Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Legal Case Analysis: Gossels v. Fleet National Bank, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Management of Health Service

A legal case analysis of Gossels v. Fleet National Bank. The case involves a dispute between C. Peter R. Gossels and Fleet National Bank over a foreign currency transaction. an overview of the parties, facts, procedure, issue, applicable laws, holding, reasoning, and conclusion of the case. The Appeals Court increased the award of damages to Gossels by adding another factor into its calculation. references to other sources for further reading.

Typology: Study Guides, Projects, Research

2021/2022

Available from 04/18/2022

Academicstar
Academicstar 🇬🇧

3.8

(30)

937 documents

1 / 6

Toggle sidebar

Related documents


Partial preview of the text

Download Legal Case Analysis: Gossels v. Fleet National Bank and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Management of Health Service in PDF only on Docsity! RUNNING IHEAD: IWeek I5 ICase IAnalysis I- IGossels Iv. IFleet INational IBank Josue IGonzalez MGMT520: ILegal, IPolitical, Iand IEthical IDimensions Iof IBusiness IWeek I5 ICase IAnalysis DATE RUNNING IHEAD: IWeek I5 ICase IAnalysis I- IGossels Iv. IFleet INational IBank Table Iof IContents IContents Table Iof IContents .................................................................................................................................. 2 Parties ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Facts...................................................................................................................................................... 3 Procedure ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Who Ibrought Ithe Iappeal? .............................................................................................................. 3 What Iwas Ithe Ioutcome Iin Ithe Ilower Icourt(s)? ........................................................................... 3 Issue ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 Applicable Ilaw(s) ................................................................................................................................ 4 Holding ................................................................................................................................................. 4 Reasoning ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 5 References ........................................................................................................................................... 6 RUNNING IHEAD: IWeek I5 ICase IAnalysis I- IGossels Iv. IFleet INational IBank found Ithat Ithis Idecline Iin Ivalue Iamounted Ito I$6,861.68, Iand Iawarded Ithat Iamount I(plus Iinterest) Ito IGossels Ias Idamages Ifor Ithe Ibank's I"negligence" Iin Ifailing Ito Idisclose Iall Ithe Iterms Iof Ithe Itransaction Iand Iin Ifailing Ito Irequire Ithat IGossels Iindorse Ithe Icheck Reasoning The IAppeals ICourt Iincreased Ithe Iaward Iof Idamages Ion Ithe Inegligent Imisrepresentation Iclaim Iby Iadding Ianother Ifactor Iinto Iits Icalculation: Ithe Idifferential Ibetween IFleet's Iretail Iand Ispot Iexchange Irates. IIt Ifound Ithat Ion IOctober I15, I1999, IGossels's Icheck Iwould Ihave Ibeen Iworth I$88,616.45 Ibased Ion Ithe IFleet Iretail Iexchange Irate Iand I$92,023.80 Ibased Ion Ithe Ispot Irate. IThis Irate Idifferential, Ithe IAppeals ICourt Iheld, Iwas Idetailed Ion Ia Irate Isheet Ithat IFleet Idid Inot Idistribute Ito Ithe Ipublic. IConsequently, Iit Iawarded IGossels $10,269.03, Ithe Idifference Ibetween Iwhat Ihe Ihad Ireceived Iin Idollars Ifrom IFleet Ion IDecember I15 I($81,754.77) Iand Iwhat Ihe Iwould Ihave Ireceived Ion IOctober I15 Iat Ithe Ispot Irate I($92,023.80) Conclusion Insofar Ias IFleet Ifailed Ito Iraise Iits Iclaim Iof Ierror Ion Ithe Inegligent Imisrepresentation Iclaim Ibefore Ithe IAppellate IDivision, Iand Itherefore Iwaived Iits Iarguments, Iwe Iaffirm Ithe Ijudgment Ias Ito ICount II. IWe Ialso Iaffirm Ithe Ijudgments Ifor IFleet Ion ICounts III-IV RUNNING IHEAD: IWeek I5 ICase IAnalysis I- IGossels Iv. IFleet INational IBank References Admin. I(2007, IAugust I27). I– IGOSSELS Iv. Inational. IFull-text Opinions. Ihttps://masslawyersweekly.com/fulltext-opinions/2007/08/27/gossels- v-fleet-national-bank/ C. IPeter IR. IGossels Ivs. Ifleet Inational Ibank. I(n.d.). IJustia Law. Ihttps://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme- court/volumes/453/453mass366.html Justia IUS ILaw. I(2008). IC. IPeter IR. IGossels Ivs. Ifleet Inational Ibank. IJustia ILaw. Ihttps://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/court-of- appeals/volumes/69/69massappct797.html Kubasek, IN. IK., IBrennan, IB. IA., I& IBrowne, IM. IN. I(n.d.). IThe ILegal IEnvironment Iof IBusiness IA ICritical IThinking IApproach I(8th Ied.). IPearson. Massachusetts ILawyers IWeekly. I(2009, IMarch I23). I10-040-09 I– IGossels Iv. IFleet Inational Ibank. IFull-text IOpinions. Ihttps://masslawyersweekly.com/fulltext- opinions/2009/03/23/1004009-gossels-v-fleet-national-bank/
Docsity logo



Copyright © 2024 Ladybird Srl - Via Leonardo da Vinci 16, 10126, Torino, Italy - VAT 10816460017 - All rights reserved