Sons Of Thunder Inc V Borden Case Analysis

Herein will begin with an overview and introduction from personal knowledge of DixieLands Glory, LLC; a small family owned and operated business for the purpose of owning and managing rental properties. The company was initially operated as Warf’s Rentals; in 2003 the business was renamed and incorporated to become DixieLands Glory, LLC. The business is operated from a small office located in the family’s home, which is located in Linden, Tennessee. DixieLands Glory owns, operate, and manage approximately eighty-five rental units ranging from single-family homes to 4-plexes and mobile home parks. The properties that the company owns are mostly located in the states of Tennessee and Alabama. Of this, about 50 percent are located in the family’s hometown of Linden, Tennessee, with the remainder being located in two other Tennessee counties, and Decatur, Alabama.

In this case, there are several important issues to note. The initial issues is that a contract was signed by a minor acting on behalf of the company and not by a specified owner of the company. The question here is if this contract is legally binding and what recourse of actions the parties may have. The first step would be to consider the legality of the contract. In order for a contract to be legal it has to possess several important criteria. Contracts have to be communicated to the parties it effects clearly. (Kubasek 2015). In this case, the contract was not communicated at all to the owners of Muscadine grapes and it was also not

The case involving Birch & Davis International, Inc., and Warren M. Christopher, the United States Secretary of State was decided on September 13th, 1993. The case involved procurement procedures conducted by the Agency of International Development (Open Jurist). The issue centered on exclusion of bids made by Birch & Davis International, Inc. Birch challenged the exclusion to the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals and they decided that the actions taken by the agency were fair. The case got to the Federal level when Birch appealed the decision by the board.

Have you ever been done wrong? Have you ever been done wrong under a contract and faced sufficient damages causing a loss? Chapter 18 focuses on contract remedies, and how damages to a party are compensated. When a party breaches a contract, under the law the court can give the injured party an equivalent of what the promised performance would have rewarded. The two cases I chose to discuss are the Arrowhead School District No. 75, Park County, Montana v. James A. Klyap, Jr. case and the Parker v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. case. Both of these cases provide us with a very good explanation of different types of damages, and how the court came to a conclusion based off of the different scenarios. Throughout the remainder of this article, it will briefly discuss the details of each case, the similarities and differences among them, and how your business clients can use these cases to strategically prevent future legal issues of similar nature.

It can be seen from above table that most of the competitors of Toll Brothers have temporary competitive advantage, so their position is weak in the market as compared to Toll Brothers.

A panel of the Kansas Court of Appeals recently addressed the meaning of the term “impairment” in a dispute between senior and junior water users in Western Kansas. In Garetson Brothers v. American Warrior, Inc., 51 Kan. App. 2d 370, 347 P.3d 687 (2015), a senior user obtained an injunction prohibiting a junior user from diverting water during the pendency of the lawsuit. 51 Kan. App. 2d 370, 347 P.3d 687 (2015). The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court and a Petition for Review is pending before the Kansas Supreme Court.

Technical Consumer Products, Inc (TCP) makes and distributes energy-efficient lighting products. Emily Bahr was TCP’s district sales manager in Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota when the company announced the details of a bonus plan. A district sales manager who achieved 100 percent year-over-year sales growth and a 42 percent gross margin would earn 200 percent of his or her base salary as a bonus. Bahr’s base salary was $42,500. Her final sales result for the year showed 113 percent year-over-year sales and a 42% growth margin. She anticipated a bonus of $85,945, but TCP could not afford to pay the bonuses as planned, and Bahr received only $34,229. In response to Bahr’s claim for breach of contract, TCP argued that the bonus plan was too indefinite to be an offer.

62-year-old, Dale Bolinger, was arrested for his attempt to eat a 14-year-old girl in England. Bolinger is being held in the U.S. after his move to Nebraska.

This case was also cited in PEABODY COAL CO., LLC v. BARNHART., 469 F.Supp.2d 240 (2007) case held in the United States District Court, D. Delaware. The decision on this case was made on January 11, 2007. According to this case, on September 14, 2005, the plaintiffs Peabody Coal Company, LLC (“Peabody”) and Eastern Associated Coal Corporation ("EACC") filed suit against defendant Jo Anne B. Barnhart ("Barnhart"), the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA"). Plaintiffs' complaint that Barnhart's (defendant) actions of assigning them (plaintiffs) the responsibility for funding health and death benefits for certain retired coal industry employees violated both § 9706 of the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 ("Coal Act"), 26 U.S.C.

The definition of exceeds authorized access provided in the CFAA does not suggest it applies to misuse, “[b]y its plain terms, this definition also speaks to access, not use.” JCBHoldings NY, LLC v. Pakter, 931 F. Supp.2d 514, 523 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The Ninth Circuit fittingly adopted a narrow interpretation of the CFAA in Nosal. 676 F.3d at 863. There, the defendant (Nosal) resigned from his job and convinced some of his former colleagues to give him confidential information using their authorized access to help him start his own competing business. Id. at 856. Company policy forbade disclosure of confidential information. Id. The district court dismissed the claim, reasoning “[t]here is simply no way to read [the definition of ‘exceeds authorized access’] to incorporate corporate policies governing use of information unless the word alter is interpreted to mean misappropriate,” as “[s]uch an interpretation would defy the plain meaning of the word alter, as well as common sense.” Id.

“The considerations of practicality and principle discussed … above appear to support the respondents ' case, namely that a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on trust for his principal. The position is perhaps rather less clear when one examines the decided cases … However, to put it at its lowest, the authorities do not preclude us adopting the respondents ' case in that they do not represent a clear and consistent line of authority to the contrary effect. Indeed, we consider that, taken as a whole, the authorities favour the respondents ' case.” (per Lord Neuberger in FHR European Ventures LLP and others v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014] UKSC 45 at [46].

Can Andy sue Doug for breach of contract given the terms implied based on the facts of the case?

The Cartwright Lumber Company had been found in 1994 as a partnership by Mark Cartwright and his brother-in-law Henry Stark. Later in 2001, Mr. Cartwright bought out Stark’s shares and incorporated the business. Now, Mr. Cartwright is a sole owner and president of the company. The business is located in the Pacific Northwest region and does the retail distribution of lumber products in the local area. Plywood, moldings, and sash and door are some of the typical products of the company.

a. Explain the value chain for gold mining firms (how can a mine create a competitive advantage relative to its rivals). What are the factors that may explain exceptional performance of ABX relative to the other gold mines?

Q1. What are the built-in tensions with a public private equity firm? How does Blackstone 's structure attempt to reconcile them?