Another rule applicable to the case regards liability. An employer is to be held liable for any actions and or behavior of his or her employees. Therefore legally, an employer would be held accountable for the actions of his hired personnel. Analysis As Counsel to Mr. Cordell Stoke, I would surely advise for and facilitate a motion against Pops, the sole owner of POP 'S Barbershop. Being the sole owner of Uptown Distributors LLC.
In Pearson v. Chung, the plaintiff deposits a pair of pants for alterations and when he gets them back after a few days of delay, he claims that the defendant lost the pair of pants and sues for inconvenience, cost of pants, mental anguish and unfair trade practices. He initially sues for $67 million but later for a lesser amount. The plaintiff claims that the defendant switched the original pair of pants with a similar one in order to escape the liability but the defendant denies it. Both the sides offer evidence in support of their claims and the decision in made in favour of the defendant. The case Pearson v. Chung (herein after referred to as ‘the case’) is a tort reform case in the United States of America.
The claimant made a deliberate choice to depart from the aggreed arrangements as regards his primary obligation under the contract at the year end he had to make a repayment to PCT any consequential clawback from the defendant occur at that point, claimant stance in september meant that he would retain the full PCT payments and pay nothing to the defendant untill a final accounting occured,where in october the defendant would only receive a reduced
Given the way thatSection 502 is worded, as long as any person who receives a “benefit as consideration” is in a position “to influence an official act to be done or not done,” then the voluntary offer of such a“benefit” to that person for the purpose of getting that person to influence an official actconstitutes a bribe under Section 502. An enterprising lawyer can argue that ETG’s promise of a payout to non-government-official Yapese citizens is intended to get those Yapese citizens toinfluence the Yap State Government to, among other things, repeal Yap’s anti-gambling lawsand allow for ETG to carry out casino operations in Yap. In that scenario, then, ETG’s promiseof a payout arguably constitutes a bribe under Section 502.The second issue is whether ETG’s promise of an “annual gaming tax” to the Yap StateGovernment constitutes a bribe under Section 502 of the Yap State Code. Of course, if a licensefee or tax is legitimate and provided-for under relevant state/national laws and regulations, thenthe payment (or the promised payment) of such a fee/tax
The contractor will not receive an extra payment for accomplishing higher quality standards. The contractor shall bear all the costs of providing the service or item mentioned in the contract This means that only the contractor who is affected by the losses, which also will get the profits, if there is any profit in the project. The client must be satisfied by the contractor on site in all cases. in this project , the
The principal engaged the contractor under an AS 2124 – 1992 (Construct only) form of contract. Eighteen months into the project, the principal expressed concern regarding what it said was the slow progress, poor quality of the works and the quantum of progress claims submitted by the contractor. Accordingly, the principal served four show cause notices on the contractor under the contract, alleging that the contractor was in default by separate substantial breaches of the contract and requiring the contractor to show cause (in writing) why the principal should not: 1. Take the whole or part of the remaining work out of the contractor’s hands; or 2. Terminate the contract.
By examination with the FOB contract, under the CIF contract the purchaser has no under commitment to obtain a boat, place, and delivering time. Then again, the purchaser fundamental obligation is to acknowledge the archives, which will be clarified in point of interest later, if these records are in similarity with the agreement of offer. 2. The purchaser's obligation under the FOB contract, to pay the cost is dictated by the agreement. Be that as it may, there is no such a period in the agreement; the purchaser must pay the cost in due when the seller conveyed the products as per the
2. The exclusion/limitation clauses in the contract with POTL are likely to be valid under English law. (a) As the contract was signed by POTL and Banana UK Ltd (Banana’s UK subsidiary), and both companies are English companies, the contract is under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (“UCTA”). According to UCTA, whether the exclusion/limitation clauses in the contract are valid will be influenced by the following factors: the strength of the bargaining positions; the inducement the customer received to sign the contract; whether the customer knew or ought reasonably to had known of the existence and the extent of the term; where the term excludes or restricts any relevant liability if some condition was not complied with, whether it was reasonable
While writ petitions and public interest litigations could be filed in the higher courts, criminal cases can be launched in the lower courts. A number of important judgments had been passed by the higher courts, determining safeguards or guidelines which are necessary to regulate police behaviour and their functioning, process of arrest, interrogation and other stages of investigation, asking and also payment of compensation in cases of custodial violence, managing of communal and caste conflicts in many cases where defective or inadequate police investigation was
These guidelines were based on Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provisions and are now a part of regulations laid down in police manuals and rule books. The failure to comply with these guidelines does not only render an officer liable for punishment through departmental action but also for contempt of court. The Court said that monetary compensation was an appropriate and effective way for redressal of infringement of fundamental rights of a citizen by public servants. The State was to be held vicariously liable for their acts. The quantum of compensation would depend on the facts of each case and no strait jacket formula could be evolved in that behalf.