Answered: What is the rules established under the… | bartleby

Related questions

Question

What is the rules established under the case law of Buckley & Young Ltd v CIR (1978) 3 NZTC 61,271 (CA)?

Expert Solution

Step by step

Solved in 3 steps

SEE SOLUTION Check out a sample Q&A here

Blurred answer

Similar questions

Read Herr v Bourne, 2021 ABQB 478 (CanLII). Which equitable remedy did the Court grant the Plaintiff? (enter the two words) Answer: Air
What was the ultimate outcome of the appeal to the High Court in DTR Nominees Pty Ltd v Mona Homes Pty Ltd (1978) 138 CLR 423? Choose one of the following Mona Homes had properly terminated the contract. The contract was terminated by abandonment. The contract had not been terminated and was still binding DTR Nominees had properly terminated the contract.
In 1961, Ford Motor Company acquired Autolite, a manufacturer of spark plugs, in order to enter the profitable aftermarket for spark plugs sold as replacement parts. Ford and the other major automobile manufacturers had previously purchased original equipment spark plugs (those installed in new cars when they leave the factory) from independent producers such as Autolite and Champion, either at or below the producer’s cost. The independents were willing to sell original equipment plugs so cheaply because aftermarket mechanics often replace original equipment plugs with the same brand of spark plug. GM had already moved into the spark plug market by developing its own division. Ford decided to do so by means of a vertical merger under which it acquired Autolite. Prior to the Autolite acquisition, Ford bought 10 percent of the total spark plug output. The merger left Champion as the only major independent spark plug producer. Champion’s market share thereafter declined because Chrysler…
dd
Natalie believes her cell phone company has been charging her exccesive fees under her cell phone contract. She wishes to sue the cell phone company. However, her contract states she must submit any legal claims arising out of the contract to the arbitation. The arbitrator is a former employee of the cell phone company. The arbitrator sides with the cell phone company and awatds damges to the cell phone company in the amount of $60,000. Can Natalie change the decision of the arbitrator in court?
Skip and Jack are the shareholders of the Blue Fish Event Corporation. Skip and Jack regularly put on classy events on or near the beach, so they have a special insurance policy to protect their assets. Business has been slow as fewer large beach weddings are taking place, so Skip and Jack use a large fan to blow down and damage most of their décor assets, some of which were personal assets of Skip and Jack, to collect the insurance benefits. (a) Assuming their acts are proven, will a court allow Skip and Jack to recover the insurance money? (b) Is this a situation where the corporate veil may be pierced? Why or why not? (c) What would it mean for Skip and Jack if the corporate veil is pierced in this situation?
What is the orbita dicta in hoyts v spencer case 1919.
Which of the following health policy provisions states that the producer does NOT have the authority to change the policy or wave any of its provisions? O A Time Limit on Certain Defenses OB. OC OD. Reinstatement Entire Contract Change of Beneficiary MM QUATE Ahiler 372-256-906
Answer with reference to Australian legislation please. 1. Kestrel Pty Ltd (Kestrel) is a small family company which operates a business breeding kestrels, eagles, falcons and other large birds of prey. Kim, Kourtney and Khloe are all siblings and the only directors of Kestrel and each owns 25 ordinary shares. Clause 15 of the constitution of Kestrel provides that Kim, Kourtney and Khloe shall be directors of Kestrel at all times. Late last year Kim had a massive fight with the rest of the family and now Kourtney and Khloe won’t speak to her and don’t want her to have anything to do with the company.At a recent board meeting, Kourtney and Khloe passed the following resolution(Kim voted against the resolution):Kestrel Pty Ltd (ACN 123 456 789) Written resolution Share Issue Resolved that: As Kestrel Pty Ltd requires additional capital to purchase more inventory, Kestrel Pty Ltd shall issue 25 ordinary shares to Kourtney and 25 ordinary shares to Khloe in consideration of…
What did Stephen, Mason and Jacob JJ hold in respect of DTR Nominee's claim against Mona Homes in DTR Nominees Pty Ltd v Mona Homes Pty Ltd (1978) 138 CLR 423? Choose one of the following Mona Homes had not repudiated the contract because their purported termination of the contract was based on a correct interpretation of it and DTR Nominees was not, at that time, ready, will and able to perform the contract. Mona Homes had repudiated the contract but DTR Nominees could not terminate because it was not, at that time, ready, willing and able to perform the contract. Mona Homes had repudiated the contract and DTR Nominees had the right to terminate. Mona Homes had not repudiated the contract because their purported termination of the contract was based on a correct interpretation of it, but they had seriously breached an intermediate term.
In Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., foreseeability was an issue. The question addressed by the court was: Group of answer choices Was it foreseeable to the plaintiff (Ms. Palsgraf) that the scales would fall? Was it foreseeable to Ms. Palsgraf that her injury would have been caused by an explosion? Was it foreseeable to the plaintiff (Ms. Palsgraf) that someone in the train station would be carrying explosive fireworks? Was it foreseeable to the passenger carrying the fireworks that they might explode and injure someone?