翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Ai Aoki (synchronized swimmer) ・ Ai apaec ・ Ai Araba It's All Right ・ Ai Baojun ・ AI Bird UAV ・ AI box ・ Ai bylbylyum ・ AI Challenge ・ Ai Chang Cai Hui Ying ・ Ai Chi ・ Ai City ・ Ai de Xuan Yin ・ Ai Deshita ・ Ai discography ・ AI effect ・ AI Enterprises Ltd v Bram Enterprises Ltd ・ AI Entertainment ・ Ai FM ・ AI Football GGO ・ Ai Fukuhara ・ Ai ga Yobu Hō e ・ Ai Georgis ・ Ai Giri Giri ・ Ai Goto ・ Ai Haneda ・ Ai Haruna ・ Ai Hashimoto ・ Ai Hazuki ・ Ai He ・ Ai Hua Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク AI Enterprises Ltd v Bram Enterprises Ltd ： ウィキペディア英語版 AI Enterprises Ltd v Bram Enterprises Ltd was a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that standardized Canadian jurisprudence with respect to the economic tort of unlawful means. ==Background== Lillian Schelew and her sons, Jeffrey, Michael, Bernard and Alan, owned a company named Joyce Avenue Apartments Ltd which was in possession of an apartment building in Moncton, New Brunswick. The four sons owned eighty percent of Joyce, equally divided via two corporate entities, the respondent Bram Enterprises Ltd. and Jamb Enterprises Ltd. The remaining twenty percent fell to the appellant, A.I. Enterprises Ltd., owned and directed by Alan Schelew. Joyce, Bram, Jamb and A.I. signed a syndication agreement whereby the majority of investors were granted the right of sale, subject to a right of first refusal by any minority investor to purchase the apartment at a professionally appraised price. The terms of the syndication agreement limited the irreversible offer of sale to a fifteen-day window. In 2000, Bram and Jamb wished to sell the apartment, at that time valued at $2.2 million, but A.I. and Alan Schelew declined to purchase it. Bram and Jamb attempted to sell the property to multiple buyers but were unsuccessful. Two years later, A.I. purchased the apartment for $2.2 million. Bram and Jamb then sued A.I. for causing loss by unlawful means. They alleged that, due to A.I. and Alan's conduct, the sale had been delayed and at a lesser price than they could have received from a third-party buyer. Bram and Jamb claimed that A.I. and Alan had broken the terms of the syndication agreement, that Alan had breached his fiduciary duty as a joint director of the respondent corporate entities, and that the A.I. and Alan had unlawfully interfered with their economic relations. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「AI Enterprises Ltd v Bram Enterprises Ltd」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.