Moving and Storage Business News

The News Review:

- The week ahead
- Adept Moving & Storage
- Fundamental breach confuses
- … Jose Mercury News, Calif., Action Line column: Portable…
- Nascent stem cell company raises ethical and medical issues

The week ahead
Telegraph.co.uk – Oct 29, 2007
bullet{padding:30px 0px 0px 5px;margin:0px;font:30px georgia,serif;color:#369;display:block}. iframe{padding-bottom:10px}. Nick Spoliar, of Landsbanki, expects Lok to exceed last year’s pricing increases, and believes that enquiries remain good, with new space coming on stream. Analysts forecast in the year to June 2007 pre-tax profits of £500,000 against breakeven in the previous 12 months, with earning per share of 2. A 1p dividend (nil) is anticipated.

Adept Moving & Storage
Consumer Affairs – Oct 29, 2007
I was so worried that the 10X10 was not going to be big enough but I was reassured that everything would fit and it did! We will be buying a house in the near future and we will certainly use Adept Moving Company. I was not overcharged like with the company I used before and whatever they said they would do they did, including providing free wardrobe boxes. I would HIGHLY! recommend Adept Moving Company to anyone who needs to be moved. I was told it was a 4 hour job well it took ten plus hours. I had to deal with an extremely bad attitude with them threatening to walk off the job when questioned as to why it is taking so long. And to make matters worst they stole jewelry from me.

Fundamental breach confuses
London Free Press – Oct 29, 2007
Devlin, Associate Dean at Dalhousie Law School, looks at how the principle seems to stick around despite efforts by some judges to eliminate fundamental breach as a concept of Canadian contract law. While judges, academics and lawyers struggle with the differences, theories, and appropriateness of the concept of fundamental breach, or alternate concepts such as unconscionability or good faith – the practical effects on the enforcement of contracts are virtually the same. In one instance the doctrine of fundamental breach was used to prevent a storage company from relying upon a limitation of liability clause. Under questionable circumstances, after the rent on a storage locker fell behind, the storage company sold the goods contained within, valued at $60,000, to an auctioneer for $800. The court held this action amounted to a fundamental breach of the contract. In another case, a company was hired to move household possessions. They left the moving truck parked on the street overnight without any security or monitoring and the goods were stolen…
The court held this action amounted to a fundamental breach of the contract. In another case, a company was hired to move household possessions. They left the moving truck parked on the street overnight without any security or monitoring and the goods were stolen. The court found they could not rely upon their limitation of liability clause as their breach of contract was unconscionable. As the courts struggle with the concept of fundamental breach and some judges try to get rid of the concept entirely, the reality is that courts will find a way to provide remedies for significant breaches of contract by whatever legal theory is available to them. Despite the uncertainty provided by the presence of the doctrine of fundamental breach, there is little question that limitation of liability clauses will remain standard fare. In most cases they serve a useful purpose and can be applied quite successfully.

… Jose Mercury News, Calif., Action Line column: Portable…
Free with registration – San Jose Mercury News – AccessMyLibrary.com – Oct 29, 2007
The unit is quite large. I am wondering how long something like this can remain parked on a residential street? I do not see my neighbors often enough to ask them directly. Hopefully, they are planning on moving it soon, but I would like to know whom to contact if they do not. Paula Mints San Jose A Fourteen days is.

Nascent stem cell company raises ethical and medical issues
San Francisco Chronicle – Oct 29, 2007
A prominent Stanford ethicist challenged UC San Francisco scientists who are advisers of the company to sever those ties. These critics accuse StemLifeLine of trying to profit from the promise of stem cell research in the present, even though the work may not yield medical treatments for decades, if ever. “These companies are essentially taking advantage of people’s ignorance and fears to make a buck,” said David Magnus, director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics. StemLifeLine’s commercial debut also raised unsettled ethical questions that experts had thought they would consider when therapies actually materialized. The questions can reach deep into the heart of a family’s beliefs. Such issues are usually dissected by committees of experts overseeing university stem cell studies involving human embryos, to ensure ethical behavior by the scientists. But no law dictates how fertility clients may make use of their embryos, and StemLifeLine was legally free to set up shop…
At its lab on Industrial Road, the company extracts cells from the embryos and converts them into stem cells, which are grown into cultures or “lines” containing millions of cells. The vials of cells are then frozen or “cryopreserved. StemLifeLine charges as much as $7,000 to create and freeze the stem cell line, and about $350 a year for storage. Additional fees up to $2,000 can be charged by fertility clinics that facilitate the transaction, Krtolica said. The company also offers customers the free option of donating an extra vial of their stem cell cultures for research. Krtolica said about 15 families have participated in pilot studies or as paying customers since the company was founded in 2005. The company does not make clients available for interviews.