Starbucks in Mihaylo Hall Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Starbucks in Mihaylo Hall - Essay Example The Starbucks proximity to the student study lounge gives the students a number of options while studying for those stressful exams and reports. Unlike other Starbucks franchises which are located in business districts, this particular branch is located inside the Mihaylo Hall College of Economics and Business Building at CSUF. Thus it does not have the same look or feel as the run of the mill Starbucks branches located off campus. However, this particular Starbucks branch does not cater exclusively to the student body of CSUF. The coffee shop has a public entrance facing the street as well. Starbucks benefits from being located inside the the newest building on campus, Mihaylo Hall, which also boasts of a newly opened study lounge area located a stones throw away from the cafe. ( â€Å"Spotlight: Mihalylo Hall† )Students in particular, benefit from having this particular Starbucks branch on campus as they are assured of physical security and protection since they do not have to leave the secured area of the college campus to get an Espresso anymore. Contrary to public opinion, students do not go to Starbucks just because it is the latest fad on campus. Nor do they just want to flash around their cash by showing off their designer coffee drinks. Thanks to the quiet and relaxing interior design of Starbucks, it has actually become one of the great places to go if you want to seriously study but cannot do so because of all the activities going on in the dorm rooms. At Starbucks, one can kick back and relax and and enjoy the quiet surroundings being enjoyed by the other students as well. Although the student study lounge also offers the same type of learning friendly environment, there is just something about studying at Starbucks that makes it a more conducive area to read the study materials in. Which is probably why there is regular traffic between the two areas during the time when the coffee shop is open. Unlike the study lounge,

Company Law Issues Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Company Law Issues - Essay Example The question of majority rule and minority protection arises in the van purchase, mismanagement of Resort Ltd by Samson and Delilah and the sale of shares to prevent a take over bid. Another significant issue raised by this case scenario is the liquidation of â€Å"Crystal Ltd† which increases the level of scrutiny of director activity. 1. The relevant issue that arises here is the pre incorporation of the contract for the purchase of the van. Per Section 36 (c ) of the Companies Act of 1985, any contract made prior to the incorporation of a Company by a person will make the person himself/herself liable for said contract. Muddle has signed the sale document on behalf of resort Ltd, in February, when the Company was not formed. Moreover, Muddle is a minority shareholder with only 20% of the shares, he can only table resolutions, he cannot push them through. If the Articles of association of Resort Ltd do not provide him authority to make the van purchase, it should have been ratified at a Board meeting with requisite majority, otherwise it will not stand. The rule established in Foss v Harbottle1 provides minority protection in that a corporation can sue where a wrong arises that is ratifiable. However, since Samson and Delilah oppose the purchase, hence Muddle may be personally liable for payment on the van. 2. Mr. Muddle may be found guilty of a serious breach of fiduciary duty that is expected of a Director of Resort Ltd. He has used his influence as Director in order to derive personal benefit through the sale of the building in Mislington to Restore Ltd, to the tune of 250,000 pounds2. Section 317 of the Companies Act of 1985 also places on directors a statutory duty to reveal any interest, profit or financial advantage accruing to them by virtue of their position. Therefore, by using his position to influence the purchase of the building in Mislington which he owns, he has breached his fiduciary duty and