User:CheshireKatz/Business: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
CheshireKatz (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
CheshireKatz (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
http://www.law.nyu.edu/studentorgs/sba/outlines/upperlevel/corporations/Corp.Siegel.fall.05.doc |
http://www.law.nyu.edu/studentorgs/sba/outlines/upperlevel/corporations/Corp.Siegel.fall.05.doc |
||
http://www.ilrg.com/students/outlines/download/corp1.doc |
|||
In [[Miller v. McDonald's Corp.]], 945 P.2d 1107 (Or. Ct. App. 1997), the plaintiff sued after biting into a sapphire stone in her Big Mac. She had gone to the restaurant on the assumption that it was owned, controlled and managed by McDonalds. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to raise a jury issue on both actual agency and apparent agency theories. |
In [[Miller v. McDonald's Corp.]], 945 P.2d 1107 (Or. Ct. App. 1997), the plaintiff sued after biting into a sapphire stone in her Big Mac. She had gone to the restaurant on the assumption that it was owned, controlled and managed by McDonalds. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to raise a jury issue on both actual agency and apparent agency theories. |
||
Revision as of 17:55, 28 August 2007
http://www.law.nyu.edu/studentorgs/sba/outlines/upperlevel/corporations/Corp.Siegel.fall.05.doc
In Miller v. McDonald's Corp., 945 P.2d 1107 (Or. Ct. App. 1997), the plaintiff sued after biting into a sapphire stone in her Big Mac. She had gone to the restaurant on the assumption that it was owned, controlled and managed by McDonalds. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to raise a jury issue on both actual agency and apparent agency theories.