In the case of Canadian Aero Services (CanAero) v. O’Malley, senior officers of CanAero, O’Malley and Zarzycki, were sent to Guyana to examine a professional opportunity. Zarzycki prepared an offer, for the Guyanese officials to be used for obtaining funding from the Canadian government. Zarzycki, Canada’s government and the Guyanese government agreed on the terms of funding the project and then created the procedure for bidding on the project. Promptly after this, both O’Malley and Zarzycki resigned from their positions with Canadian Aero Services. O’Malley and Zarzycki then incorporated a new company, Tera, that was in the same industry as CanAero. Both Canadian Aero Services and Tera made bids for the project. O’Malley and Zarzycki’s new …show more content…
Cropper The second case is Peso Silver Mines v. Cropper. Cropper was the managing director of Peso, which held mineral claims in the Yukon Territory. A prospector, Dickson, made an offer for Peso to purchase land from Peso. The offer was considered by Peso’s full board of directors and was rejected, in part because of Peso’s strained financial situation. A short while after Peso’s board had rejected the offer, a geologist, Dr. A, approached Cropper with the possibility of forming a group to acquire the claims. Cropper and three others took up these claims and each contributed an equal amount to finance the purchase through a newly incorporated company, Cross Bow. At a later meeting of the board, Cropper disclosed his interest in Cross Bow, but refused to comply with the chairman's request that he turn over his interest in Cross Bow at cost. Cropper was fired as an officer and eventually resigned as a director. Peso sued Cropper for the shares of crossbow. Cropper was found not liable for breaking a fiduciary duty to Peso. This was based on two important facts. The first is that there is no confidential information was unavailable to any prospective purchaser or that Cropper as director had access to any such information because he was director and an officer of Peso. Therefore, Cropper did not use his position as director to gain inside
The real dispute about the plaintiffs’ rights was focused on whether the fraud exception to the protection afforded to the registered proprietor by s. 184(3)(b) of the Land Title Act had been enlivened by the conduct of Mr Lacy and Mrs Capper as the plaintiffs’ admitted agents or by that of Mr Sultan. On the factual findings I have made, Mr Sultan has not been shown to have acted fraudulently nor to have been the plaintiffs’ agent.
1. Case name: Geringer v. Wildhorn Ranch, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 1442 - Dist. Court, D. Colorado 1988
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.
McLaughlin v. Heikkila is a case that involves Wilbert Heikklia and David Mc Laughlin who entered into an agreement involving eight parcels to be sold to Mr. Mc Laughlin by Mr. Heikklia. According to Cheeseman (2013), the facts of the case indicate that Mr. Mc Laughlin submitted offers to Mr. Heikklia for the purchase of three parcels and afterwards, McLaughlin submitted earnest-money checks and three printed purchase agreements to Heikklia. According to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, McLaughlin himself never signed any of the agreements. However, his wife did sign two of the agreements and she initiated the third agreement on September 14, 2003. Then, two days later on September 16, 2003 Heikklia made changes to two of the agreements by increasing the cost of the parcels, and he changed the closing dates on all three agreements, including add a reservation of mineral rights to all three (Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2005).
Judicial History: The District court of Iowa granted a motion for summary judgement in favor of National By-Products, Inc. The court determined that Dale Dyer had an invalid claim to bring forth a lawsuit, thus lacking consideration to create a contract.
In the case or Yost v. Rieve Enterprises, Inc. Rieve Enterprises engages into a contract with Mr. Yost for a lease to purchase deal. The facts of the case are that Rieve visited the Red Barn Barbecue Restaurant with the intention of purchasing. Rieve and Mr. Yost entered into a contract after Rieve conducted a visual inspection of the premises. The deal was to include a five year lease with the option to buy the land and building. Prior to the sale, the Red Barn had been cited for numerous health code violations. Mr. Yost had these all corrected and disclosed this information. Mr. Yost then warranted that “the premises will pass all inspections” to conduct business. Shortly after Rieve Enterprises
Marshall Peterson has invested a significant amount in advertising, and growing his business of offering the Muscadine grapes that John Doe’s company supplies to him. In the event that Mr. Peterson is required to either discontinue the sale of the grapes, or will need to locate and establish a new relationship with a new supplier, his business will likely be negatively affected at least for a short time. If he chooses to pursue legal action, then there are certain legal considerations that he will enlist to build his case.
U.S. Supreme Court. (1940). State of Wyoming v. State of Colorado (309 U.S. 572 (1940), No. 10) from
On February 21 and 22 of this year, the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to rule whether th...
In a memo from Helia Hull dated September 20, 2016, the details of the incident involve an inadvertent disclosure of privileged attorney-client documents submitted for discovery by Rosen & Quinn of Chicago, council for defendant in Whelan v. Speedy Motors, Inc. The suit arose as a product liability case from the alleged injuries suffered by Ms. Whelan when the accelerator pedal installed in a Wondercart manufactured by Speedy, failed to function properly. On behalf of Speedy our office was retained for the purpose of performing certain aspects of discovery that later proved to be the result of the inadvertent disclosure.
When Berry and I gave Billy Greene our note for the purchase of his store, he assigned it—without advising us—to Reuben Radford from whom he had previously bought the business. Radford then endorsed our note to Peter Van Bergen, a keen-eyed businessman, to satisfy a debt. When Radford failed to pay, Van Bergen brought suit against Berry and me.
Air Canada was also faced with many hard to make decisions. They turned to the Canadian government and asked for financial assistance. The Problem Solving Method will be examined to determine how the government came to the decision of actually granting Air Canada some assistance.
This case involved 2 parties, Tom Gentry and John Marsh. These two where in a partnership with each other and they were involved in buying and selling horses. They would buy horses then sell the babies for profit and also just sell the horse as well at many types of auctions. In November 1976 Marsh and Gentry bought these two horses together called Champagne Woman and Excitable lady. In 1978 Marsh and Gentry auctioned off Champagne Lady and Gentry used an anonymous bidder so Marsh wouldn’t find out that he used one to acquire Champagne Lady without telling Marsh. There was a fiduciary relationship between them and he broke it by not telling him because it can alter their profits because of this. When Gentry was supposed to be selling Excitable Lady, he didn’t pay Marsh instead he just didn't tell him. So a couple years down the road, Marsh soon realizes that
Judge Flud wrote the majority decision in the case, and found that Carlton was not personally liable for the damages to Walkovszky. Flud also found that in his reasoning, Walkovsky has ?failed to state a valid cause of action against defendant Carlton?. Flud states that if the corporation ...
It was then that a lawyer in the crowd noticed a significance in Mabo’s speech and story. The lawyer suggested that there should be a test case to claim the land mabo believed he deserved and to claim land rights through the court system. Greg Mcintyre agreed to take the case, and as soon as word got out, other people wanted to claim their own land as well. Because of the multiple people that wanted the same thing under the same trial, the case was recognized as the ‘Mabo Case’.