Download file to see previous pages...
States and the UK are different, and nowhere is this more exemplified than by the respective responses by these two Government following major incidents of corporate fraud. This Case review compares some of the differences between the corporate environments operating in each of these jurisdictions, and explains how they may have contributed to such divergent responses.
One can characterise these responses as legislative and/or regulatory. Legislative responses refer to legal changes that are made, which force businesses to change their practice if they are to remain compliant. In this instance, legislation is an externally enforced means of changing corporate behaviour. Regulations on the other hand can be externally or internally generated, and can promote a desired change of behaviour through legislature or through Codes of practice developed by industry bodies such as the group representing licensed auditors. Whether the regulations are internally or externally generated, one important aspect in which they differ from legislative regimes is the higher degree of importance placed on monitoring of entities within regulatory regimes. Legislative regimes primarily depend on the sanctions to foster compliance.
Immediately, following the corporate governance crisis that occurred in the United States in 2002, the federal government implemented far reaching legislature, to protect investors from such levels of corporate fraud. On the other hand, when the U.K experienced a similar crisis in its corporate governance system in 1991, the response was much different. What followed was over a decade of Commission reviews which each provided best Codes of Practices for agents within the corporate governance regime. Eventually legislature on corporate fraud was only enacted in the Fraud Act of 2006. The analysis in this review points to some of the reasons that these government undertook such different responses.
Firstly, prior to the crises, there was significant
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
We can assume that the battle will lead to the victory of one party, but sometimes it may happen that the in the flash point the other party will win over ,subject to the certain conditions imposed by the law on the beginner.
In the given case, Bertz has good opportunity to win the case by the provisions of the Law.
Arrangements with regard to the crew; has it been discussed Has Mary or her son Bill Johnson on her behalf undertaken to hire the crew Whether such an obligation to hire the crew on behalf of Nile be included as a term of the contract between Nile and Mary
Thirdly Gilfil plc may proceed against Eliot Electrical Manufacturers for having duplicated its patented version Phoebus brand. in the name of Pharos which Barton bought from Eliot Electrical manufacturers and supplied to Tryan.
Fifthly, Gilfil plc may file a suit against the carriers for having negligently delivered goods to Tryan resulting in damage of goods in rain irrespective of what the carriers' standard form of contract stipulates.
At the outset it is important to outline and briefly discuss the legal issues involved in the case. The statutory provisions contained in the Sale of Goods Act, 1979 read with Section 15 of the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms Act, 1973) are attracted along with other relevant case law.
There was one area of difficulty in the plaintiff's evidence when he seemed to assert that the defendant had actually agreed to six weeks for payment of the balance of the purchase price but he conceded that his note pointed to a lack of agreement on that point - the note confirmed what was contained in para 5(1) of the plaintiff's second affidavit and the plaintiff could be understood as saying that he knew that the defendant wanted the balance after a further six weeks and that did not trouble the plaintiff.
(a) Acceptance must be communicated by the offering in the manner prescribed by him otherwise the acceptance is ineffective. This was held in the case of ELIASON v. HENSHAN. In this case, E offered is buy flour from H, asking the reply to be sent by the wagon drives who communicated the offer.
It is while on tranship that the sacks containing the dried Soya beans ripped off and the contents were split. On arrival at the destination by Solent, express that Edith discovers. In this case or situation
Edith has a remedy under the law to sue Andy's vessel for compensation arising from the damage caused to the goods as well as the loss she has suffered.
e, which could be useful in helping him to be connected with his family back home, he had neither owned a phone nor entered into a telephone contract before. This renders Nathan uninformed about telephone contracts. Therefore, Nathan knew nothing about telephone contracts. Also,