Wonder failed to meet the responsibilities when he did not inform Steve about his dealings. A director must not let his personal interests and company duties and responsibilities conflict. This is a fundamental rule of Equity (Phipps-V-Boardman (1967)2AC123). A director may not apply company property either for his personal interests or for the benefit of any other person without the authority of the company. As Wonder breached the contract and did not fulfil the duties and responsibilities as a Director of the company, Steve can succeed under the corporations Act 2001 (cth) and the case law in having the contract relating to the bank loan (mortgage) declared as invalid.
Therefore, no, priority of contract would not be required for Kolchek to succeed in a product liability action against Great Lakes because the buyer does not need to have to directly involved with the manufacture, as long as the product was made from the manufacture itself. For... ... middle of paper ... ...as charged for selling to an police officer while on duty. The clerk had no idea that the police officer was still on duty because the officer had taken off his arm-band. The author stated, the offense of strict liability is not intentionally. Which is true how can someone be held accountable for other people actions if they had no idea what is going on.
These two components are prominent in Balfour v Balfour since judicially it has been found that common law does not regulate promises between spouses so such mishaps are dismissed on a basis of arrangements made between the couple, as they are not authentic contracts. b) Immense planning and detail is put into legal sanction... ... middle of paper ... ...rom the construction site. The defendant did nothing less of the expectations and lived up to the standards, but it was the plaintiff who knocked into problems and caused a change in contract. Although the construction company did orally agree to maximize the monthly payments in order to aid with the gas price, he was not legally required to. Their contract binding was on in effect up until the written portion and the first arrangement since there was consideration present for both parties.
The McCaulleys appealed, alleging that there were several errors in the trial court’s judgment regarding the terms and conditions in the parties’ sales contract. ... ... middle of paper ... ...e a loss otherwise. The management’s lack of legal knowledge might have led them to assume that it was the McCaulleys’ responsibility to read all the terms and conditions, and simply refunding the deposit would satisfy these terms. In my opinion, NFM, like many other businesses, may have believed in consumers’ naivety. NFM did not foresee that the McCaulleys would bring the issue to court and appeal the trial court’s decision.
While adding this extra condition may appear to present a new issue; the courts held that because the original complaint did not list the denial of artificial insemination it would not be considered as a pretext to hear the case. In doing so the courts showed that said inmates never requested to preserve their sperm through prison officials and restated that inmates do not have a constitutional right to conjugal visits
Svoboda and Robles both broke the misappropriation and tripper (tippee) theory. In Bailey article, he mentions that the misappropriation theory requires courts to focus on whether a fiduciary relationship, or similar relationship with a "duty of trust or confidence," exists (2010, p.541), and tripper theory obtains an individual who received confidential information from the insider individual. Svoboda and Robles violated the fiduciary duties which are the duty of loyalty and care. When Svoboda brought in an outsider, Alena, to complete the task, he broke the duty of loyalty and care toward his company, but then was disloyal to Robles when Svoboda prepared his own trade security. Under Section 10b and rule 10b-5, if an individual using confidential information and then assist another individual, the individual is liable for the trading of the confidential information if they are aware of the fiduciary duties.
S 11(2) indicates that after signing the contract, though Stuart did not read the contract he was aware of the circumstances if something went wrong. Stuart aware of this cannot sue Keith for the faulty car. Similar conclusions can be drawn from the case of George Mitchell v Finney Locks Seeds  where the clause excluded any loss or damage from the use of the seeds. To conclude whether Tiff is correct about suing Keith for the negligence of the car, Stuart is unable to claim legal action against Keith for the faulty engine and gearbox. Stuart cannot take Keith to court because he agreed to buy the cars in the first place and signed the contract.
Thus an attorney’s persuasion of withholding of documents under a valid document retention policy cannot be defined as a dishonest practice. So corrupt is not appropriate applied to the actions of Andersen. I believe Andersen violated the law. The management, including David Duncan, obviously knew Andersen would get an investigation due to the audit fai... ... middle of paper ... ...n 2002, Enron has burdened huge debts and filed for bankruptcy protection. Andersen also had no money to pay for angry investors.
At common law, a company was also incapable of ratifying a pre-registration contract after it was registered. “This was because under the law of agency , ratification has a retrospective effect and the contract was regarded as being made at the time it was entered into by the agent when the company was not in existence” . A company could only be held liable for a pre-registration contract if it entered into a new contract with the same terms as the pre-registration contract after it was registered. This is called ‘novation’. Seeing as though a company would not be held liable on a pre-registered contract, the courts recognised that innocent third parties could be prejudiced.
Dwayne and Felix breached their duties to comply with the voluntary undertaking to the best of their ability by leaving Vicky on her own after they initiated administering aid and were aware she had suffered injury. Because they did not wait until Vicky was being adequately taken care of by emergency personnel and left her by the roadside after calling 911 for the ambulance they breached their duty. Res Ipsa Loquitor Doctrine: Vicky could argue for a res ipsa jury instruction however it is unlikely that it would be granted because she would be able to prove two of three necessary elements. Actual Cause-Multiple Necessary Causes: But for the concurrence of Felix and Dwayne moving Vicky, and Dwayne dropping Vicky, the shoulder and rotator cuff injuries would not have occurred. The actions of Dwayne and Felix moving Vicky’s body together were multiple necessary causes to the injury.