What is Money Laundering?

International Compliance Organization Money laundering is the generic term used to describe the process by which criminals disguise the original ownership and control of the proceeds of criminal conduct by making such proceeds appear to have derived from a legitimate source.

The processes by which criminally derived property may be laundered are extensive. Though criminal money may be successfully laundered without the assistance of the financial sector, the reality is that hundreds of billions of dollars of criminally derived money is laundered through financial institutions, annually. The nature of the services and products offered by the financial services industry (namely managing, controlling and possessing money and property belonging to others) means that it is vulnerable to abuse by money launderers.

Principles of Accounting I, Closing Entries, Professor Bruce Fried

Professor Bruce Fried is just great. Thanks to his explanations I corrected a last-minute mistake. Thank you.

Production Possibility Frontier and Opportunity Cost

Good explanaition of PPF.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5rxIY46J7s



Shape of the PPF and Opportunity Cost: www.netmba.com/econ/micro/production/possibility/

Fisher v Bell [1961]

Fisher v Bell [1961] Contract law.

Court High Court,
Date decided 10 November 1960

Fisher v Bell [1961] is a case concerning the requirements of offer and acceptance in the formation of a contract. The case established that, where goods are displayed in a shop together with a price label, such display is treated as an invitation to treat by the seller, and not an offer. The offer is instead made when the customer presents the item to the cashier together with payment. Acceptance occurs at the point the cashier takes payment.

The Defendant displayed a flick knife in the window of his shop next to a ticket bearing the words "Ejector knife – 4s." Under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, section 1(1), it was illegal to manufacture, sell, hire, or offer for sale or hire, or lend to any other person, amongst other things, any knife "which has a blade which opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to the handle of the knife". On 14 December 1959, the Claimant, a chief inspector of police force, brought forward information against the Defendant alleging the Defendant has contravened section 1(1) by offering the flick knife for sale.

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892]

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] a foundational case in the law of contract.

Court Court - of Appeal (Civil Division)
Date decided 7 December 1892
Citations [1892] EWCA Civ 1, [1893] 1 QB 256

Law of contract. Communication of an offer.
The Carbolic Smokeball Company claimed that if their "smokeball" was taken in the specified manner, the user would not contract influenza. Anyone that did contract the illness was entitled to 100 pounds. To show their sincerity in the matter the company deposited 1000 pounds in the Alliance Bank, Regent street

The advert was placed. The question is could it contain an offer?

Mrs. Louisa Carlill stumbled across an advert for the Smokeball in the Pall Mall Gazette. She purchased the product and took it as intstructed.

However, Mrs. Carlill still contracted influenza...
Mrs. Carlill claimed an award. The Smokeball refused to pay, they said a 100 pounds offer was a mere marketing puff and not intended to have any basis in law of contract.

Mrs.Carlill argued that a contract existed between her and the company.
The company argued that no contract could exist since the advert merely constituted an invitation to treat, not an offer.

Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners Ltd. [1964]

Foundation case of Negligent mispresentation & misleading or deceptive conduct.
Establishes DISCLAIMER.
Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners Ltd.
Hedley Byrne were a firm of advertising agents. A customer, Easipower Ltd, put in a large order. Hedley Byrne wanted to check their financial position, and credit-worthiness, and subsequently asked their bank, National Provincial Bank, to get a report from Easipower’s bank, Heller & Partners Ltd., who replied in a letter that was headed,

"without responsibility on the part of this bank" (this disclaimer saved the bank from being recognized guilty in court)
It said that Easipower was,
"considered good for its ordinary business engagements".

The letter was sent for free. Easipower went into liquidation and Hedley Byrne lost £17,000 on contracts. Hedley Byrne sued Heller & Partners for negligence, claiming that the information was given negligently and was misleading. Heller & Partners argued there was no duty of care owed regarding the statements, and in any case liability was excluded.

Snail In A Bottle [1932]

O'Donaghue versus Stephenson

On the evening of Sunday 26 August 1928 May Donoghue, née M’Alister, boarded a tram in Glasgow for the thirty-minute journey to Paisley. At around ten minutes to nine, she and a friend took their seats in the Wellmeadow Café ... read full story.

On 9 April 1929, Donoghue brought an action against David Stevenson, an aerated water manufacturer in Paisley, in which she claimed £500 as damages for injuries sustained by her through drinking ginger beer which had been manufactured by him. The case was settled in court, and the manufacturer was held liable for damages as he owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer - from that judgment onwards the particular caselaw has been founded and has been exercised through precedent.

Darrell Lea v Cadbury: the color of purple

Darrell Lea sweets are among my favs.
Yesterday I learnt about the 5-year battle with Cadbury over the colour purple.

The Federal Court recently ruled that Darrell Lea’s use of the colour purple did not amount to misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act, as had been alleged by Cadbury.

To summarise a 5-year dispute, in 2003 Cadbury initiated proceedings against Darrell Lea, alleging they engaged misleading or deceptive conduct and passing off by using a shade of purple that closely resembled its own “Cadbury Purple”. In 2006, Justice Heerey of the Federal Court dismissed Cadbury’s claim, finding that Cadbury did not own the colour purple and as such, Darrell Lea was entitled to use the colour as long as it did not convey to the reasonable consumer that it had some connection with Cadbury... Read the full story.
or in the news.
The facts that supported Darrell Lea:
For instance, (1) it was noted that many of Cadbury’s products feature little or no purple; (2) purple was never used by Cadbury in isolation but was always combined with the “Cadbury” script; (3) the names “Darrell Lea” and “Cadbury” are quite distinct; (4) most of Darrell Lea’s retailing occurs on its own premises; other competitors such as Nestlé’s Violet Crumble use purple, and the list goes on.

Darrell Lea: The origins of the Darrell Lea company started in the early 1900s when Harry Lea mastered the art of confectionery making in Perth with his first creation, Bulgarian Rock, which he sold in a simple street pushcart.
Cabury: website.