I. Case Summary
Plaintiffs Yankee Gas Services Company and the Connecticut Light and Power Company, sued the defendant UGI Utilities. The Yankee Gas Services Company and the Connecticut Light and Power Company own thirteen manufactured gas facilities (MGPs) that were once owned by the defendants. The plaintiffs appeal before the judge in a trial to recover costs that they made in response to an MGP pollution from 1884 to 1941. The judgment ruled that UGI Utilities was not the owner of nine of the MGPs at the time, and held them completely accountable. Both parties were held reliable to pay for portions of the costs. The judgment ruled in favor of the defendant. The judges present in this case were Circuit judges Guido Calabresi, Reena Raggi and Districts judges John Gleeson. In the case, “Upon due consideration, it is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of the district court entered on March 31, 2010, is AFFIRMED”
II. Description of the Parties-
Yankee Gas Service Company was a gas company that had bought some Manufactured gas facilities from UGI Utilities that were in need of some environmental cleaning. The only facility that ended up being brought into court was the Waterbury North Manufactured Gas Plant. UGI was the operator of the plant a century ago.
III. Factual background of the Case-
In the case of Yankee Gas Services Vs. UGI Utilities, Yankee Gas Utilities bought manufacture gas plant facilities from UGI Utilities. UGI Utilities was the
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
Becky Price replaced her oil furnace with a propane furnace back in 2006, but the oil furnace’s pipes were still in place. Price canceled her contract for oil refills with High Pointe Oil Company, but there was a problem on November 2007, in which Price’s address was added to the list of oil fill ups and the truck driver filled up the oil pipes with 400 gallons of fuel oil which caused the destruction of Price’s house and her belongings. So, Price sued the company for the failure of not removing the oil furnace’s pipes, including for non-economic damages such as emotions and feelings.
Brand plays a key role in the beer-purchasing process, along with taste, price, special occasion,
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
Boston Beer Company (BBC) has enjoyed much success with their craft beers with Samuel Adams as their main focus. Being the leader of this segment, overtopping five of their competitors combined (Exhibit 1), the company now must decide how to take advantage of the light beer market. Boston Lightship, their current light beer, had been a small contributor in BBC’s product line. Currently, it is facing dwindling sales with product volumes down from 12 000 cases per month to 3000 cases per month.
The Association was involved in a pending civil lawsuit venued in Hennepin County District Court, State of Minnesota, against Urban Homeworks, Inc. (“the Declarant) in Master Civil Construction Engineering, Master Property Management, LLC and Master Development Services, LLC, (“the General Contractor”). The declarant and general contractor sued 3rd party subcontractors Advanced Stucco and Stone, Inc. “Advanced Stucco”, All Seasons Chalking and Company, Inc. “All Seasons”, Tappe Construction, Inc. (“Tappe”), Stellar Contractors, Inc. (“Stellar”).
This case is Azte Inc. v Auto Collection, Inc., 2012 NY Slip Op 51731(Unpublished) [36 Misc. 3d 1238] (US Supreme Court, Kings County, 2012).
NHA sought to renovate the National Hotel. Richard, aware that he was one of the several contractors competing for the job, proposed that NHA use nonunion labor through O. Ahlborg & sons, INC, and CSI to reduce the overall cost of the project. Richard agreed to take full responsibility of any problems CSI would have with the
Carvin v. Arkansas Power and Light, No. 90-6055, 1991 WL 540481, slip op. at 4-7 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 2, 1991)
Marion visited some people in HUS. After collecting information from these conversations, more hidden information came out. This is also very important for evaluating HUS’s HRDM practices.
The court ruled that State could not sue for equitable indemnity or contribution based on the fact that there was no evidence that Moffatt owed a duty of care or that Moffatt was negligent. The court also determined that there was no contractual relationship between State and Major and that a person or other property was not damaged. Based on the two core findings, all cross complaints made by State are disregarded and State is found to be solely responsible for the damages. Moffatt is also awarded costs on the appeal.
Suncor Energy is a company I would like to work for because they have a solid foundation for both business and employee success. Also, the company has an achievement- oriented culture, enormous opportunities for career growth, a very competitive compensation package, an industry leading experience and a great reputation for social and environmental responsibility.
The TexasAgs oil company case study gave us insights on different aspects of a negotiation that can happen in real world scenarios. It elegantly portrayed the importance of having a BATNA, setting target and restriction points, impact of the fluctuating markets on the ongoing negotiations, downside of the emotional behavior, importance of having a third party member or mediator in the negotiation. The case illustrates that the negotiations should be based assumptions as they may or may not be right. Having facts and understanding the other parties true objectives and goals are truly essential in negotiation. It is a typical example of how the current power on one side can dominate and take complete advantage of their position.
The case study of NewGrade Energy is based on data analysis from 2009. A privately owned company located in Regina, Saskatchewan that operates heavy oil upgrader, The Company’s ownership structure consists of the Government of Saskatchewan and Federated Co-Operatives Limited each owning 100% of the company and Crown Investment Corporation (CIC) and Consumer’s Co-Operative Refineries Limited (CCRL) both owning 50% (Ivey, 2009). At the time of its $ 770 million dollar, inception in 1988 CIC and its third-party lenders financed $150 million to the project and the government of Saskatchewan and Canada guaranteed the capital venture (Ivey, 2009). The