Case Study Of Bank Of Ireland V Eteams International Limited

The plaintiff (Southern Prestige Industries, Inc.) initiated an action against the defendant (Independence Plating Corp.) in a North Carolina state court for a breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged that defects in the defendant’s anodizing process caused the plaintiff’s machine parts to be rejected by Kidde Aerospace. The defendant being a New Jersey corporation and having its only office and all of its personnel situated in the state filed a motion to dismiss citing lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion and the defendant appealed arguing that there were insufficient contacts to satisfy the due process of law requirements

In this case, Success Assets Pty Ltd (Success) borrowed money from Statewest Credit Society Ltd (Statewest) to purchase land, and the land was mortgaged as security. The plaintiff entered into a guarantee in favour of Statewest which secured the loan and all future loans from Statewest to Success. Success used money borrowed from Home Building Society Ltd (Home) to pay the loan from Statewest. Statewest’s rights under the guarantee (which includes those relating to future loans) and Home’s rights under the were transferred to the defendant, Bank of Queensland (BOQ).

The appellant, Parkview Queensland Pty Ltd (“Parkview”), is a building contractor who commenced construction of a residential property development under a standard form building contract with Fortia funds Management Ltd (“Fortia”), the developer. Fortia financed the construction under a loan facility with the Bank of Western Australia Ltd (“BankWest”).

Should the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) preclude this lawsuit? Why or why not? (P.166)

Case Comment: John Michael Malins v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2017] EWHC 835 (Admin) 2017 WL 01339062

The Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual decision has left states with three less-than-ideal options for obtaining medical claims, pharmacy claims, consumer eligibility information, and provider information needed to monitor health care costs and improve quality.

Lord Denning holds the opinion that “…it is a mistake to think that all contracts can be analyzed into the form of offer and acceptance…” He gives his support of the statement above and echoes these sentiments in the case of Butler v. Ex-Cell-O Corporation (England) Ltd (1979). He believes that the “…better way is to look at all the documents passing between the parties and glean from them or from the conduct of the

First, the legal issues, in this case, are an employee was hired, but the proper steps were not taken to determine if he was eligible for the position. He used a fake name, fake social security number and even provided a card he altered, and lied on his application regarding being arrested and having felonies. The Linden Oaks facility did mandate Jeffrey McGee aka Khalifah Shabazz to undergo a fingerprinting screening until after the charges were filed against him by a resident. If the fingerprints were completed, they were not filed correctly, leaving Linden Oak at fault. The court decided to “grant summary judgment on the plaintiff's negligent hiring claim and remand for further proceedings on that claim” (Walsh, 2016).

Deutsche Bank made its entrance into the world in 1870 and it was one of the first banks to adopt universal banking as it promoted and facilitated trade relations between Germany and other overseas markets. Deutsche Bank acquired smaller banks in Germany in order to be the most prominent bank in their home base in addition to having a global reach. Following World War I, inflation took over Germany causing many borrowers to default on their loans forcing the bank to sell most of its assets in order to stay alive (however that diminished their global presence). The bank’s involvement during World War II with the transferring of the Jewish customers holdings to the German Government led to the Allied

This paper describes the impact of the decision made in the case of Tesco Stores Ltd v Brent LBC on the law and its effects on the corporate world, and the comparison between the doctrine of vicarious liability that it outlines and the doctrine of identification that was used earlier to determine the liability of corporations in cooperate crime.

It is necessary to determine when L was removed as director of SPG and SET to ascertain the validity of the plaintiffs’ appointment as administrators. To establish L’s time of removal, one must first conclude whether the decision at the meeting took effect immediately, or if the subsequent messages exchanged between M and L, and belated lodging with ASIC, suggest a later removal date.

When providing the distinction between the above charges the two stage process of legal characterization developed in Agnew must be applied by the English courts. The object of the first stage of the process is to ascertain the nature of the rights and obligations which the parties intended to grant each other in respect of the charged assets. Once these have been ascertained, the Court can then embark on the second stage of the process, which is one of categorization and designed to attribute the correct legal label to the package of rights and obligations. Lord Millett’s reasoning has been approved by the House of Lords in Re Spectrum in which emphasis was given to the freedom of the company to deal with the assets in the ordinary course of business rather than the two first criteria focusing on the nature of the secured assets.

A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Before going any further one should briefly understand the doctrine of Consideration. Despite the vast amount of content written, the doctrine of consideration is still to this day unclear due to the inconsistency of the courts and its application of necessary rules. Consideration refers to that which the law deems as valuable in that the promisor receives from the promise that which was promised. In other words, it is the exchange of something of value between the parties in a contract. One should be mindful that in English law, every promise may not be legally enforceable; it requires the court to distinguish between are enforceable and non-enforceable obligations. This brings us to the controversial cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v the Roffery brothers. Many argue that that the case of Williams was wrongly decided leading to impairments in the rule initially established in Stilk v Myrick. This essay seek to analyse and critique the cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey Brothers and also highlight whether or not the new rule of Practical benefit lead to serious impairments in later cases.

Kate is the owner of a successful business, selling women’s shoes. Her business is expanding fast and she wants to upgrade her business structure to a more appropriate one. What would be your recommendation to Kate and why? What are the factors that influence you with this advice?

If parties enter into a contract that is reflective or derives from a mistake, under common law the contract may be void or voidable. The basis of this decision depends on the type of mistake. Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson presented a unilateral mistake, in which only one party is mistaken, and in this case, a mistake as to the identity. The difficulty lies when judges must decide whether a contract is void or voidable, which will only protect one of the two arguably innocent parties, the original property owner or the bona fide purchaser. However, the approaches previously taken by the Courts have led to a lack of certainty and coherence in the interests of commercial transactions, and so the Shogun case presented an opportunity for clarification. I am going to raise the argument that the law of mistake is in need of a reform, by following Lord Millett’s proposal to no longer follow the cases Cundy v Lindsay and Ingram v Little. The reasoning within this argument will establish that the cases are inconsistent, lack support for third parties and fail to establish the authority of creditworthiness over identity in commercial contracts. Alternatively, the cases Phillips v Brooks and Lewis v Averay should be used to create a clear established line of case law which can be seen as a fair and practical approach towards mistake and protecting the bona fide purchaser.