Essay on Case Study - Transamerica Oil Corp V Lynes

The case study on Pacific Oil Company shows from beginning to end the role of power in the outcome of a negotiation. From the beginning, the problem that Pacific Oil Company faced as it reopened negotiations with Reliant Chemical Company was that they did not assert the power necessary to really end up with the outcome of the negotiation they were hoping for. The case study points out several factors that Pacific Oil Company is trying to achieve in the contract negotiations with Reliant Chemical company: the change to a surplus of VCM in the market, the possibility of Pacific Oil needing a supply of their own of VCM to produce their own PVC, and the start-up of several other companies in the production of VCM (Lewiski, n.d.). These

In the case against Sage Rent-A-Car the defendant filed a surety bond with the superintendent of insurance when it incorporated. Therefore, the court should dismiss the suit against Sage Rent-A-Car for failing to state a claim under rule NMRA 1-012B(6). Also under section 66-5-207(E) (1988) of the New Mexico Financial Responsibility Act states, “a motor vehicle approved as a self-insured by the superintendent of insurance is exempt from the act. Therefore, the defendant is not liable for any damages due to filing a surety bond with the New Mexico superintendent and for being self-insured. Lastly, under New Mexico case law Las Lumarias of the N.M Council v. Isengard, 92 N.M 297, 300-301 (Ct. App. 1978) the court held a motion to dismiss due to the plaintiff not being able to recover or be entitled to relief under any state of facts provided under the claim. As one can see under the statutes provided and case law the defendant Sage Rent-A-Car is not liable for damages per the New Mexico Financial Responsibility Act not constituting negligence due to Sage’s actions when

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

When a law enforcement officer or other public employee is accused of potentially criminal conduct, they may face three different kinds of interviews or interrogations. If an officer is interviewed as a criminal suspect, they have the absolute right to decline to answer any questions, or to insist that they have a lawyer of their choosing to attend the interview. The first is type is during a criminal investigation; the second is during a disciplinary investigation and finally during the course of civil litigation where there has been damages. During a criminal interview, there is no professional, ethical or moral duty to participate especially without the assistance of an attorney to represent the officer under investigation. It has come to a surprise that many experienced officers will waive their right to silence and give the investigators an audio recorded statement. Some of the inexperienced criminals do not make incriminating statements. The motive for cooperation is to avoid unfavorable publicity.

1. Yes. Any cooperation or business who is in violation of an implied warranty of merchantability will be subject to the provisions of UCC § 2-314, in order for goods to be merchantable they must be “fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; • be “within the variations permitted by the agreement, of even kind, quality, and quantity within each unit and among all units involved,” • be adequately contained, packaged, and labeled as the agreement may require,” and • “conform to the promises of affirmations of fact made on the container or label, if any.”

Background of the case: The issue of the case was that Ogden sued Gibbons when he started operating a ferry service. The defendant said that his ferry was licensed and that he had the right to operate his ferry in that location as well.

The plaintiff argued these allegations and presented many evidence such as advertising materials and postcard were sent by the defendant to East Carolina’s customers to entice them to make a reservation . As a consequence, this court found the first element satisfied. In addition to this element, this court found that due process was not violated by this law .The presented evidence shows that the defendant has minimum contacts which require “ defendant to purposely avail himself of the privileges and benefit of forum state” which existed in this case when the defendant was benefiting itself of conducting some activities in forum state. Finally, the court took into consideration 5 factors to decide whether having jurisdiction over this case would prevent the idea of traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The burden on defendant was the first factor court examined and it shows it would be burdensome for the defendant to have the case heard in East Carolina due to several reasons such as not having property or an office as well as bringing the jet ski involved in the accident. The second factor was the interest of the forum state which is in favor of the

Barnes, separately, had commenced proceedings in the District Court of NSW. Both proceedings were transferred to the Federal Court and heard with the proceedings issued by the ACCC. The judgment on this case was delivered on February 27, 1998 six years after Australia passed a statutory code dealing with defective goods in 1992 sixty years after the verdict on the Donoghue v Stevenson’s case.

In the case of L and V Contractors, LLC v. Heritage Warranty Insurance Risk Retention Group, Inc., et al the vehicle owner and plaintiff, Alejandro Leone sued AAMCO and Drive Train for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation and statutory theft. Claims were also bought against Heritage Insurance. The charges against the aforementioned defendants stem for the interactions the plaintiff had with each party.

A product was bought from a company named Tools R Us, which solely operates in Columbus, Ohio, by an individual who was traveling through. A week later the individual was operating the tool, when it malfunctioned an injured the individual. When the tool malfunctioned the individual decided to file a lawsuit against Tools R Us. The individual selected to file that lawsuit in his hometown of Kent County. The individual demands that the Kent County court brings up Tools R Us from Ohio for a lawsuit. Tools R Us, objected to the lawsuit in Kent County, since they don’t have jurisdiction over them. Also, they believe that they do not have minimum contacts with the state of Michigan.

Pioneer Petroleum Corporation (PPC) has two major problems that are interfering with the goal of the firm to maximize shareholder wealth. The first is that PPC has been calculating their weighted average cost of capital incorrectly, by incorrectly calculating their after tax cost of debt and their cost of equity. This miscalculation has subjected PPC to more risk and has hurt the company’s ability to make appropriate investment decisions. This has also led PPC to accepting investment decisions that should not have been included within their acceptable range. Second, PPC has been using a single company-wide rate for their multi-divisional company. In either instance the company is not

This particular case is about Buick motor being responsible for the defect wheel of the automobile it sold to the plaintiff MacPherson. The defendant Buick motor co is a manufacturer of automobiles. It sold an automobile to a retail dealer and the retail dealer resold it to the plaintiff. While the plaintiff was in the car it suddenly collapsed. He was thrown out the car and received serious in result. One of the wheels was made out of defective wood, which caused the frame to crumble into fragments. The defendant did not make the wood; it was brought from another manufacturer. There is evidence however that its defects could have been discovered by a reasonable inspection, and that inspection was omitted. There is no claim that the defendant

At the end of 2009 or the beginning of 2010 [id. ¶ 21], when Plaintiff was still employed full time by IDT, Mr. Ismail, the President of TCCC [id. ¶ 5], wanted to open up retail store locations as a “master dealer” for T-Mobile. [Id. ¶¶ 21-23] Plaintiff alleges that, in order to help TCCC gain acceptance into the T-Mobile Preferred Retailer program, Mr. Ismail identified

As long-term valuation is assumed, risk free rate is set as 30-year treasury rate, 5.73%. Cost of debt is 6.72% reflecting Amoco’s credit level. Cost of equity is calculated as 10.63%, leading to final WACC at 8.85% (Chart 1).

The above formula isolates free cash flows to the firm from earnings before interest and tax (EBIT). It can be noted that FCFF are after tax (1-T) but prior to interest expense. This initial overstatement of due tax is by design; the tax deductibility of interest payments will be accounted for when incorporating the after-tax cost of debt in the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) to determine the present value of free cash flows.