The facts of BP Oil, as set out in the judgment: 1. The principal (P) in this case is BP Oil, who hired the oil tanker ‘Target’ from her owners, Target Shipping. The issue is whether BP is entitled to recover some $1 million that Target Shipping charged them by way of overage freight and which, as BP claim, they paid by mistake. A1 would be Mr Andrew Finlinson, working for BP as a trader, who handled the charter of the oil tanker. A2 would be Mr Rickwood and/or Ms Myers, who authorised payment of Target Shipping’s freight invoice as part of BP's Demurrage Department. 2. In this case, A1 (Mr Finlinson) was responsible for deciding how much should be paid by BP. In the judgment, Andrew Scott J explicitly states that “[Mr Finlinson was] ‘responsible …show more content…
Although the parties involved take on different roles in BP, essentially A1, in his capacity within the company, is responsible for deciding how much is paid to and to whom, while A2 is merely the one making the payments without being involved in the decision-making process. 3. In BP, the point which decided that the company was not precluded from recovering for mistake is that A1, while aware of the true facts, was not aware that A2 had made a mistake in making the payments. Specifically, the judge accepted that it did not occur to A1 that A2 might have authorized the payment of the overage freight. However, I believe that our scenario is distinguished from BP because in BP, A1 had not instructed A2 to make the mistaken overage freight payment – A2 received the invoice which it then paid out because it believed the invoice to be valid, while A1 was unaware that A2 was making payment for overage freight costs which should not have been paid out (A1 was unaware of the invoice amount until after it was paid). This is clearly distinct from our situation where A1 has specifically instructed A2 to make payments to C despite knowing that no payments should be made. It would be impossible to argue in this situation that A1 was unaware of A2’s mistake in making the
Ans. 6 The Court can overrule the decision for terminating Paul as he was not involved in the scheme. Due to his honesty he even admitted to be aware of the scheme. Moreover, no fraud was found in his facility and he should be held responsible for the warehouse for which he is in charge. Furthermore, higher management should be held responsible for not keeping an eye on the activities of supervisors at different locations.
In my opinion, if the jury in this case subtracted the contractual claims against the profits, they would have arrived at different damage/entitlement amounts. My guess is Main Line would have been entitled to much less than what was awarded in this case.
Aldo shipped 10 refrigerators to Rafael pursuant to a sales contract under which title to the goods and risk of loss would pass to Rafael upon delivery to Fleet Railroad. The agreed price was $5,000. When the refrigerators were delivered to Rafael, he found they were damaged. An estimate for repairing them showed it would cost up to $1,000, and an expert opinion was to the effect that they were defective when shipped. Rafael put in a claim to Aldo, which Aldo rejected. Rafael then wrote to Aldo, “I don’t like to get into a despite of this nature. I am enclosing my check for $4,000 in full payment of the shipment.” Aldo did not reply, but he cashed the check and then sued Rafael for the $1,000 balance. May he recover? Explain.
The second issue is whether or not the defendant has an obligation to reimburse for an injury. The outcome of this second issue depends whether or not it is rational for the defendant to have to pa...
The British Petroleum (BP) oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was one of the worst ecological catastrophes in human history, causing vast damage to a fragile and beautiful ecosystem while at the same time calling attention to the deficits in current approaches to energy prospecting, risk management, and cleanup. This analysis of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill will devote attention to the following questions: (a) What kind of technology is in use for deep-sea oil extraction, what are the factors that accounted for the BP catastrophe, what were the statistical components of the spill in terms of volume and concentration, and what was the spatio-temporal scale of the oil spill? (b) What were the environmental (physical, biological, hydrological, and atmospheric) impacts of the oil spill, in addition to the economic and social impacts? (c) What were the scientific, technological, and policy solutions implemented by various actors to pursue the cleanup of coastal areas, wildlife, and wetlands damaged by the oil spill? (d) What is the feasibility of long-term biodiversity conservation measures and the limits of such solutions?
April 20, 2010, a tragic disaster struck the Gulf Coast. British Petroleum deepwater Horizon oil rig cracked from three places and raw oil leaking into the sea. .it was considered that over 60,000 barrels of oil a day are mixing with Gulf water and Oil spread over 70 miles to 130 miles into the sea and can be seen from space.
Equuscorp launched proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria against each of the respondents. Equuscorp’s claims were for “loss and damage” for breach of the loan agreements and for money had and received. The trial judge dismissed Equuscorp’s contractual claim in all eight cases and upheld the restitution claim in two cases. The respondents appealed this decision in the Supreme Court of Victoria’s Court of Appeal. In this appeal, the majority held that the trial judge erred and that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution. Equuscorp appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to the three respondents. Its grounds for appeal included that the Court of Appeal erred in deciding: a) that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution for the unenforceable loan agreements; b) that it was not unjust for the respondents to keep the amounts pursuant to the unenforceable loan agreements; and c) that restitution was not assigned as a right or remedy to recover the amounts under the unenforceable loan agreements.
In my opinion, BP's response to the oil spill wasn't the best. Plus their spokesperson Tony Hayward's comments did little to help the situation. The response should have been about damage limitations. Hayward's responses made the company seem aloof and unconcerend about the environmental damage being done. When they gave an amout of barrels that were leaking into the ocean, they gave the wrong amount which hurted their credibility. They deflected the blame for the accident. BP would call the oil spill the "Gulf of Mexico oil spill" while the rest of the world called it the "BP oil spill." They might have took the blame but they said it wasn't their accident however they would take responsibility to clean it up even though it wasn't their fault. I think the fact that they used social media to show show updates and progress was a smart move since it is probably now the biggest media median. However, everything else was not the best way to handle this whole situation.
The issue in this case was whether California and Hawaiian Sugar Company could recover the liquidated damages from Sun Ship. Where there is a contract between the parties for liquidated damages and d there were no misrepresentations or unfair dealing in creating the contract,
The Deepwater Horizon was a dynamically positioned drilling rig which owned by Transocean and it was chartered to BP from 2008. On April 20, 2010, the offshore oil rig exploded, the explosion was the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry as the oil leaked 205.8 million gallons of crude oil into Mexico Gulf Coast and BP spent 86 days to cap the well, stopping the oil flow into Mexico Gulf for the first time. This report covered some facts about the BP oil spill scandal and its influence to stakeholders. The article also includes the analysis of oil spill from accounting, legal, ethical and corporate governance aspects. Furthermore, a comparison between The BP oil spill and Enron scandal is for analyze the similarities and differences of these two cases, and explore any improvement and change on legislation, accounting standards, code of conduct etc. The purpose of this report is reveal to directors what did BP do wrong in the past and what aspect the firm could do better in the future.
In 2010, there was a huge oil spill near the Gulf of Mexico that we now know as the BP Oil Spill today. The Spill sent about 170 million barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The spill killed 11 men aboard the deep-water Horizon. The BP Oil Spill impacted the environment very negatively. There were different types of environmental impact as a result of the Oil Spill, but the two that grabbed my attention the most are the Polluted Air and the Contaminated Food Chain. The first impact that grabbed my attention was the Polluted Air. Because of the Oil Spill, the air around the surroundings neighborhoods was polluted. All the lightest chemicals in the oil that had spill evaporated within hours of the incidence forming air pollution particles. These particles that are in the air poses significant threats to the human health from being inhaled. The chemical found in the particles that was formed is known as Volatile, which has been known to cause respiratory irritation and central nervous system depression (Solomon & Janssen, 2010). The second impact that grabbed my attention was the contamination of the food chain, specifically the food chain of sea animals that lives near the Gulf of Mexico. Scientists found traces of oil in zooplanktons; this could only mean that the sea creature has had contact with the spilled oil. According to the Staff at Houston Business Journal (2012), “Baby fish and shrimp feed on the tiny, drifting zooplankton, and then introduce contamination and pollution to the larger sea creatures in the food web.” With these findings, it isn’t going to take long before the baby fishes become grown and caught by fishermen and before we know it, it’s on our dinner plate. And here we are eating fishes w...
The Pacific Oil Company was formed in 1902 and had been the leader in the manufacturing of a petroleum product Vinyl Chloride Monomer (VCM). This product was Pacific Oil's major product line and was the main component to the manufacturing of plastics, used in many products. In 1979, Pacific Oil had landed a major contract with reliant and had over the years establish a great working partnership. The Reliant Corporation was one of Pacific’s largest and most valued customers and Pacific Oil Company wanted to renegotiate their current contract with the Reliant Corporation, with the goal of extending before it expired. Pacific’s negotiation team, Jean Fontaine, Marketing Vice President for Europe with Paul Gaudin, Marketing Manager of VCM along with representatives Frederick Hauptmann, Senior Purchasing Manager and Egon Zinnser, Regional VP for European operation from The Reliant Corporation, where to spend nearly two year working through the extension of the contract. In the end, the contract settlement was down to a final item that Pacific was not happy about, that may my then loose the extension altogether.
Who is the decision maker in this case, and what is their position and responsibilities?
1. Under Circular 230, does Charles have any responsibility to inform the widow that she is being significantly overcharged by the attorney? Be sure to cite research that supports your position.
Review the scenario below. Consider the legal principles influencing the likelihood of any successful action against Steve in negligence.