Search for: "MINING v. PRICE" Results 221 - 240 of 564
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Dec 2023, 4:00 am by Administrator
Because the presumption in Baxter has not been rebutted, the damages owed to the respondents are equivalent to the difference between the sale price received by the appellants on the resale and the price received by the respondents on the initial sale to the appellants. [read post]
25 Apr 2021, 1:01 am by rhapsodyinbooks
Victory came at a high price for the Ottoman Empire, which lost 87,000 men during the campaign. [read post]
8 May 2023, 9:30 pm by Karen Tani
What Coase’s article and mine did was to invite—indeed to require—people to look at areas of law that were not expressly focused on economics, like torts. [read post]
3 May 2010, 12:24 pm by Erin Miller
Here, the Court didn’t simply mine existing democratic judgments for evidence of the national going rate. [read post]
10 Apr 2009, 3:14 am
Mechel is a Russian mining and metals company whose American Depositary Receipts trade on the NYSE. [read post]
24 Aug 2012, 1:12 pm by Susan Brenner
After detailing several improvements he had made to the car, Cohen noted that he saw `a number of cars that are in inferior condition to mine going for prices that I would find acceptable at this point. . . . [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 6:50 am by admin
Maxzone (Cartel Sentencing) In an important Federal Court decision issued in September, 2012 in the ongoing global auto parts price-fixing investigation (R. v. [read post]
12 Mar 2015, 11:26 am by Susan McLean and Mercedes Samavi
RYANAIR LTD V PR AVIATION The CJEU case involved PR Aviation which operates a price-comparison website for low-cost airlines. [read post]
25 Dec 2012, 8:08 am by Shouvik Kumar Guha
Rajiv then came up with a penetrating analysis of an IPAB decision (Bayer v. [read post]
17 Mar 2020, 12:00 am by Chijioke Okorie
  Readers may also recall that in the wake of the HIV epidemic, South Africa’s Competition Commission in Hazel Tau and others v GlaxoSmithKline South Africa and Boehringer Ingelheim accepted the argument that the respondents’ activities in relation to the drugs for treatment of HIV constituted an abuse of dominance in the form of excessive pricing and other exclusionary conduct. [read post]