<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">

<channel>
	<title>Lupton Fawcett LLP - Openbrief » Business Advisory Services</title>
	
	<link>http://www.openbrief.com</link>
	<description>An update service from Lupton Fawcett LLP</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:17:54 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/Openbrief_business-advisory-services" /><feedburner:info uri="openbrief_business-advisory-services" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><feedburner:feedFlare href="?format=xml" src="http://www.logos.com/media/blog/feedburner/browser_chicklet.png">Subscribe with Your Browser</feedburner:feedFlare><item>
		<title>Misleading Advertising - a recent ASA decision</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_business-advisory-services/~3/x5KzKj-v5o0/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2010/08/23/misleading-advertising-a-recent-asa-decision/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:31:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Fiona Kingscott</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Advisory Services]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Business Regulation]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law &amp; Regulatory]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Corporate Defence &amp; Prosecution]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Dispute Management]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/?p=802</guid>
		<description>The ASA Council (Non-broadcast) has recently held a retailer in breach of the CAP Code for having insufficient stock to meet anticipated demand.  It found that internet retailer, Simply Be, has breached the CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 16.4 (Availability of products), 27.4 (Sales promotion rules) and 30.1 (Availability), by an email it [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_business-advisory-services/~4/x5KzKj-v5o0" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2010/08/23/misleading-advertising-a-recent-asa-decision/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2010/08/23/misleading-advertising-a-recent-asa-decision/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Whose law applies?</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_business-advisory-services/~3/lxjNhvpRRHQ/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2009/10/07/whose-law-applies/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 10:38:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Fiona Kingscott</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Advisory Services]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/?p=560</guid>
		<description>In a contract between parties situated in different countries, whose law applies? The answer is usually straightforward where the parties have signed a contract which states which law is to apply. In such cases, or where it can be implied that they have chosen a particular country&amp;#8217;s law, the chosen law applies. However, in cases [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_business-advisory-services/~4/lxjNhvpRRHQ" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2009/10/07/whose-law-applies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2009/10/07/whose-law-applies/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Employer’s Liability for Noise Exposure Could Reach as Far Back as 1978</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_business-advisory-services/~3/tN-FT7nolnQ/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2009/09/29/employer%e2%80%99s-liability-for-noise-exposure-could-reach-as-far-back-as-1978/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:44:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tanya Forret</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Advisory Services]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Business Regulation]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/?p=550</guid>
		<description>Employers running businesses where noise is an issue may now face claims from employees dating as far back as 1978 following a recent Court of Appeal ruling in the case of Baker –v- Quantum Clothing.
Quantum Clothing was found liable for the deafness of a former employee following a detailed consideration of the case by the [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_business-advisory-services/~4/tN-FT7nolnQ" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2009/09/29/employer%e2%80%99s-liability-for-noise-exposure-could-reach-as-far-back-as-1978/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2009/09/29/employer%e2%80%99s-liability-for-noise-exposure-could-reach-as-far-back-as-1978/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Bribery Bill</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_business-advisory-services/~3/VZVQ8WBbgMo/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2009/09/29/bribery-bill/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:43:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tanya Forret</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Advisory Services]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Business Regulation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/?p=549</guid>
		<description>In recent times there has been a distinct change in the emphasis by investigating authorities such as the Serious Fraud Office and Financial Services Authority. The draft Bribery Bill was laid before Parliament in March of this year and will doubtless be joining the plethora of other statutes covering business activities in due course.  [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_business-advisory-services/~4/VZVQ8WBbgMo" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2009/09/29/bribery-bill/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2009/09/29/bribery-bill/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Confidential information and the ex-employee</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_business-advisory-services/~3/c33aLhEFc1A/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2009/06/22/confidential-information-and-the-ex-employee/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:05:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Sykes</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Advisory Services]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/?p=472</guid>
		<description>This old chestnut has been in court again. The law about what information in a business is regarded as confidential and so must not be taken or used by an ex-employee is complex. The practical effect of the law often seems at odds with commercial common sense depending on the circumstances. In the most recent [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_business-advisory-services/~4/c33aLhEFc1A" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2009/06/22/confidential-information-and-the-ex-employee/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2009/06/22/confidential-information-and-the-ex-employee/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>New tougher sanctions for breaches of the Data Protection Act</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_business-advisory-services/~3/9XpvafT8SgA/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/08/20/new-tougher-sanctions-for-breaches-of-the-data-protection-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:04:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Fiona Kingscott</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Advisory Services]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/?p=227</guid>
		<description>The Information Commissioner&amp;#8217;s Office has recently been given the power to impose substantial fines on organisations that deliberately or recklessly commit serious breaches of the Data Protection Act.  There have been warnings that, in the future, prison sentences may even be imposed.  In a report by the Information Commissioner&amp;#8217;s Office last year, the [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_business-advisory-services/~4/9XpvafT8SgA" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/08/20/new-tougher-sanctions-for-breaches-of-the-data-protection-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/08/20/new-tougher-sanctions-for-breaches-of-the-data-protection-act/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>New Domain Names to be Allowed</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_business-advisory-services/~3/MqnSxhP2dmk/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/07/08/new-domain-names-to-be-allowed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:32:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Fiona Kingscott</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Advisory Services]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/?p=184</guid>
		<description>ICANN has recently voted unanimously in favour of extending the number of Top Level Domains (.com, .co.uk, etc.) to allow companies to register their brand names as TLDs, and individuals to register their names as TLDs.  Some time next year, therefore, we are likely to see a .tesco and a .microsoft, etc..  ICANN [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_business-advisory-services/~4/MqnSxhP2dmk" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/07/08/new-domain-names-to-be-allowed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/07/08/new-domain-names-to-be-allowed/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Franchising a business in the UK</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_business-advisory-services/~3/BuOuJzpp0TY/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/04/25/franchising-a-business-in-the-uk/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:04:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Fiona Kingscott</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Advisory Services]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/?p=121</guid>
		<description>A franchise is basically a trade mark licence, with the trade mark owner retaining control over how the franchisee’s business is run, giving assistance to the franchisee, and taking payments from the franchisee.  To the outside world, the franchisee is the franchisor.  Therefore, it is vital to the franchisor that he does have [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_business-advisory-services/~4/BuOuJzpp0TY" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/04/25/franchising-a-business-in-the-uk/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/04/25/franchising-a-business-in-the-uk/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>New laws amount to a general ban on unfair selling practices</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_business-advisory-services/~3/OpUgqkB4hIg/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/04/03/new-laws-amount-to-a-general-ban-on-unfair-selling-practices/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:32:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Fiona Kingscott</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Advisory Services]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/04/03/new-laws-amount-to-a-general-ban-on-unfair-selling-practices/</guid>
		<description>The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 come into force, subject to Parliamentary approval, on 26 May 2008.  They introduce a general ban on unfair selling practices.  They do not repeal the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.  They repeal the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988, and certain sections of the Consumer Credit [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_business-advisory-services/~4/OpUgqkB4hIg" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/04/03/new-laws-amount-to-a-general-ban-on-unfair-selling-practices/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/04/03/new-laws-amount-to-a-general-ban-on-unfair-selling-practices/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>The IPKat reports …Will Obama change ‘Change Rocks’?</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_business-advisory-services/~3/wL4QmzUxsI0/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/01/11/the-ipkat-reports-will-obama-change-change-rocks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:30:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Sykes</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Advisory Services]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/01/11/the-ipkat-reports-will-obama-change-change-rocks/</guid>
		<description>The IPKat has learnt of another setback for US presidential hopeful Barack Obama. A university student, Stefan Doyno, has challenged his use of the &amp;#8216;Change Rocks&amp;#8217; slogan, claiming that he has a registered trade mark over the phrase, which he uses on jewellery where you can indeed change the rocks. A visit to the USPTO&amp;#8217;s [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_business-advisory-services/~4/wL4QmzUxsI0" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/01/11/the-ipkat-reports-will-obama-change-change-rocks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/01/11/the-ipkat-reports-will-obama-change-change-rocks/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Company names which are confusingly similar to your own</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_business-advisory-services/~3/0cCXmAeuwFc/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2007/10/08/company-names-which-are-confusingly-similar-to-your-own/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:39:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Fiona Kingscott</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Advisory Services]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2007/10/08/company-names-which-are-confusingly-similar-to-your-own/</guid>
		<description>There is to be a new right to complain to a  ‘Company Names Adjudicator’ if you believe someone has set up a company with a  name which is too similar to your own.   By 1   October 2008, you will be able to fill in a form, stating  why you believe a company’s name conflicts with [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_business-advisory-services/~4/0cCXmAeuwFc" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2007/10/08/company-names-which-are-confusingly-similar-to-your-own/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2007/10/08/company-names-which-are-confusingly-similar-to-your-own/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>ADR clause is binding and failure to invoke, bars legal action</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_business-advisory-services/~3/ZgLLe52WmvE/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2007/10/08/adr-clause-is-binding-and-failure-to-invoke-bars-legal-action/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:23:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Sykes</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Advisory Services]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2007/10/08/adr-clause-is-binding-and-failure-to-invoke-bars-legal-action/</guid>
		<description>An alternative dispute resolution (ADR) clause in a contract for the sale of certain business assets provided a specific dispute resolution process and a specific time within which disputes should be raised.  The recent case of Douglas Harper v Interchange Group Limited [2007] was about certain business assets which had been sold where part of [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_business-advisory-services/~4/ZgLLe52WmvE" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2007/10/08/adr-clause-is-binding-and-failure-to-invoke-bars-legal-action/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2007/10/08/adr-clause-is-binding-and-failure-to-invoke-bars-legal-action/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	</channel>
</rss>

