Defendant

The Defendants Eugene Wong and Mary Wong had been hired to care for 3 month old infant, Kwok Wei by the infant’s parents, The Jiangs, due to heavy 12 hour-per-day workdays. Because of their workload, the infant’s parents felt 24-hour care was needed for their child, and therefore responded to a newspaper ad for care (advertised by the Defendants). Upon entering a legal, binding contract for care, The Jiangs were told that Defendant Mary Wong would be providing much of their baby’s care and that

Upon fulfillment of the four criteria, namely that the defendant has been unjustly enriched at the claimant’s expense and there are no defences available for the defendant, a claimant will qualify for restitution of unjust enrichment as established in Banque Financiere de la Cite v Parc (Battersea) Ltd. Change of position is one of the numerous defences which may be used when it would be excessive to allow a restitution claim at the defendant’s expense. This essay will evaluate the defence of change

in the employment. The employment contract requires specific compliance and following those requirements is prescribed by due process of law. When those processes are deviated from the Plaintiff has his Constitutional rights violated. 20) The Defendant could not terminate Plaintiff for expressing his concern regarding the ethics of the culture of corruption which should be protected by the Plaintiffs ' First Amendment right.

Class Period, defendants disseminated false and misleading financial statements to the investing public. The true facts, which were known by each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) that the Company was paying illegal and concealed "contingent commissions" pursuant to illegal "contingent commission agreements;" (b) that by concealing these "contingent commissions" and such "contingent commission agreements" the defendants violated applicable

Causation is an act (or omission) by the defendant in breach of a duty he owed the claimant and which causes harm to a claimant’s “interest protected by law” ; this harm must not be too remote. Causation is a matter for the jury to decide. Causation is both a question of facts and law. In factual causation, the defendant’s act is necessary to the appearance of the damage: on the balance of probabilities (51%), the negligent act must have caused the damage—“but for” it, the event would not have occurred

Id. Similarly, in Jackson, defendant told plaintiff that “he could make a pass at plaintiff…[and] he wished she was white, because…shoplifting always involved blacks.” Jackson, 390 S.E.2d at 135. The court held the manner was unreasonable, reasoning that the defendant’s imprudent sexual and racial remarks amounted to “gratuitous and unnecessary indignities”. Jackson, 390 S.E.2d at 136. Conversely, in Mitchell, defendant, after grabbing plaintiff’s shopping bags, exhibited

Keyman's Club) to recover damages for the bodily injuries which she sustained as the result of being bitten by the defendants' dog. The complaint was based on two theories: first, a common law action for the keeping of a vicious animal and, second, an action based on what is commonly known as the "Dog Bite Statute" (Ill. Rev Stats 1963, c 8, § 12d). • The trial court held for the defendants because he found that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. No appeal has been taken from the judgment entered

In light of these three cases the defense of parody may be disregarded if the plaintiff can argue priority, since the marks are registered in the principle register and have established their mark in the market. Secondly, the defendant has infringed the mark arguably on four counts, through semantics, with the use of ‘pel’ and No. 13 which are both distinctive and non-functional when used together, hence infringes the plaintiffs mark, Chapel and Chapel No. 13 (the argument for Chapel No.13 are stronger)

vehicle clean off in YR ( yarra ranges) shire on 13th November, 1998.  Fiona Burch with her two kids (plaintiff) claims a case against shire of YR, and a company of quality roads pvt ltd as they are responsible death of the Michael on basis of defendants caused the break of his duty and responsibility.  Explanation of deadly accident, Mr. Burch the plaintiff’s husband on 13th November 1998, he was on that way to cross the floodway as it was regular banking day for him. But Mr Burch died while he

University School of Law, White V. Gibbs CA# -8776-CV285. This case is between the (plaintiff) Mrs. White and the (defendants) Patrick Gibbs and Stand Alone Properties, L.L.C. as O’Malley’s Tavern. A Motion of Summary Judgment on behalf of O’Malley’s Tavern in the US District Court of Northern District of Indiana. Is being argued/presented. Briefly; Mrs. White is suing the defendant Patrick Gibbs of O’Malley’s Tavern where as the bartender served Mr. Hard with alcoholic beverages which lead to