Search results

A person can approach the High Court directly under Article 226 for a violation of a Fundamental Right. The Fundamental Rights, however, are available only against the bodies which are ‘state’ within Article 12 of the Constitution. The judgement of the Supreme Court in Dr. Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University extends the ambit of Article 226 to all bodies, whether governmental or private, which are performing ‘public function’ or ‘public duty’. Imparting education is taken to be a public function. The judgement opens new dimensions of constitutional law

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.

Most business contracts are meant to be in writing, on standard terms. However, with the facilities of communications, businesspersons will talk business on the phone. With this, contentions will arise, whether they were only negotiating or had gone the distance and made a contract. If they have contracted, what are the terms of the contract? The case explores the judgement of the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgement, Wells v Devani, which is on the theme of oral contracts.

Business contracts are formed through negotiations, where the parties agree on some terms, disagree on others and keep yet others undecided. Over a period of time, they see themselves as having moved from being negotiating parties to contracting parties, settling on most of the terms. The law, however, states that a contract is formed when a person makes an offer and the other accepts it. The principle arose from the rudimentary trade practices in the past. The principles coming from the prior centuries and the modern business practices may not be in consonance. The Gibson v. Manchester City Council Case, a judgement of the House of Lords of the United Kingdom, reviewed attempts to modernize the law.

The case discusses the issues related to Zee Tele Films Limited's claims that the Board of Cricket Control of India was “state” and could act arbitrarily in the award of telecasting rights. The “state” as defined in Article 12 includes “other authorities”, and these are subject to the constitutional limitations. The right to equality requires them to not act arbitrarily. A body which is an instrumentality or agency of the government is “other authority”. The term has been subject to judicial interpretation. The Supreme Court, by a majority judgement, in the Zee Tele Films Case ruled that the Board is not “other authorities” within Article 12 of the Constitution.

The Mercini Lady Case is a modern statement of the law on the rights of the buyer in a sale contract. The seller has to supply goods in conformity with description, of merchantable quality and fit for the stated use. These rights, the ‘implied conditions’, however, can be ousted by express terms in the contract. The Court of Appeal judgement of the UK keenly considered that the exclusion clause should be interpreted in its business sense. However, it sided with precedence established over hundred years that the exclusion clauses take away valuable rights of the buyer and must be strictly and technically constructed.

The digital medium has created new ways of contracting through web pages and smartphone apps. The websites and apps put numerous terms of contract. In some cases, the user is required to click on them, and other times, the user may or may not even notice the terms. Are the terms put by the sites and apps binding? The case explores the theme with the Uber Case, a judgement of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on the application of the terms in the Uber app.

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.

The case revolves around a critical incident that took place at an Indian pharmaceutical company, in which various stakeholders had very different perspectives regarding the nature, causes and consequences of the incident. By illustrating the contrasting perceptions of the same event, the authors have shed light on the nature of perception and perceptual processes, including cognitive biases and errors in human judgement. The case provides insights into how these manifest in the organisational context and how managers could be made more aware of them to avoid errors in judgment and make choices that are more informed.

This case covers the framework and process to determine fair value as specified in International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 13. It illustrates an instance in which auditors interpret the concept of fair value to be consistent with other principles in standards such as the principle of prudence in the conceptual framework. In addition, a lot of the discussion in the case is applicable to accounting education in any regulatory jurisdictions given the convergence of US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and IFRS 13. In addition, while fair value accounting may have been designed to give investors more useful information, in practise it could involve highly subjective judgement and the resulting implementation may be affected by incentives of different stakeholders. The CK Tang’s case provides an excellent opportunity to discuss incentives of varies parties in determining the fair value in financial reporting decisions. In short, this case could be a good jumping-off point to talk about management and auditors’ incentives in financial reporting in general.

Publicly available information (e.g. financial reporting standards, corporate announcements and reports, news reports) was used as the basis for this case.

The case centres on an iconic Singaporean integrated retailing and property landlord entity: Tang holdings. As part of its succession planning, the company’s founding family decided to take its listing arm, C.K. Tang Limited (CK Tang hereafter), private in May 2006. The Tang brothers, who represented the controlling family, initiated several attempts to delist the company. The minority shareholders of CK Tang were unhappy that the offer price was below the net asset value of the company. The minority shareholders also highlighted that the reported fair value of the flagship Tang Plaza complex understated its highest and best use and might not possibly comply with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 13.

The case can be used for class discussions with undergraduate students or master students in intermediate accounting courses.