Why is court approval necessary to liquidate? I found this article in the news, claiming that Sears Canada will ask court for permission to liquidate all remaining stores. I can't see why approval would be necessary. Why would it be illegal to close your own stores without approval? In what cases would it be possible for permission to be denied?
When a company is under court-supervised protection against creditors (bankruptcy), you can't just do stuff like closing stores, as you might if you were operating free and clear. Here is an overview of Canadian bankruptcy law. It basically comes down to the fact that they sought protection by the government against their creditors, and if you do that, the government requires you to follow broad rules (and the courts will make sure you do).
The statement "you don't need to put it in writing" is not an instruction, and should not be interpreted as on in lieu of other evidence (e.g. the follow-up question "you don't want to get fired, do you?"). It is, at best, a recognition that your concerns have already been noted (and at worst, a ham-handed threat). In the context of an at-will non-union position, it is legal for a boss to directly demand "take it or leave it, no back-talk allowed". The reduction in salary can't go below the statutory minimum, or otherwise circumvent any laws, but assuming that the new salary is per se legal, they can demand that you accept it and not argue. If this were a government position, there is a potential (but not guaranteed) First Amendment issue.
Generally, the bids are the offer which the auctioneer may, but is not bound to, accept. (Chitty on Contracts, § 4-025). Many Sale of Goods Acts specify that the &quot;sale is complete when the auctioneer announces its completion by the fall of a hammer&quot; (see Ontario's Sale of Goods Act; see also Chitty on Contracts, § 4-025). If the auctioneer is not going to accept the bid, the auctioneer may withdraw the lot. If the property is put up for auction subject to a reserve price, no contract is formed if the auctioneer mistakingly purports to accept a bid lower than the reserve price (Chitty on Contract, § 4-026). Any after-the-fact declaration of the existence of a reserve bid has no bearing on the formation of the contract. The only thing that matters is whether the property is put to auction subject to a reserve price. If it is not put up subject to a reserve price, then the contract for sale is formed with the highest bidder when the auctioneer announces the completion of the auction. If the property is put up subject to a reserve price, then no contract is formed, even where there is purported acceptance by the auctioneer.
This is largely congruent with* the doctrine of laches. The basic idea, under common law, is that you can lose rights by failing to assert them. This is generally important for many reasons, but specifically in the case of appeals: The argument should have been brought before the trial court. Justice is not a game, but it's important to recognize that the party trying to raise the argument had an opportunity to do so already. They have given up their right to raise this argument, and extending them the privilege of doing so is (for the following reasons) not good for the system. Courts of appeals are typically not well-equipped to evaluate factual evidence. It is not their area of expertise. Witnesses or evidence may be less available. It's just not practical to try to adjudicate factual issues on appeal, most of the time. If anyone could get an appeal by bringing new factual arguments, then everyone would do that. You'd bring your strongest argument before the district court, and then if that fails, bring the second strongest before the circuit court. That way, you get an extra trial. This is inefficient. Allowing factual arguments on appeal would encourage attorneys and their clients to strategically bring different facts before different courts. This kind of forum-shopping is harmful because it has little to do with who has the stronger overall case, and more to do with who has the better lawyer. * "Congruent with" is not the same as "an instance of"; this rule is not formally an application of laches. It just happens to share the same justification.
Because you are on their premises and they get to decide what people can or can't do while on their property. This has nothing to do with if recording is legal or not, it has to do with basic property rights and trespass. Let's assume that recording is perfectly legal: so is eating ice cream. However, if its my shop, I can require that you do not make recordings just as I can require that you do not eat ice cream. If I make this requirement known you have three options: you can comply, you can leave or you can stay and do the thing I have prohibited. The first two are legal, the last one isn't; its trespass which is both a tort for which I can sue you and a crime for which you can be arrested and prosecuted.
These offer letters typically state explicitly that the offer is contingent on approval by the relevant governing board. This is sufficient to thwart promissory estoppel. Such highest-level overturning are frequent enough in the US that a reasonable person would know that the principal (for instance) does not have final authority to make a contract. There is no requirement that the board justify their decision to you. If you file a lawsuit alleging racial or religious discrimination, and if you can make a prima facie case for discrimination,you might survive the motion for dismissal, and the board might be required to say why they didn't hire you.
First sale doctrine is about selling something that you bought. You buy X, you pay your money, you have it and you own it. You don't want it anymore, so you sell it to me for money. Now you don't have X anymore, but I have it. That's what First Sale Doctrine is about: That you can buy something, and then you sell everything you have, including all the copies, to someone else. What you are suggesting is absolutely nothing like that. You buy a DVD, you stream it, and after that you still have the DVD. That is absolutely not covered. What would be covered is that you sell the DVD to me, you hand over the DVD for cash, and you hand all the copies that you made over to me as well and destroy any traces that you still have. After the sale, you have my money and nothing else.
You can try, however, a US court when considering if it has jurisdiction will doubtless ask you to explain why a Canadian business wants to sue a Canadian company for an unpaid debt in Canadian dollars for services provided in Canada in a US court. If you can satisfy them that a US court is the appropriate venue (which I doubt) they will hear the case.