company meetings and vote on resolutions. We are also told that the objects of the company are to carry on the business of restaurateurs’. The concept of Cool Cooks Ltd. changing into the estate agency business might seem slightly strange‚ but the law will not intervene to restrain the directors from pursuing a different policy or business‚ even where it is a new venture in which the company has no expertise as seen in this case here. For example‚ in Re A Company (No 002567 of 1982) (1983)‚ a minority
Premium Shareholder Stock market Fiduciary
Scenario One The issue between Brian and Amy is if there was an enforceable contract and if after Brian verbally offered to sell the car for $10‚500‚ was Amy’s response was a mere inquiry or a counter-offer? While Amy and Brian were negotiating terms a contract was not in place. As per Hyde v Wrench (1840)‚ a counter-offer does not amount to acceptance but is a rejection of the original offer‚ which then lapses. However‚ a mere inquiry is not an acceptance or a rejection‚ therefore the option
Premium Contract
violate Leslie Fosters or anyone else’s right to Freedom of Religion granted by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The First Amendment contains the Establishment Clause which states that the government shall make no law “Respecting an establishment of religion”. In other words the government shall not endorse religion and it shall not give preference to one religion over another but it does not prohibit the government’s entry into religious domain to make
Premium Ten Commandments Religion Separation of church and state
Structure: 1. Introduction：what happened to the news of the world‚ and its brief impact 100 2. Body: 2.1 Question 1:using ethical theories and frameworks. Key ethical issues in the news of the world 850 words Utilitarianism‚ deontology etc. 2.2 Question 2: corporate governance and accountability‚ to what extent the news of the world failed. 450 words Developing cultures‚ code of conducts‚ ethical leadership 2.3 Question 3: Three practices to consider to avoid (what should have done to the
Premium Ethics
another party if - (a) he neither makes the contract in the course of a business nor holds himself out as doing so; and (b) the other party does make the contract in the course of a business; and (c) in the case of a contract governed by the law of sale of goods or hire-purchase‚ or by section 7 of this Act‚ the goods passing under or in pursuance of the contract are of a type ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption. (1A) But if the first party mentioned in subsection (1) is an
Premium Management Contract Sale of Goods Act 1979
To discuss whether or not there are valid contracts made between Charles v. Alex and Betty v. Alex‚ the formation of the contract have to be discussed. To form a legally binding contract‚ the elements of offer and acceptance; present of consideration; intention to create legal relation; capacity; legality of object; compliance with formalities; and genuine consent must be present all together. In the case of Charles v. Alex‚ to determine whether or not Alex was entitled to sell the apartment
Premium Contract Offer and acceptance
LGEAL PERSONALITY Foss v Harbottle (1843) 67 ER 189 is a leading English precedent in corporate law. In any action in which a wrong is alleged to have been done to a company‚ the proper claimant is the company itself. This is known as "the rule in Foss v Harbottle"‚ and the several important exceptions that have been developed are often described as "exceptions to the rule in Foss v Harbottle". Amongst these is the ’derivative action’‚ which allows a minority shareholder to bring a claim on behalf
Premium
Tort Law Reading Notes Week 1 Mon Sep 8 Damages pp697-729 - aim of damages: restore plaintiff to position he would have been had the wrong not occurred o as this is impossible in cases of personal injury‚ monetary compensation is used o total amount is the amount that will release the target amount over the given span of years - assessment is a matter if calculation‚ not impression (SCC 1978) - 3 probs: o 1) what kinds of items must a defendant compensate
Premium Tort
------------------------------------------------- Assault From Wikipedia‚ the free encyclopedia This article is about the criminal act. For tortious aspects of assault‚ see Assault (tort). For other uses‚ see Assault (disambiguation). Criminal law | Part of the common law series | Element (criminal law) | * Actus reus * Mens rea * Causation * Concurrence | Scope of criminal liability | * Complicity * Corporate * Vicarious | Seriousness of offense | * Felony * Misdemeanor | Inchoate
Premium Criminal law Crime Actus reus
June 2012 Question 4 Discuss the criminal liability of Jameela and of Leah arising out of the incidents in the town. First of all there is a battery with the initial contact that Jameela has on Ken. The AR of battery is “infliction of unlawful violence”. Battery is defined as being the slightest touch without permission as in the case of Cole v Turner‚ the knocking in to Ken is this touch without his permission. When she knocked into Ken this led to him to fall. This is an ABH as this battery led
Premium Battery Criminal law Causality