Answer:
Henry is the intended beneficiary of the insurance policy and as such, he is bound to the time limitations and all the other clauses included in the contract.
Explanation:
Intended beneficiaries are third parties that can benefit from a contract. Third parties are not part of the contract and may not even know that they were included as beneficiaries in it, but they are bound by all the legal clauses included in the contract. They must be included in the contract and all the benefits they might obtain have to be explicitly established.
<span>The answer is true.
</span><span>
</span><span>Supply management is one of the pillars of marketing. Supply management includes logistics, acquiring and managing resources either goods or services which are needed to run the organization. </span>
<span /><span>The main goals of the supply management are:
- Control costs
- Efficient allocation of resources
- Gathering sufficient information to be used in strategic business decisions.</span>
Answer:
The Supreme Court ruled that the name Coke was so well known around the world, that it is effectively a common term for the trademarked Coca Cola. If other companies try to use similar terms like Koke for other types of products, e.g. bakery items, there is a risk that the Coca Cola company would be negatively affected by that product's image since consumers might associate Koke directly to Coca Cola.
It doesn't matter if the products were low quality or not, the courts cannot determine that, what matters is that the use of the term may negatively impact another company.
What's your question I don't understand
Answer:
The principle in Law 'Nemo dat quod non habet' states that an individual connot give what he does not have
Indeed Tom can rescind the contract with Matthew as he possesses voidable title to the balls
Explanation:
Until consideration has moved from Matthew to Tom the validity of the agreement/Contract remains inconclusive.
Considering his Account is not funded means he has no valid title to the Balls, he is merely in possession of the Balls but not the Owner.
Tom can sue demanding a return of the Balls irrespective of Matthew having sold them to Aaron.
Another illustration could be given of a thief who sells off a property. Inspite of the Buyer being unaware, because the thief has a voidable title it makes the transaction invalid.
