Carborundum Case Solution

ODoE’s motion for summary judgement of the IDEA claim and deny the motion for summary

Whether all the shareholders must consent to the election of S status, under section 1362(a)(2)?

The replaceable rule in s 203C provides that, in a proprietary company, a director may be removed and another appointed at the same general meeting by resolution. In this event, there are no specific notice requirements for the removal. However, as SPG and SET are sole shareholder companies, it is necessary to use s 249B, which outlines the proceedings for resolutions of one-member companies. This section states that, when a company only has one shareholder, an ordinary resolution may be passed if the appropriate documentation is recorded and signed, and subsequently lodged with ASIC if necessary.

D) Can a shareholder bring a personal action, and against whom – the company or the director- based on the facts of the question? Do you think there are grounds for a shareholder to bring derivative action? What remedies can be obtained both for personal and derivative action? (6+6+3=15 marks)

B. However these promotions and ideas were only a cover-up of that the “governor got them to sign a deed for their land without their knowledge”. The chief’s considerer it out of consideration to that it was not in their power to do any such thing without consent from other nations.

The area of law to be discussed would be implied 'terms of a contract which are not agreed by the parties.' They are terms which are related to 'contingencies which might affect the contract of employment in this case.' This is what 'parties intended but left unwritten in the gap of a contract.' There are five conditions by which a contract would be satisfied before a term would be implied. They are 'reasonable and equitable, necessary to give business efficacy so no term will be implied if

12. What was the effect of the lifting of the requirement mentioned in question 11?

On the night of July 2, the tractor was destroyed by fire of unknown origin. Neither Stein nor Beal had any fire insurance. Who must bear the loss?

Should the Plaintiffs really get the $1.3 million ordered by the Courts? Should they be awarded any money for their “other cost and losses”?

The defendant, Kingston High School, is negligent under the Ontario Occupants Liability Act against the plaintiff, Mary. The defendant failed to uphold a duty of care against the plaintiff, which resulted in general and special damages. The plaintiff is owed compensation for medical care and treatment expenses, the economic loss from failing to attend the remainder of the semester of business school, and a loss in prospective wages from future employment.

3) On what basis could County argue that it is conforming with the criterion at 1715(3)? On what basis could the state agency argue that County's application in nonconforming with the criterion? In your opinion, which side has the more persuasive argument? Why?

So that eventually acquired decision that PT EM and personnel from PT EM is not a party that directly or indirectly related to the acquisition of coffee machine in that 2 containers.

According to the pro and contra Section 203D and 203E of the Corporations Act as above, most judges and scholars agree that the procedure of removal directors as stipulated in the Corporations Act provides fairness treatment for the directors who may be removed. However, they still strongly argue whether the Section 203D is mandatory or not. Moreover, they questioned the existence of Section 203E since it eliminates flexibility for companies to make decision particularly in the emergency situation as explained above. Therefore, in order to provide broader perspectives about the relevancy of Section 203D and Section 203E, it is necessary to compare the procedure of removal directors in the Australian legislation with the

Counsel for the board apparently advised it that the failure to renew the plaintiff's contract precluded her from obtaining tenure and that "on tenure matters it is best not to give reasons.“

2. The Research Director. The director of research in a large aerospace firm recently promoted a woman to head an engineering team charged with designing a critic component for the new plane. She was tapped for the job because of her superior knowledge of the engineering aspects of the project but the men under her direction have been expressing resentment at working for a woman by subtly sabotaging the work of the team. The director believes that it is unfair to deprive the woman of advancement merely because of the prejudice of her male colleagues, but quick completion of the designs and the building of a prototype are vital to the success of the company. Should he remove the woman as head of the engineering team?