COURT OF APPEAL Slater v Clay Cross Co Ltd [1956] 2 QB 264 Full text 17 May 1956 DENNING LJ: In Derbyshire there has been for well over a hundred years a railway line owned by the defendants. We were told that George Stephenson himself made it. The defendants use it so as to carry limestone from their quarries at Crich down to Ambergate. It is a small gauge line‚ only three feet‚ three inches wide‚ and is 2 1/2 miles long. On that small line there are two tunnels. One of them‚ with which we
Premium Internal combustion engine Tort law Tort
Faverty v McDonald’s Restaurants of Oregon‚ Inc. 892 P.2D 703 (CT. APP. OR. 1995) Facts: Matt Theurer was an 18 year old adult that worked at McDonald’s part time. His friends and family worried about him because he had many extra-curricular activities‚ worked for the National Guard‚ and worked for McDonalds. McDonald’s informal policy did not allow high school students to work more than one midnight shift per week or split shifts. There was a special clean-up week McDonald’s held‚ Theurer worked
Premium Alcoholic beverage Law High school
INDEX CONTENTS Page No. Introduction 1 Issues Raised 1 Rules Applicable 5 Analysis 8 Conclusion 10 Bibliography 11 N. Nageshwar Rao & Co. v. State of A.P 1994 (6) SCC 205 Introduction India is a Union of States and is governed by a written constitution. Rights being immunities denote that there is a guarantee that certain things cannot or ought not to be done to a person against his will. According to this concept‚ human beings‚ by virtue of their humanity‚ ought to
Premium Constitution of India Law Government of India
29. Introduction 30. The decision of the House of Lords in Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1] evinces the accuracy of Gooley’s observation that the separate legal entity doctrine was a "two-edged sword".[2] At a general level‚ it was a good decision. By establishing that corporations are separate legal entities‚ Salomon’s case endowed the company with all the requisite attributes with which to become the powerhouse of capitalism. At a particular level‚ however‚ it was a bad decision. By extending the
Premium Corporation Limited liability company
The Plaintiff‚ Sullivan (Plaintiff) sued the Defendant‚ the New York Times Co. (Defendant)‚ for printing an advertisement about the civil rights movement in the south that defamed the Plaintiff. New York Times vs. Sullivan Defamation can be defined as a written or spoken statement that subjects someone to hatred or ridicule or injures a person’s occupation or business. This case was decided on March 9th‚ 1964 by unanimous decision. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court and concurrences
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States
Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893) case‚ Carbolic stated specific terms such as promising an exact payment if people still could contract influenza whilst using the smoke ball on a newspaper advertisement. This advertisement was deemed to be an offer and not just a mere puff
Premium Contract Invitation to treat
case about misappropriation of a trade secret that I researched is Best Buy Co. v. TechForward Inc. What happened was that Los Angeles-based TechForward sued Best Buy for misappropriating an original TechForward trade secret for the Best Buy “Guaranteed Buyback Program” (Star Tribune). The issue with the lawsuit involves what TechForward’s business does for its consumers. What they do (a much smaller business than Best Buy Co.) is calculate the buyback value of various consumer products such as phones
Premium
Assignment #4: R. Williams Construction Co. v. OSHRC May 27‚ 2012 HRM 510 Employment Law For Human Resource Practice What was the legal issue in this case? This case is followed by the laws and regulations of OSHA. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Act) is an organization that has been put into place to ensure the safety of employees while on their jobs. These regulations are put into place to help reduce the number of on the job injuries and deaths. In this case with Williams Construction
Premium
1) Citation Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co 248 N.Y. 339‚ 162 N.E. 99 (1928) Court of Appeals of New York 2) Key facts a. The plaintiff‚ Helen Palsgraf‚ was waiting for a train on a station platform. b. A man carrying a package was rushing to catch a train that was moving away from a platform across the tracks from Palsgraf. c. As the man attempted to jump aboard the moving train‚ he seemed unsteady and about to fall. d. A railroad guard on the car reached forward to grab him and another guard
Premium Plessy v. Ferguson New Orleans United States
Merck & Co Case Analysis 1. Problem Statement – Merck & Co ‘s stock market performance had trailed that of competitors in light of the concerns that company was not able to adapt to the changes in environment where as competitors was using their aggressive marketing functional unit as their competitive edge. Company also failed to take advantage of its own market opportunities especially the outcome of aftermarket studies of drugs they launched .Company was very late in adapting to
Premium Organizational structure Marketing Product management