Journal of International Management 8 (2002) 223 – 240 Liability of foreignness to competitive advantage: How multinational enterprises cope with the international business environment Deepak Sethi*‚ Stephen Guisinger 1 University of Texas at Dallas‚ P.O. Box 830688‚ Richardson‚ TX 75083-0688‚ USA Abstract An expanded and holistic conceptualization of the liability of foreignness (LOF) is presented that goes beyond the traditional foreign subsidiary – local firm dyad in the host country.
Premium Strategic management Multinational corporation
LIST OF CASES: 1. Davis v. Johnson‚(1978) 2 WLR 182 2. Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Cong. and Others‚ AIR 1991 SC 101 3. All India Reporter Karmachari Singh v.All India Reporter Ltd.‚ AIR 1988 SC 1325 4. Ram Manohar Lohia v.State of UP and others‚ AIR 1968‚Alld. 100 5. Ahmed Khan v. Shah bano Begum‚ (1985) SCR (3) 844 6. His Holiness Kesavnand Bharti Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala‚ AIR 1973 SC 1461 7. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India‚ AIR 1993 SC 477 8. Vishakha and others
Free Common law Law
Equal Inclusion Case Law AED/204 July 26‚ 2013 Vicki Kugel-Brandt Equal Inclusion Case Law In the earlier days women and African Americans had no rights to school‚ work or any other type of socialization. They were brought into slavery‚ housewives and had no rights as an individual. This included people with disabilities (even those with MMR classification) because they were‚ “viewed as nonproductive and expandable.” (Gollnick & Chinn‚ pg. 181‚ 2013) The rights we have today as women
Premium Plessy v. Ferguson Brown v. Board of Education Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
THE IMPACT OF UNLIMITED SERVICE GUARANTEE ON CONSUMER DECISION MAKING TOWARDS LUXURY HOTEL SECTORS IN ACCORDANCE TO MALAYSIAN CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1999 (CPA) by Pradeep Paraman ABSTRACT A service guarantee is a promise that a service or product will
Premium Hotel Customer Customer service
AGENCY 1. Agency Relationship Cases Definition Principal authorizes Agent to enter into legal transactions (contract) with Third Party on Principal’s behalf Agency relationship between P and A A’s obligations to P: 1. Act according to terms of appointment and within scope of authority 2. Not liable to P or TP 3. Carries out duties with care and skill‚ keep true and proper accounts 4. Cannot conflict P’s interest / act for personal gains 5. Cannot delegate whole duty to others P’s
Premium Contract Contract law Breach of contract
Issue The challenge in this case is to make a decision whether the book written by David is legitimately legal does not against the copyright of earlier published articles‚ or it is classified as an infringement work that copy the existed paper. Rules This particular case concerns about intellectual property law that emphasize on copyright law protection. Copyright is the exclusive rights to protect the original work from copied by the other people. The law of copyright does protect the expression
Premium Property Copyright Intellectual property
in the business of receiving deposits (liabilities) and to issue debt securities on one hand and create or invest in assets on the other hand during these transactions banks incur costs for their liabilities and earn income from their assets. Asset – liability management is therefore very critical for the sound management of the finances of any organisation that invests to meet its future cash flow needs and capital requirements. An efficient asset-liability management requires maximising the bank’s
Premium Risk management Asset Balance sheet
DEFINITION OF COMPANY: The Companies Act Cap 110 definition section states that “company” means a company formed and registered under the Act or an existing company. The companies Act does not sufficiently define what a company is but authors have developed a definition of a company. Professor David Bakibinga in his book company law in Uganda at page 2 defines a company as an artificial legal entity separate and distinct from its members or shareholders. This legal person is distinguishable
Premium Corporation Types of companies Legal entities
|Argued December 9‚ 1952 | |Reargued December 8‚ 1953 | |Decided May 17‚ 1954 | |Full case name |Oliver Brown‚ et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka‚ et | | |al. | |Citations |347 U.S. 483 (more) | |
Premium Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court of the United States
notice to the company accusing it of deficiency in service that could cause health hazard for consumers. The multinational giant even replied to the notice‚ but a year later. Rajan approached a Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum‚ Ahmedabad (rural) and demanded Rs 5 lakh from the company towards compensation. During the hearing‚ the consumer forum sent the sample to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation’s laboratory for analysis. After hearing the case‚ the consumer forum asked the company to return the
Premium United States Service of process Gujarat