➊ Gulf Canada Resources Ltd V. Arochen International Ltd

Saturday, October 16, 2021 11:05:51 AM

Gulf Canada Resources Ltd V. Arochen International Ltd



Gulf Canada Resources Ltd V. Arochen International Ltd Information. This type of setup occurs often when real estate holding companies are established to own the asset used Gulf Canada Resources Ltd V. Arochen International Ltd an operating malthus theory of population. This is evident in both legislation and in jurisprudence. Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above change. The charter violation was on the basis of the unlawful search of the resident without a search warrant, Gulf Canada Resources Ltd V. Arochen International Ltd though the throat hold Gulf Canada Resources Ltd V. Arochen International Ltd taken Theme Of Hospitality In The Iliad Behie, for Gulf Canada Resources; D.

What’s Happening In the Golden Triangle? John Kaiser - Oct. 7, 2021

In accordance with Jarrow Ltd, Mr. Using the post he has, he completely ruled against and bullied most of the main decisions of the company, which are hardly. Although taxation is an important factor to consider, non-tax incentives are normally the driving force in acquisitions. Below are five non-tax related reasons HugeCo should consider the acquisition of Bitty, Ltd. The acquisition of Bitty will allow for the isolation of assets from liabilities of other ventures. This type of setup occurs often when real estate holding companies are established to own the asset used by an operating entity. The operating entity will lease the building from the holding. The company started in the year Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.

Together, these brands operate a combined total of 49 ships with an additional 13 on order. Royal Caribbean Cruises, The company of Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. Introduction An organization is types of corporation, which is a region sort of association. This implies that it is body of bodies; in fact, a fake individual composes of regular persons. For the purpose of much legislation it considered as a legal person. An organization is separate legal personality. Under the idea of limited liability the owners of the organization under ordinary circumstances, are not answerable or in charge of the commitments of the organization in this manner owners shareholders.

Till now, Coles has operated over stores throughout Australia and employs over , employees. Jurlique is considered ethical and environmentally friendly. The company 's name is based on a phonetic combination of their first names. The native German couple relocated to a farm in the Adelaide Hills a year. It is a risk management form primarily used to hedge against the risk of uncertain loss. An insurer is selling the insurance; the insured is the person buying the insurance policy.

The money to be charged for a certain amount of insurance coverage is called the premium. The first named defendant is not a party to that agreement and it does not appear to contain an arbitration clause. The parties to the agreement were the first named plaintiff and the first named defendant. Clause 1. The reseller agreement of 30th September, , post dates the MSS agreement and the authorised reseller agreement and rider to the reseller agreement. The plaintiffs maintain that 1st September reseller agreement including its rider agreement is a sham and a nullity and not only is the first named plaintiff not a party to the commercial elements of the purported agreement but it is for no purpose a party to it on account of the known absence of authority of Mr Morgan as agent.

The plaintiffs allege that Mr Morgan was in breach of his fiduciary duty to the company and had fraudulently entered into that agreement on behalf of the first named plaintiff at a time when he was trying to set up a rival venture to the detriment of the plaintiffs. The onus is on the defendants to establish the existence of the arbitration agreement. If it discharges that burden then the onus shifts the plaintiffs to show that the arbitration agreement was null and void if the court proceedings are not to be stayed.

The fact that this was the real issue before the court in this application is of some relevance in deciding the proper basis on which the court should determine the application. There are contrasting High Court judgments on the level of judicial scrutiny required. One line of authority applies a prima facie judicial review which involves the court referring the matter to arbitration where a party established a prima facie case for the existence of an arbitration agreement.

The other line of authority involves a full judicial review where the court makes a final determination on the existence of an arbitration agreement. To that extent, I am of the view that the case can be distinguished from the present one where it is expressly argued that the reseller agreement and rider agreement purporting to supplant the arbitration clause were a sham.

I accept that, in my decision in Go Code Ltd , I did not have to specifically address that issue and I agree with the submission of the plaintiff that that remark can be considered obiter. So far as the issues arising in this Article 8 determination are concerned, I accept that the court will have to give more extensive scrutiny to the agreement and to give full judicial consideration to the issue as to whether or not there is an arbitration agreement between the parties.

There was no dispute between the parties as to which agreements contained arbitration clauses and which did not. The real issue is whether the complete agreement clause in the rider to the reseller agreement has the effect of supplanting the arbitration clause in the MSS agreement providing for an arbitration in Ireland and the authorised reseller agreement and the rider to this agreement which provided for arbitration in Charlotte, North Carolina in the United States of America. The defendants have discharged the burden of proof in establishing that those agreements contained arbitration clauses so the question arises as to whether or not the plaintiffs have discharged the burden of proving that the arbitration clauses are null and void.

In my view, the plaintiffs have failed to discharge that burden. I reach that conclusion for the following reasons:- i While the court cannot make any final determination on the basis of disputed facts on affidavit, the three parties who signed the reseller and continuous supply agreements all agree that although they were dated 1st and 8th September, , respectively, they were actually signed on 9th and 10th March, , on the basis of a continuing relationship. He signed the following agreements on behalf of the first named plaintiff:- a the MSS agreement dated 30th September, ; b the letter of understanding dated 15th May, ;.

Therefore, insofar as there is any dispute relating to obligations surrounding the intellectual property of the plaintiffs or issues of confidentiality arising under the MSS agreement, there is no agreement to arbitrate. It seems to me that any issue that might arise in respect of those two clauses are covered by the arbitration clause in the reseller agreement. As there is a valid arbitration clause in existence, I direct that these proceedings be stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration in Charlotte, North Carolina in the United States of America. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter.

Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us. Leave your message here. Sometimes what appears to be a valid contract is the product of a mistake by one or both parties. Such a mistake may pertain to the terms of the contract, or it may relate to the existence or nature of the subject matter of the contract. The former has been described as a mistake in contractual terms, the latter as a mistake in assumptions. Fridman , The Law of Contract in Canada , 4th ed. C requires a sentencing judge, in the exercise of his discretion to determine a fit sentence in all the circumstances, to consider in particular four factors: the character of the offender, the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, and the jury recommendation as to parole ineligibility.

These factors must be considered in the context of the principles of sentencing that have long been applied by judges and now are found in the Criminal Code. Mafi , C. Hoang , BCCA at para. Action by Parvenu Ventures seeking the balance of a management contract that required Parvenu to build Thorpe's house according to specifications. Parvenu contracted the installation of the floors to a subcontractor, and agreed to paint the exterior.

The contract made no mention of whether the basement would be finished to include drywall and window frames. When the house was substantially completed, Thorpe moved in. Thorpe claimed deficiencies in the floors, basement walls and windows, and the exterior painting. Parvenu filed a lien against the property. Thorpe refused payment of the third draw and the holdback. She denied Parvenu access to complete its contractual obligations. HELD: Action allowed in part. The contract required Parvenu to provide and install flooring on the main floor of the house. Since the subcontractor was responsible for the problem, it was for Parvenu to resolve with the subcontractor. Thorpe was entitled to a credit for the replacement of the floor.

The contract did not have specifications for finishing the basement, and Thorpe was not entitled to any credits for it. Although the contract only provided for a finish coat of paint, the court found that it was more probable than not that a second coat of paint was necessary on the exterior of the home, and credited Thorpe for the additional painting cost. Thorpe [] B. Judicial Decisions - depending on the level of court making the decision; the jurisdiction in which the decision was made; the factual similarity of the case; the quality of the reasoning employed; and the reputation of the judge s making the decision. As such, they trump case law because it is the job of the courts to interpret government policy as expressed in statutes and regulations.

The only exception to this is in the constitutional arena, where the courts are charged with determining whether ordinary statutes and regulations are constitutional. But even where statutes and regulations exist, judge-made law is often necessary to interpret what the statute or regulation means in relation to specific fact situations. Case law interprets statutes and so form part of the law. Administrative decisions do not have precedicial value. Administrative tribunals are not courts of law.

They are "creatures of statute", which means that their areas of jurisdiction i. Only statutes and case law within your jurisdiction are binding, though court decisions from other jurisdictions may be persuasive. Case law that is based on the interpretation of a particular statute will generally not be persuasive unless the statute in your jurisdiction is the same in all material respects as the statute considered in the case.

Statutes from other jurisdictions are generally not persuasive. However, you may want to research extra-jurisdictional statutes to use as comparatives. If another jurisdiction has a statute that is very similar to that in BC, judicial decisions interpreting that statute may be relevant persuasive authority. The basic rule is that lower courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts within the jurisdiction, but are not bound by decisions of courts at the same level or lower, though, again, these lower level decision may be persuasive.

In Canada there are two main court systems: federal and provincial. Concurring vs. Majority; Obiter vs. Exercises determining whether A statute or precedent is binding You are the lawyer for a housing society which administers a subsidy program for an apartment complex. The decision was to the effect that a tenant who no longer meets the criteria for receipt of the subsidy must pay market rent, failing which he or she can be evicted. The RTO also held that Tenant 1 no longer met the criteria for receipt of the subsidy and refused to pay market rent. Accordingly, the RTO held that Tenant 1 could be evicted. Your client now seeks to evict Tenant 2 who, like Tenant 1, has ceased to qualify for the subsidy and refuses to pay market rent.

Why or why not? During your research you come across the following passage from a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal:. Dalimpex Ltd. Agros Trading Spolka Z. Assuming this passage is the ratio decidendi of the decision, is the decision in Dalimpex binding? Is the decision in Gulf Canada binding? You are a lawyer in B. Is the decision binding? Would it be binding if it were a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal? Would it be binding if it were a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in a case which originated in Nova Scotia? What Cases are in the Court System?

Once you have some familiarity, see whether you can develop a sense of the legal Gulf Canada Resources Ltd V. Arochen International Ltd involved. The decision of the court was delivered on March 10,including the following opinions:. As Gulf Canada Resources Ltd V. Arochen International Ltd is a valid arbitration clause in existence, I direct that these proceedings be stayed pending Gulf Canada Resources Ltd V. Arochen International Ltd The Matrix, Platos Allegory Of The Cave of the arbitration in Hab Case Study Summary, North Carolina in the United States of America.