Sign In
Not register? Register Now!
Pages:
3 pages/β‰ˆ825 words
Sources:
Check Instructions
Style:
APA
Subject:
Law
Type:
Essay
Language:
English (U.S.)
Document:
MS Word
Date:
Total cost:
$ 12.96
Topic:

Case Study: Shell Canada vs. Klemke Mining corporation

Essay Instructions:

- You are given 4 legal concepts. You will have to create a fact situation and come up with a story that connects the 4 concepts together.
ALL FOUR (4) OF THESE LEGAL EXPRESSIONS MUST BE INCORPORATED INTO ONE (1) ESSAY:
1. Polluter pays principle
2. Fourfold Test
3. Exculpatory clause
4. Consensus Ad Idem (Textbook, p. 136)
- It doesn’t have to be real.
- Use your own words.
- YOU CAN quote from a case in Canlii, BUT you have to copy it word for word. It has to be straight from the case. If you say one word from outside the case, then it’s plagiarism.
- Follow the formatting guide.
- Please answer the question as completely as possible using essay format and citing all referenced work.
- Read the policy guide attached carefully to avoid any penalties.
You could look at “Canlii” to look up cases and look at facts situations which could help you come up with a good story.
I am on a very tight schedule so I will not be able to give much extension.

Essay Sample Content Preview:

Case Study
Student's Name
Institution Affiliation
Instructor's Name
Due date
Shell Canada vs. Klemke Mining corporation
Shell Canada and Klemke Mining corporation carried out a discussion concerning mining activity on leased Shell oil sands. After six months, Klemke mining company prepared a plan in June regarding their participation to what they had agreed on, and the Shell company verbally confirmed it. After holding other discussions, Klemke Mining Corporation decided to invest in a joint venture with Shell company in December. Shell company provided the rules and regulations that were to be applied, which Klemke mining corporation agreed upon. After some months later, the Shell company informed Klemke Company that another mining company had been appointed to carry out mining operations (Bagh,2007). Shell made this decision based on the that there was no formal contract was made between the two. During the trial, the judge discovered much discussed during the December meeting since it was conducted orally. The meetings that the two parties held and discussed various matters needed no titled contract to bind them.
Following the case, the Shell company had some answers to answer concerning the decision they made. First is the reason they decided to burn Klemke Mining company out of their premises. Is there any rule concerning the polluter pays principle that was violated? The principle states that those companies that produce pollution should bear the cost of management to prevent damage to the environment and human beings. The violation of one of the rules indicated in principle could result in the company being banned out.
The agreements that were done during the meetings had to be revised to check whether they applied the four-fold test. This test is done to identify whether two parties have an employer-employee relationship. The agreements must have included all the working terms like payment, each party's power in decision making, and other essential rules. These rules are the ones that are used to measure the relationship between two parties that are in a business agreement. Even if there was no titled contract between the two companies, there was an agreement made. Before Klemke Mining company started mining activity at Shell's Oil soil, it meant i...
Updated on
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:

πŸ‘€ Other Visitors are Viewing These APA Essay Samples:

HIRE A WRITER FROM $11.95 / PAGE
ORDER WITH 15% DISCOUNT!