William F. Cooke Enterprises Case Study

Power is never linked to price, but always to value.” Power in negotiations can be perceived or real which affects the final negotiation outcome. Generally all disputants have some power to an extent which is used to achieve a favourable outcome. It is unlikely the power balance stays consistent, power shifts throughout the negotiation process. Knowing how the power works and how to use power to achieve desirable outcome is important for successful negotiations. The notion of parity in power is vital in relationships between the disputants. The parity in negotiation is when one party perceives that the other party can oppose any form of power with dissimilar or similar form of power (Lewicki and Saunders et al., 1997). Power parity means there will be a balance in power positioning to some extent. The two different objective powers involving in the bargaining process are power depending on the lack of dependence and role power (Staff, 2013). The first power parallels to a disputants BATNA (Best alternative to a negotiated agreement). Going into a negotiation with strong BATNA means the disputant is less dependent on the other parties in achieving the desired outcome compared to having a weaker alternative. The second power is linked with the positions, titles or roles which grant power simply because of the control or authority they possess. This is often found in hierarchical organisations. Apart from the objective powers there is possibility of

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

The defendants wanted to apply reasonable principles in search of specific performance of the contract. The disposition of the immediate motion for partial summary judgment and objection was controlled. “The court found that although the doctrine of mutuality of remedies may be alive and well in Virginia in actions at law for damages, that was not the case where, regardless of a lack of support of remedy at the time the contract was created, complete performance may, if revealed, afford a party specific performance of the contract for the sale of land.”

Your managing partner has handed you the Supreme Court of Queenslands’ decision in The Public Trustee of Queensland and Anor v Meyer and Ors [2010] QSC 291 and asked you to answer the following questions. You should assume you are answering questions for someone who has not read the case, so be sure to provide sufficient detail in your answers. You do not need to provide reference details for Part A of the assignment.

Beach J discussed the meaning of Attorney Rules 15 – see [84]. He criticised it as unclear, it seeming to deal only with conflict between duty & interest, not duty & duty.

DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE DEFENDANTS CONDUCT DID NOT RESULT IN AN OBJECTIVELY SERIOUS INJURY TO THE PLAINTIFF NOR DID THE DEFENDANTS ACT WITH DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE OR RECKLESS DISREGARD TOWARD THE PLAINTIFF’S RIGHTS, HEALTH, OR SAFETY.

Defendants’ Response claims the Defendants will be “substantially prejudiced” by an or-der of dismissal, but do not provide any identification of what that prejudice would be or how the prejudice would rise to the level of the loss of any substantial right. Since the Defendants have not identified any “legal prejudice,” or met their burden of showing any “plain legal prejudice” resulting from the requested dismissal, the Court is without grounds to deny the

The court ruled that the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was correct for the promissory estoppels claim. The plaintiff’s breach of contract claim case was remanded back to the lower court for further determination.

The parties that were involved in this case was White, Darryl John (appellant/respondent) and Woolcock, Richard Bruce (respondent/applicant/appellant).

Procedural History: Plaintiff brought suit against defendant, alleging claims of breach of confidentiality agreement, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, misrepresentation and fraud to which injunctive relief was sought. Defendant moved for summary judgement on all causes.

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, the State of Kansas ex rel. Schmidt, and submits this reply and memorandum in support of its motion for an order dismissing this action. For the reasons previously stated and as further supported herein, Plaintiff is entitled to an order dismissing this action as a matter of right. Plaintiff further states:

There was no rushing to the judgment in this case. It was carefully considered before it was filed. The evidence

“Agreement” means this Settlement and Release Agreement including its Definitions, Recitals, Undertakings, Representations and Warranties, and Terms and Conditions.

Consider how an imbalance between 'high power' and 'low power' parties might shape a negotiation process. How might an experienced mediator deal with this problem? Provide practical examples where appropriate.

Indeed, the posting provides some leeway for us to inquire how acts of liability stemming from negligent behaviors were handled in legal precedent prior to this judgment.