Search results

The Supreme Court judgement, Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority consolidates the law on award of liquidated damages and stipulations on penalties. Contractual damages are to cover losses and not to profit from or penalise the party in breach. Stipulated amounts in damages or penalties are appraised by the courts and only a reasonable compensation is given. Earnest money, and its forfeiture, stood distinct. It could be forfeited without appraisal. The case integrates the different categories and re-states the principles for award of damages.

Business contracts are done on General Conditions of Contracts (GCC). The GCCs have detailed terms to displace general principles of contract law and bring certainty in commercial dealings. Bunge SA v Nidera BV, is a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, on damages terms in GCCs. A term on damages may not be a comprehensive code, answering all questions on damages. In this case, the general principles will survive and interact and interface with the contract terms to settle the rights and obligations of the parties.

Workforce diversity is a reality and offers many benefits to business. Nevertheless, managing diversity poses numerous challenges. This case involves religious diversity, focusing on employers' legal duty to accommodate religious practices. In the case, the assembly line at Electrolux's Frigidaire plant in St. Cloud, Minnesota hummed with activity when suddenly a group of Somali workers walked off the line. The Somali employees were new immigrants and introduced cultural and religious customs which were for the most part unfamiliar to management. The employees were Muslim and left the work stations to observe sunset prayers, one of the five daily prayers central to the Islamic faith. The management dilemma presented in the case is balancing the demands of assembly line production with the religious requirements of Muslim workers in a legal and effective manner. There is a substantial epilogue detailing Electrolux response to the situation which can be used as the basis for further class discussion. To help guide this dialogue, a “mini-instructors manual” follows the epilogue.

The case uses primary source documents, such as the court cases brought forth by the SEC and US District Attorney, for the specifics about the fraud and secondary sources for further background information about the town and industry. The individuals in the case are not disguised. The authors have no connection to the case.

Thomas Laws was a CPA, a registered investment advisor and a real estate broker. Laws made a poor business investment. Instead of taking the financial hit, Laws orchestrated a complex Ponzi scheme using clients from his CPA practice and embezzling money from an employer, Santa Fe Gold Corporation. Laws’ scheme continued until his employer confronted him about missing funds. Frank Mueller, the CFO of Santa Fe, did not exercise the due diligence necessary until it was too late. Rest’s framework for ethical decision making is used to frame the ethical decisions Mueller can make. The case examines the conflict-of-interest guidance issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and allows students to examine the due diligence and controls needed by employers and prospective investors.

This case is designed for undergraduate accounting students taking Intermediate Accounting I, ACCT 0312 at the authors’ institution, typically junior-level students. It would be appropriate whenever you introduce the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct during an ethics discussion.

Online stores sell thousands of products and services. Despite all care, mistakes can occur. These mistakes can have severe implications for the seller. A contract once formed is normally binding on the parties. The seller gets bound to sell at the mistaken price. Can an online seller get out of the contract on the ground that the price was a mistake? The only court judgement on the theme is Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, a judgement of the Singapore High Court. With reference to the judgement, the case explores pricing mistakes by online stores.

This case was developed from both secondary and primary sources. The secondary sources include journal and newspaper articles. Primary sources include court proceedings, industry reports and EEOC recommendations regarding disparate impact for major retailers. This case has been classroom tested with undergraduate BBA students in an introductory undergraduate Human Resources course.

In August 2019, Ms Ramos applied for an entry-level position at Stockworld; however, despite receiving an initial offer, Ms Ramos was notified soon after beginning the position that her job offer was being rescinded as a result of a completed background check. The Fair Chances Act for employment has challenged employers to “Ban the Box” that asks about criminal past acts before conditional employment offers. With increased demand for qualified applicants following and amid current labor shortages, proponents of “Ban the Box” challenge that including background checks before and even following conditional offers lead to disparate impact with Title VII protected classifications of employees. Can employers Ban the Box to prevent Disparate Impact for entry-level positions? What are the implications for eliminating criminal background checks?

This case was written for use in an undergraduate introductory human resource management course or general business law course. The focus of the case supports classroom discussion for online and face-to-face instruction regarding equal employment opportunity and employment decisions. The case also has strong application in course content regarding discrimination and strategic plans for organizational success. Educators who use critical thinking methods to apply hiring strategies or talent pipeline assessment can use this case to explore additional avenues for external recruitment and talent development.

Learning objectives are as follows: Analyze the reasons for the implementation of retrospective taxation by the Government of India; infer the dynamics of international tax laws and the settlement process of international taxation disputes; critically analyze the factors that led to the Indian Government’s decision to scrap the retrospective tax; and infer the relationship between a country’s taxation system and its potential to attract foreign direct investment.

This case is an analysis of the Indian Government’s decision to scrap the retrospective taxation amendment. The case discusses the underlying factors that led the incumbent government to take this sudden decision. The case discusses in detail the causes for the introduction of the retrospective taxation amendment and the tax terror unleashed by this draconian law. The case also discusses the embarrassment faced by the Indian Government because of a series of adverse decisions against it and in favor of Cairn Energy and Vodafone in the international courts. It also discusses the adverse effect on Indian banks in case of ailing telecom conglomerate Vodafone Idea Ltd failure.

The case is best suited for postgraduate and executive students studying Taxation subjects in Commerce and Business Management streams.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 1: Accounting and Finance.

Innovation and Intrapreneurship.

MSc, MBA and Executive Education Programmes.

The case on Priscila Matta focuses on the role of social intrapreneurship and social inclusion at Natura, the largest cosmetics company in Brazil and a corporate responsibility leader. Centred in the complexity stemming from dealing with a local community which supplies key ingredients to the Ekos product line, the company's most prominent and innovative brand, it illustrates the difficulties of establishing inclusive forms of business with a traditional community in the northeast of Brazil. Ekos builds on the rich Brazilian biodiversity and traditional knowledge. Brazilian law requires Natura to share the benefits obtained from the access to genetic heritage and associated traditional knowledge with those communities who supply such resources. Implicitly, the case focuses on the role of the social intrapreneur – Priscila Matta – and how she navigated corporate politics to structure the company's community relations. The case demonstrates the difficulties of social intrapreneurs who aim to create sustainable innovations to execute shared value strategies.

The case has the following four learning objectives: to illustrate best practices in intrapreneurial activities that aim to create shared value – in this case, value for Natura and for the community; to define the role and characteristics of social intrapreneurs – people inside big corporations who drive sustainable innovation; to discuss obstacles the corporate environment presents in the process of social innovation; and to illustrate how individuals within companies can implement a shared value strategy.

Teaching Notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

The data for this case was collected from legal and business research databases (Lexis, ABI/INFORM)) and from business press sources (for example, Forbes, the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal). Emails between the Egg Board, the Food and Drug Administration and key players at Unilever are referenced throughout the case and were provided by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service Compliance Branch and obtained pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Federal regulations and codes, as applicable, are also referenced (The US Code, the Code of Federal Regulations).

This short case presents the problems of Just Mayo, a start-up company, in maintaining and growing market share in an industry dominated by a well-established, multinational firm. In 2011 Hampton Creek (renamed Just, Inc in 2018) began operations as a manufacturer of plant-based food products. One of its earliest products was Just Mayo, a sandwich spread with all the attributes of traditional mayonnaise except without eggs or other dairy products. Shortly after Just Mayo was introduced, Unilever – a multinational conglomerate and food giant, sued Hampton Creek, claiming that use of the name “Just Mayo” amounted to false advertising and unfair competition.

This case is a learning tool for management, business law and ethics students at the undergraduate level. It was used in 2019 in a business law class at the sophomore and junior undergraduate level, where the focus was primarily on ethical considerations for all parties, understanding the role of regulatory agencies, and the legality of the strategies used. However, this case is equally applicable for a management or strategic management course with a focus on analyzing the tactics used for maintaining competitive advantage. A stakeholder analysis for various parties in either of these courses would also be suitable. Instructors addressing some of these topics together should find it particularly useful.

Leraning outcomes are as follows: demonstrating how companies in the Indian market are using competitive advertising; giving participants an overview of the regulatory framework for advertising in India; highlighting the complexities arising out of the multiplicity of advertising regulations and institutions in India; appreciating the legal and ethical perspectives of advertisements and self-regulation; and evaluating the stance taken by both the parties in this particular case to develop multi-stakeholder perspective.

A recent advertisement by international conglomerate Hindustan Unilever Limited was severely criticized for insulting Indian values by Baba Ramdev, promoter of India's largest Ayurvedic Company selling Indian indigenous and natural alternate medicinal products. It was in a complete reversal of the scenario between 2015 and 2018 when other Indian consumer goods companies complained against advertisements released by Patanjali. Indian fast moving consumer goods sector is witnessing a trend of competitive advertising in which companies are downplaying and criticizing the competitors. Though quite old, this trend caught momentum when Patanjali Ayurved Limited, a new player in the market, started advertising aggressively in 2015–2016. It resulted in many complaints by the aggrieved parties in the industry bodies and different courts of law in India. A part of the confusion comes from the diversity of advertising regulations across different Indian platforms and the absence of a clearly defined institutional framework for resolving such disputes. Consequently, most such disputes land up in the court of law in India. The case study builds an understanding of the legal framework within which companies are governed for brand promotions and creates a contextual ethical dilemma to drive the discourse on advertising through self-regulation in India.

This case is meant to benefit students pursuing a graduate or upper-level undergraduate degree in management or law/business law.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 8: Marketing.