Baldwin & Quot V Icon Energy Ltd & Anor

The customers, Charles Ellison and Susan Bresler represented by the Atlanta law firm Strickland Brockington & Lewis sued the Natural Gas Company “under a private right of action in the Gas Act.” The plaintiffs sought to recoup their overpayments charged through the defendant’s violations of the Natural Gas Competition and Deregulation Act (Natural Gas Act). The defendant asked the court to dismiss the case due to the plaintiff’s failure to establish a reasonable claim on which repayment should be given. A trial court granted a motion to dismiss the case, but an

The Law firm won the case in the end with the verdict that Pacific Gas & Energy had to compensate the plaintiffs in the amount of $333 million for damages (cornell.edu web site).

Advanced Fuels Corporation (AFC) was founded five years ago by Dr. Zachary Aplin. In the fourth year of research he and his two –member staff made a major break-through that can convert grain waste products into ethanol which can mix with gasoline to produce a better burning automobile fuel. Producing ethanol from waste products would lower its cost dramatically so the market potential of the blended fuel would be increased. After AFC receiving a patent for Dr. Aplin’s unique ethanol production process he decided to broaden the scope of operations of the company but he doesn’t have additional funds to put in. So, he developed

In the matter of Sydney Project Group Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) and S.E.T. Services Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] NSWSC 881 (30 June 2017) (‘SPG and SET’) concerns the events involving plaintiffs Michael Hogan (H) and Christian Sprowles (S). Salim Mehajer (M) is the sole shareholder of both Sydney Project Group Pty Ltd (SPG) and S.E.T. Services Pty Ltd (SET). M appointed Kenneth Lee (L)

Analyze Luxford & Anor v Sidhu & 3 others [2007] NSWSC 1356 (3 December 2007) as follows:

Case Comment: John Michael Malins v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2017] EWHC 835 (Admin) 2017 WL 01339062

Your managing partner has handed you the Supreme Court of Queenslands’ decision in The Public Trustee of Queensland and Anor v Meyer and Ors [2010] QSC 291 and asked you to answer the following questions. You should assume you are answering questions for someone who has not read the case, so be sure to provide sufficient detail in your answers. You do not need to provide reference details for Part A of the assignment.

The Plaintiffs, Garetsons, own a well in Haskell County, which they use for irrigation pursuant to a vested water right. The Defendant, American Warrior Inc. (AWI), owns two nearby wells with junior water appropriation rights. Garetsons sued AWI requesting an injunction to prevent AWI from pumping groundwater. The District Court found that AWI’s wells were causing significant impairment and drawdown of the Garetsons’ water rights. As a result, tThe District Court granted an

Before business law class, I was not aware of how frequently arbitration is incorporated in contracts. Directly after watching Hot Coffee, I read through a recent internship offer. Almost hidden on the page, an arbitration clause was included. Before watching the film, I did not realize how much impact arbitration can have on a case, as depicted through Jamie Leigh Jones. As a result, I thought about the potential implications of my signature before moving forward. Jamie Leigh Jones’ case showed me that significant terms can be hidden in a contract, but be completely legal. This stresses the importance of reading documents before signing

Plaintiff, Kaycee Land and Livestock, opened a case to hold Defendant, Roger Flahive, personally liable for (contamination) damages after an agreement made by Flahive’s LLC, Flahive Oil & Gas. The District Court of Johnson County presented the case to the Supreme Court of Wyoming to determine if Flahive could be held personally liable. Kaycee Land and Livestock contracted with Flahive Oil & Gas in order to use the surface of the land to raise the Plaintiff’s livestock. Kaycee Land and Livestock claims that Flahive Oil & Gas contaminated the surface area, leaving it useless for Kaycee Land and Livestock’s needs. Flahive Oil & Gas does not have any assets. Therefore, Kaycee Land and Livestock wants to use general corporate veil-piercing principles

The offer and acceptance model is flawed- only an agreement is necessary. In order to fully comprehend this statement, we must first establish what constitutes and offer and what constitutes acceptance. “An offer is a statement by one party of willingness to enter into a contract on stated terms, provided that these terms are, in turn, accepted by the party to whom the offer is addressed”. Acceptance is “…an unqualified expression of ascent to the terms proposed by the offeror”. The “Offer and acceptance model” is based on the court’s adopt the “mirror image” rule of contractual formation. Applying the definitions stated above, we can take this to mean that there must be a clear and unequivocal offer which must be matched by an equally

The defendant Roffey Bros in September 1985 had contracted with Shepherds Bush Housing Association Ltd to refurbish 27 flats in London. There was a penalty cost for late completion according to the contract. As the main contractor, the defendant subcontracted necessary carpentry work to the plaintiff Mr Lester Williams for an agreed price of £20,000. The defendant had made interim payments of £16,200 by 9 April 1989 when the plaintiff completed the carpentry work for nine flats. However, the agreed price was under-quoted and was too low for the plaintiff to operate satisfactorily and at a profit. They then got into financial difficulty by the end of March 1986. Due to the reasons that the defendant worried lest the plaintiff did

3. What are the interests of the key stakeholders in the terms of the Vacutainer-APG negotiations?

Before unilateral contracts come into place, contract law is about a promise for a promise. Cases such as Carlill v Carbonic Smoke Ball Co. have shown how the contract law has adapted to accommodate this form of contract. Judges seek to identify consideration and acceptance in unilateral contracts whilst managing to achieve a balance between protecting reasonable expectation of an honest man and retaining respect for the sanctity of contract.

The legal fees amount of RM 500 is cost associated with issuing bond and should be recorded as “deferred charges” which is an asset analogous to prepaid