Base on the study case that we choose, we think that the leadership development approach adopted by the Great Wall Motor Company was necessary. We had found that the Great Wall Company was using the Bureaucracy Leadership by Max Weber (1864-1920) from the company was launched until now. Base on the study case the reason we could found that the Great Wall Motor was using the Bureaucracy leadership is because in the study case got no goal or other just related to leader and rule. So from the study case we could found that the leadership of the Great Wall Motor was associated with the red tape and endless rules. There got many reasons why the Great Wall Motor will use the Bureaucracy leadership.
United States. “It is plain that these requirements are imposed in order to govern the details of defendants’ management of their local business.” Hughes is talking about how the requirements are imposed to govern manage their business. “Their wages have no direct relation to interstate commerce.” Huges is saying people who are working wages that don’t have any relations to interstate commerce. Document G is from a radio broadcast by John L. Lewis on December 13, 1936. “The strikes which have broken out… especially in the automobile industry, are due to such “employee trouble”.” In this sentence Lewis is blaming the strikes on employee trouble.
A month later, on January of 1988, the truck became completely inoperable and soon contacted the Shraders to request a full refund. The couple refused thus Dodson then filed an action to recover the amount paid for the truck as well as to cancel the contract. The case regarding Dodson and the truck is more to do with common rights as it has to do with whether should the Shraders repay the purchase price to the minor as well as it was based on previous common-law decisions. The final decision was appealed with the Shraders having to repay the full purchase price of
That is just what Rockefeller did; he monopolized the companies within the act. Rockefeller's Standard Oil was the epitome for company growth and dominance due to monopolistic behavior. However the United States Congress detected his monopolizing actions and tried to put a stop to it. Congress came out with the Sherman Antitrust Act which claimed Standard Oil of Ohio is a violation to the Ohio Law. Rockefeller saw this coming and terminated the corporation, allowing others to supervise his company.
Immediate Issue(s) or Problem(s) The main issue in the case is about the conflict of interest when Mr. De Guzman and the two other directors who processed the transactions convinced Dr. Gonzales to sell the shares to them instead when Cheap Pharma cannot pursue the plan due the problem in one of its factories. With this, it turned out that the directors took advantage of the weakness of the company they are serving. 2. Basic Issue(s) or Associated Issue(s) In every company, it is the responsibility
In June 1984, the annual accounts, which were done with the help of the accountant Dickman, were issued to the shareholders, which now included Caparo. Caparo reached a shareholding of 29.9% of the company, at which point it made a general offer for the remaining shares, as the City Code's rules on takeovers required. Once it had control, Caparo found that Fidelity's accounts were in an even worse state than had been revealed by the directors or the auditors. Caparo sued Dickman for negligence in preparing the accounts and sought to recover its losses by determining the difference in value between the company as it had and what it would have had if the accounts had been
Arthur Andersen was aware of the use of SPV’s and even considered the transactions to be risky. However, “audit procedures did not reflect consideration of this risk” (Edelman & Nicholson, 2010). In 2001, the SEC was beginning to investigate Enron. David Duncan had ordered the auditors of Enron to shred any related documents. “The firm lost the majority of its clients and most of its talented employees” (Edelman & Nicholson).
Case B: Hugo Boss Hong Kong Ltd. Vs. The Britain Boss International Co. Ltd. Background In November 2013, Plaintiff H (Hugo Boss Hong Kong Ltd.) filed a legal proceeding against Defendant B (The Britain Boss International Co. Ltd.) on grounds of trademark infringement. The basis of this infringement is the particularity of one word in the entitled name of both parties’ brand – “Boss”. Furthermore, Plaintiff H has asserted that it is due to Defendant B’s usage of almost identical typography and emphasis of the word Boss in its branding that become the strong motive of the infringement.
This essay will examine the case of Auspicious Sdn Bhd vs the Management of “The Embrace”. The case brings to light whether Auspicious Sdn Bhd or the management has breached the contract. The contract amounts to Rm xxx for sale of furniture and fixtures to the Management of “The Embrace” by Auspicious Sdn Bhd . Jimmy, the managing director of Auspicious Sdn Bhd signed the contract with Beng Kim (Senior Manager of The Embrace) on 8th January 2014. The claims according to Jimmy, the Management violated as the payment of X% did not proceed through even after partial of the fixture and fitting provided.
OSTRAND, J.: On December 29, 1922, one Josefa Patricio employed Mariano Velayo to represent her as a lawyer in an action to be brought against her father Claro Patricio for the recovery of her inheritance from her mother Cecilia which inheritance was under the administration and control of Claro Patricio. The employment of Velayo was evidenced by a written contract which provided for the payment to him of a fee of 50 per cent of the value of the property which might be recovered in the proposed action. The action, civil case No. 23528 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, was brought on January 6, 1923 and prosecuted in the name of Josefa Patricio, but on July 5, 1924, while the action was still pending, she died and a few days later Velayo filed a motion in the case asking that Josefa 's children, Pablo, Gerundia, Carmen and Rosa Rivera and Rosario Patricio, all minors, be substituted as plaintiffs. The motion was granted on July 14, 1924, and a guardian ad litem appointed.