission claiming that that two FEC regulations were unconstitutional. First regulation challenged the one that stops corporations from making contributions Second regulation was the one that provides an exemption from the ban for corporate contributions for particular nonprofit corporations. NCRL believes that they met the exemption to
Premium Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution United States
Since this is a civil action‚ all these matters will have to be proved according to ‘the preponderance of probability’ ( Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947)). Even where Annie is alleging matters that would amount to the criminal offence of arson‚ she does not have to prove them beyond reasonable doubt. In Hornal v Neuberger Products Ltd (1957)‚ the plaintiff was sold a lathe by the defendants. One of their directors was alleged to have stated falsely that the machine
Premium Pleading Pleading Evidence
Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill‚ 437 U.S. 153 (1978) (“Tennessee Valley Auth v Hill”)‚ it was discussed whether a small endangered fish called the “snail darter” could stop the “intended transformation of the river into a 30 mile long reservoir by building the Tellico Dam. Congress had authorised funding for the project in 1967 to generate hydroelectricity‚ create recreational opportunities and flood control‚ and promote shoreline developments.” The question remains‚ what was the case about? Put simply
Premium United States Water Whale
race‚ color‚ sex‚ national origin‚ religion‚ disability or age. In the Supreme Court case‚ Griggs v. Duke Power Company (Duke)‚ it was decided that Duke used a selection process which had a disparate impact on the employment opportunities of members of a race‚ color‚ religion‚ sex‚ or national origin group. Disparate impact is sometimes confusing and tricky. In the case of the Albemarle Paper Company (Albemarle) v. Moody‚ proved just how tricky disparate impact is. Albemarle administered tests without
Premium Employment Audit Discrimination