Case Analysis : Dubai Aluminum Co Ltd V Salaam

Further area left unanswered by Sprod bnf v Public Relations Oriented Security was highlighted in McCracken v Melbourne Storm Rugby League Footbal Club (2005)[16]. This case stated that employer is imposed vicarious liability upon employer for animosity act or criminal act by employees. The case also stated that there must be closely connection within the authority of employees and act by which their employer was considered to be vicariously liable. This case may resolve the entire issues rise in Sprof bnf v Public Relations Oriented Security.

In the year 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada re-reviewed various case related to the law of tendering so as to come to definite conclusion. For instance in the case of MJB Enterprises Ltd. v. Defence Construction (1951) Ltd. The problem was the case of a 'privilege clause' used in many tender documents according to which the lowest tender or any tender may not be inevitably approved. The Court established that Contract A may not be active automatically after a tender call, but may enter depending upon the conditions of the tender documents. After the recognition of the fact that Contract A came in the case before it, the Canadian Court in M.J.B. went through a deal with the owner's responsibility there

The plaintiff (Southern Prestige Industries, Inc.) initiated an action against the defendant (Independence Plating Corp.) in a North Carolina state court for a breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged that defects in the defendant’s anodizing process caused the plaintiff’s machine parts to be rejected by Kidde Aerospace. The defendant being a New Jersey corporation and having its only office and all of its personnel situated in the state filed a motion to dismiss citing lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion and the defendant appealed arguing that there were insufficient contacts to satisfy the due process of law requirements

In some companies who are not highly set in their ways this can lead to necessary changes being made in those companies. For others who are set in their ways may give a the case a positive vote.(Book)

The strategic design lens assumes organizations are deliberate, goal-achieving entities (Ancona, Kochan, Scully, Van Maanen, & Westney, 2005: M-2, 10). In this view, managers can achieve organizational goals by understanding the fundamentals of design and fitting design to strategy, as well as to the larger organizational environment (Ancona et al., 2005: M-2, 12). In this paper, I discuss the five major elements of strategy – environmental fit, strategic intent, strategic grouping, strategic linking, and alignment – and identify two specific elements as causes of the problems Dynacorp is experiencing with its redesign. These elements are strategic linking and alignment.

- the only areas of concern here for Kacey and the board of directors is how this change will affect them

To render justice case by case is the primary task of our courts. Other courts and branches of government also, the social and economic fabrics of our lives are impacted by court decisions. The justice that is done in individual cases helps and aids to bring order to the society in which we live. Parties who are before the court are impacted by our decisions. In criminal matters, court decisions determines whether the accused is guilty or not and if guilty will they suffer financially, be free or go to prison with the possibility of suffering the death penalty. In civil matters, the parties’ rights and their obligations to one another are determined in their court decisions. Future actions are dictated by court decision and can impact the parties’ possessions, finances and livelihood.

Responsible applies to this event because as the definition from the text says ‘obeys the law and is socially conscious…’ the companies involved in this fraud were both disobeying the law, especially Livent. Improper financial statements are considered a crime and they had basically stolen from their investors/creditors, which is also considered a serious crime. Deloitte do not demonstrate responsibility since they were either not careful in checking the financial statements thoroughly. They could have possibly known the inaccuracy in Livent’s financial statements, but still signed them off again showing a lack of

In order to establish the liability of each party involved, it must first be determined whether the liable party will be KAL itself as a corporate personality or its directors. The case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd has established the legal principle of a company as a separate legal entity with its own rights and responsibilities. This legal doctrine was reaffirmed in Andar Transport Pty Ltd v Brambles Ltd when Justice Kirby held that “the mere fact that the company may be owned or controlled

An employer is vicariously liable in relation to the acts of its employees. This includes liability to third parties for

1. A company has a separate legal personality from the members in the company so in law it has separate rights and liabilities. The company can enter contracts and own property which wouldn 't make the members of the company liable only the company itself.

If there is more than one expert giving opinion evidence, it is very common that those opinions are different. As it takes place in this coursework case. This disagreement may be based on differences in theoretical foundations, analyses of data, different approach to the problem or simply, due to one of the experts manipulating with evidence on behalf of one of the sides. What is more, the complexity of the legal system is very complex and can also fuel this perception. For example, when an expert is not aware of data that has been excluded for legal reasons.(Weinstock and Martinez, 2007) In the case given in this coursework, the expert of the insurance company is trying to persuade, that his recommendations would give better solution. If

For the purposes of this assignment the relevant law is the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (either as the “Act” of the “CA”). From now on I will refer to it as the Act (Hinchy, McDermott 2008).

In negligence cases, it must be established that the defendant’s breach of duty has caused the damage to the claimant. This causal link between the fault of the defendant and the harm of the claimant is usually provided by the ‘but for’ test of causation. However, there are several problems related to the test, rendering its sufficiency to become questionable. This essay will first explain when and how the ‘but for’ test is applied. Then, it will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the test using relevant cases. Lastly, it will conclude by determining whether the test is adequate or not.

According to the text, it says that “liability for contracts formed by an agent depends on how the principal is classified and on whether the actions of the agent were authorized or unauthorized. Principals are classified as disclosed, or undisclosed” (Roger, LeRoy, & Miller). “A partially disclosed principal is a principal whose identity is not known by the third party know that the agent is or may be acting for a principal at the time the contract is made” (Roger, LeRoy, & Miller). “An undisclosed principal is a principal whose identity is totally unknown by the third party, and the third party has no knowledge that the agent is acting in an agency capacity at the time the contract is made” (Roger, LeRoy, & Miller). In my paper, I will