Wonder Widgets The first issue Wonder Widgets faces is their liability to CelTel for the problem widgets. Depending on the cause of the problems, Wonder Widgets may be liable for damages. However, the sales contract contained a merger clause which limited wonder Widget’s liability. A merger clause, when included in a contract, cause the contract to become the complete agreement of the parties (Mallor 471). This means that any terms that were discussed prior to the contract, that are not included in writing, do not apply.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act also is known as the SOX act, is an act passed in 2002 by United States Congress in retaliation to the billion dollar fradulent accouunting practices, scandals, and activities of corporations. It mandates that management creates internal controls and keep accurate reports on the accuracy of controls. Moreover, the SOX act mandates that senior management attests to the legitamacy of financial reports and statements. Likewise, the adequacy of internal control systems must be authenticated and monitored by independent external auditors. Failure to comply with any provisions of the act can result in steep fines and even imprsonment.
. had put forth, at no period, any enduring branch; in other words, that the entire family lay in the direct line of descent, and had always, with very trifling and very temporary variation, so lain. (Poe 2) Despite the incestual means of their conception occurring in the past, resulting genetic defects oppress the Usher siblings Madeline and Roderick—both physically and mentally—well into the future. Although the narrator provides no physical description of Madeline Usher prior to her entombment, of her brother Roderick he reports deformed features in line with those of products of
Conclusion There has been no mention if Mr. Jones properly ensured that all necessary bills and obligations have been settled. This is to include but not limited to any expenses associated with the decedent’s funeral but also any expenses incurred in protecting or administering the estate, such as seeking the assistance of professionals like an attorney or accountant. Mr. Jones failure to adhere to the required duties entitles Mr. Robinson and any other heirs to file a lawsuit against Mr. Jones for breach of fiduciary duty. In his role as personal representative, Mr. Jones owed a statutory and reasonable duty to protect the assets of the estate while trying to wind down the estate, and Mr. Jones breached that duty by failing to exercise due diligence to perform and complete the tasks required of him in the capacity of personal
The history behind Jackson’s decision is critical to determining its ethicalness. Ever since settlers have stepped foot on North American soil, they have trespassed and violated Indian Territories. The U.S. was the first country to respect the Indian nations as separate countries that have rights to their land and
Wonson. During this case, the government wanted to retry facts from a case that they had lost against Samuel Wonson. Joseph Story, an American jurist, had reminded the jury that this would be a violation of the Seventh Amendment. He had said, “Beyond all question, the common law here alluded to is not the common law of any individual state, (for it probably differs in all), but it is the common law of England, the grand reservoir of all our jurisprudence. It cannot be necessary for me to expound the grounds of this opinion, because they must be obvious to every person acquainted with the history of the
1. Gideon’s sixth amendment under the constitution was violated which stated that requires the state courts to provide attorneys to criminals who cannot afford their own. The Supreme Court ruled that Gideon’s amendment was violated. Though his offense was serious he was still supposed to be allowed to have someone to defend him it was one of his rights. The Court stated that the states were to follow the sixth amendment of someone because under the fourteenth amendment “Due Process Clause” applies the main points of the bill of
Fortas argued Gideon 's case by using wether Betts V. Brady should be reconsidered. The Betts V. Brady case had ruled that (akin to Gideon’s) that the fourteenth amendment requires states to appoint counsel only under special circumstances. It has been an unpopular standard and was constantly criticized but nevertheless was in effect. In only two short months, the verdict for Gideon 's case had been decided, Betts V. Brady was found unconstitutional, as it violated the sixth amendment 's right to a fair and speedy trial and that looking at the fourteenth amendment, which guarantees due process of law, the court was wrong to not have appointed Gideon a lawyer. The court then ruled that Gideon should be given a retrial, this time with a court appointed
In this case, the court ruled that the evacuation order which was violated by Korematsu was valid, and although “The constitutional issues should be addressed… it is clear that the “martial necessity arising from the danger of espionage and sabotage” warranted the military evacuation order.” As stated by Justice Frankfurter. In opposing thoughts, The Dissenting opinion written by Justice Jackson reads, "Korematsu ... has been convicted of an act not commonly thought a crime. It consists merely of being present in the state whereof he is a citizen, near the place where he was born, and where all his life he has lived.” Although this court case was finalized with Fred Korematsu being guilty, this case has sparked interest in the minds of thousands and whether they agree or disagree I will always agree with the second ruling. I do not see their plan of segregating the Japanese-Americans beneficial, due to the fact most of them have lived here their whole life. American citizens were made to be free and this order has done nothing but strip the citizens of their own
One of the elements of the legal adversary system is to ensure there is legal representation willingly actionized for a fair trial to occur. The 1992 High Court case Dietrich v The Queen (177 CLR 292) bought attention to exactly this – the rights to a fair trial and fair hearing rights. The High Court case focused on the granting of state funded legal representation when the indigent accused is underrepresented and in what circumstances this request should be granted. The case is an important one in the development of both Australian law and Australian constitutional law. The original case prior to the test case (High Court appeal) was a trial accusing Olaf Dietrich of importing at least seventy grams of the drug heroin into Australia, by concealing the drug in condoms and swallowing them.