2. A regime of strict liability already applies for certain types of oil pollution damage. The International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969, which is implemented in the UK by the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971 (the 1971 Act), places strict liability on owners of ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo. "Strict liability” means that victims of oil pollution damage do not have to prove fault on the part of the ship-owner in order to obtain compensation. The ship-owner is liable for any damage caused - or indeed threatened - by oil from the vessel.
However, that does not mean two years is always reasonable and the Virginia courts may determine that two years in this case is also unreasonable. The enforceability of the second section can also be determined by examining the Clark v. Smith case. The courts found that prohibiting contact with past customers, regardless of the time since they are a customer, was too broad and limited competition (Mallor 441). Because the second section of Wonder Widgets non-compete agreement uses the words “was a customer”, this part of the agreement is unenforceable, independent of what the court determines is a reasonable time
Alter ego is defined as, “Legal doctrine whereby the court finds a corporation lacks a separate identity from an individual or corporate shareholder, resulting in injustice to the corporation’s debtors. Finding alter ego gives the court cause to pierce the corporate veil and hold individual shareholders personally liable for debts of the corporation” (Alter Ego. LII / Legal Information Institute, n.d.). The case of GRUENDL v. OEWEL PARTNERSHIP INC. the overall partnership of the OPL is OPI and not a plaintiff exclusively, a circumstance of which the defendant was mindful. Thomas Paine, Ellman, Burke, Hoffman & Johnson, Timothy F. Perry, San Francisco, for defendants and plaintiffs.
The case involving Tiger Woods and the Christensen shipyard company on the use of tiger woods name and photographs is a tort of invasion of privacy and a violation of his right of publicity. This right protects an individual to be free appropriation of ones persona. Therefore the defendants using Tiger Woods name and photographs in their ships can be asserted as a breach of right and an intrusion on his publicity for business gain. For instance the ship yard did not have First Amendment rights to present truthful facts regarding the use of Tiger’s name and photographs for that promotion, they did it without his consent. Besides, having the ship written privacy does not have any impact on the case.
The author compares this case in the US to China’s soldiers firing upon protesters several times in the essay. It is used to provide a clear contrast between the extremism in communist governments when people protest versus how the US reacted. It is stated that if the Supreme Court had decided differently, we would be more like China. The author then uses China as a possible future example of what putting many limits to citizens’ freedom will look like. It provides a concrete example of the ramifications of giving official dogma more
Outside of the ease of being able to be sold on the Chinese black market, the attractiveness of China compared to North Korea must also be addressed. North Korea never signed the UDHR, but China has signed it, and in fact was one of the countries that drafted it. Therefore, China should know better than to have raids for North Korean refugees, even with Hyunsook Oh’s complicated refugee status. However, China should recognize the rights being violated in North Korea, and international efforts should be made to have North Korea at least demonstrate a desire to provide basic human rights to its citizens, if not actually signing and ratifying the UDHR itself. China could work out some sort of trade deal with North Korea, allowing for food from Chinese farmers to be distributed according to need in North Korea.
TOTAL AND PARTIAL LOSS The relevant provisions of the Marine Insurance Act, 1963 relating to partial and total loss are- Partial and total loss - (1) A loss may be either total or partial. Any loss other than a total loss, as hereinafter defined, is a partial loss. (2) A total loss may be either an actual total loss, or a constructive total loss. (3) Unless a different intention appears from the terms of the policy, an insurance against total loss includes a constructive, as well as an actual, total loss. (4) Where the assured brings a suit for a total loss and the evidence proves only a partial loss, he may, unless the policy otherwise provides, recover for a partial loss.
Binion’s valued items. The items were located in the parking lot of the hotel not in the actual hotel. There is nothing the hotel can do to replace the wakeboard because it was not their responsibility. Orange Inns and Suites, Inc. should not have to pay to replace Mr. Binion’s wakeboard because it was not in their possession. Mr. Wilson should have told Mr. Binion the Hotel’s liability status.
Therefore, the accommodation of permitting the plaintiff to be exempted from having to rotate between lines 7, 8 and 9 would create the removal of a marginal function and make it a reasonable accommodation. The court noted that neither the written job description for the inspector positions nor the mutual agreement made reference to the rotation of the job. The Job rotation policy had never been the general practice of this company in the past. The court also noted that the inspector position does not exist for the purpose of having employees rotate between lines 7, 8 and 9, the use of a rotation system had no bearing on the number of employees needed to perform the work, and rotating between lines is not a highly desirable function for which plaintiff was exactly hired, Indeed, it is the contrasting of a specialized skill of the employees. The court stopped short of actually deciding that job rotation is not an essential function of this job and leaving that determination for the
Section 7 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2606) is amended— (1) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ‘‘(as identified by the Administrator without consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors)’’ after ‘‘from the unreasonable risk’’; and (2) in subsection (f), by inserting ‘‘, without consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors’’ after ‘‘widespread injury to health or the environment’’. (The House of Representatives 1992) This revision protected Monsanto for being liable for any damages caused to the environment from the PCBs. Monsanto is the only one to blame for this situation because they are the only company that made PCBs. The House of Representatives and Monsanto claim that this provision was not a favor.