Defendant

must, in the view of the court, have constituted a fraud In early cases, control was equated only with actual control of voting rights,22 but more recently the courts have held the control requirement to be fulfilled not only in cases where the defendants themselves have held

Tort Essay. ‘The "but for" test, although it often yields the right answer, does not always do so.’ Use the airline case in the conclusion Causation has been subject to copious amounts of judicial and academic debate over the last six decades. The trend being that but for causation is good as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough and there is a need to modify its structure in cases that do not have a simple yes or no answer to causation. This essay explores the development of the but for

Roger Neil Pescott, Caroline Pescott, Euan Pescott, Blackburne Pty Ltd, Brabourne Pty Ltd, Mt Ross Pastoral Pty Ltd, Eurambeen Pty Ltd, Maridale (Victoria) Pty Ltd, Carnac Pty Ltd, Clive Randal Dossetor and Grant Anthony Robertson as the list of defendants. One of the claims in this proceeding is the BEP Blue Gum Project which was formerly owned by Euan Pescott, brother to Roger Pescott. In 1999, Euan Pescott and BEP Management Pty Ltd entered into an agreement that requires BEP to establish and

acceptance by Ben. The contract comes into existence as soon as Ada checks the voicemail. With reference to the case of Entores Ltd v. Miles Far East Corporation in 1955, the plaintiff in London sent a telex to the defendant in Amsterdam offering to buy goods from the defendant. The defendant sent a telex in return to the plaintiff accepting the offer. Therefore, a contract was made between the parties when the defendant’s acceptance was accepted by the plaintiff.4 b) Because of a fault on Ada’s voicemail

Social media is used as a tool to talk to loved ones and friends to make us feel close to them, but it has been shown that social media has the exact opposite effect. It's makes some people feel alone, while other people live it up in trash cans with their egos as big as Rockefeller’s network. Common sense seems to dictate that it would be smarter to not put so much value on one photo, but in the memories that those photos hold, but, nowadays people only care about the photos, not memories. Its result

Respondent, vs. FEATHER RIVER ANESTHESIA MEDICAL GROUP: Appellant, Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Sutter County, Perry Parker, Judge. Reversed, in part; remanded, in part; and affirmed, in part. Weintraub Genshlea & Sproul, Rosemary Kelley, Charles L. Post, and William S. Jue, for Plaintiff Nosrat Khajavi. Biegler Opper & Ortiz, Robert P. Biegler and Jesse S. Ortiz, III, for Defendant Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group. Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt,

For this assignment, the statement that "The doctrine of estoppel prevents a claimant from going back on a promise and has been described as a ‘shield and not a sword'. Will be evaluated using relevant case law. First looking at the meaning of the doctrine that was developed by Lord Denning. This will then be investigated with case law which looks at the practical application and judgments found in these cases, giving clearer definition and meaning to the doctrine and look at an up to date case to

MEG MURRY SHOULD BE GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE DISCERNING OBSERVER TEST DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE ARE NO SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE PROTECTIBLE ELEMENTS OF THE TWO BOOKS. A motion for summary judgment is granted when the similarities concern only non-copyrightable elements of an allegedly infringed work or when no reasonable trier of fact could find the works substantially similar. Boisson v. Banian, Ltd., 273 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2001); Castle Rock Entm 't, Inc. v. Carol Publ 'g Grp

I. Burke exhausted her administrative remedies because the retaliation claim is an exception under administrative requirements as it grew out of the allegations from the initial EEOC claim. 　　“Filing a timely charge is a prerequisite to having an actionable claim.” Nat 'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 120 (2002). A plaintiff must file charges with the EEOC for either discriminatory or retaliatory acts no later than 180 or 300 days after their occurrence. Id. at 122. Untimely claims

Preliminary Statement Defendant Dr. Brandon Iron respectfully moves the Court, pursuant to Rule 3212(a) of the New York Civil Practice Law & Rules, to grant a motion for Summary Judgement in response to Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress Claim. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Iron intentionally inflicted emotional distress while performing a surgical procedure. Iron contends that the marking does not satisfy the extreme and outrageous behavior element. Absent such extreme and outrageous