Back to the failure: an analytic narrative of the De Lorean debacle

There has been a recent identification of a need for a New Business History. This discussion connects with the analytic narrative approach. By following this approach, the study of business history provides important implications for the conduct and institutional design of contemporary industrial policy. The approach also allows us to solve historical puzzles. The failure of the De Lorean Motor Company Limited (DMCL) is one specific puzzle. Journalistic accounts that focus on John De Lorean's alleged personality defects as an explanation for this failure miss the crucial institutional component. Moreover, distortions in the rewards associated with industrial policy, and the fact that the objectives of the institutions implementing the policy were not solely efficiency-based, led to increased opportunities for rent-seeking. Political economy solves the specific puzzle; by considering institutional dimensions, we can also solve the more general puzzle of why activist industrial policy was relatively unsuccessful in Northern Ireland.

Lake Inaha 217971

This vessel was built at Lorain, Ohio in 1919 by the American Ship Building Company. Until 1930, she was owned by the U. S. Shipping Board of Washington, D. C. That year she was sold to the Ford Motor Company. In 1943, she once again was owned by the U.S. Shipping Board. In 1946, she was purchased by the Bright Star Steamship Company of Washington, Panama. Her name was changed to "Captain John." From 1951 to 1954, she was owned by Navebras of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Her name was then changed to "Santa Martha." In 1954, she foundered off the coast of Brazil.

Lake Belnona 217230

"Lake Belnona" was built at Saginaw, Michigan in 1918 by the Saginaw Shipbuilding Company. She was owned by the U. S. Shipping Board of Washington, D. C. until 1928 when she was scrapped at River Rouge, Michigan by the Ford Motor Company

Certificate for Six Shares of Capital Stock in Gove Motor Car Company, Detroit, Michigcan

Certificate for 6 shares of common capital stock in Gove Motor Car Company, Detroit, Michigan to Hamilton K. Woodruff, June 13, 1921.

Certificate for Two Shares of Preferred Capital Stock in Gove Motor Car Company, Detroit, Michigan

Certificate for 2 shares of preferred capital stock in Gove Motor Car Company, Detroit, Michigan to Hamilton K. Woodruff, June 13, 1921.

Report to the President by the Emergency Board appointed January 14, 1948 pursuant to section 10 of the Railway labor act, as amended, to investigate unadjusted disputes between the Chicago, North Shore and Milwaukee Railway Company and certain of its employees represented by International Union of Amalgamated Association of Street Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, a labor organization.

Signed, Harry H. Schwartz, chairman, Russell Wolfe, Robert E. Stone.

Operator, organizational, direct, and general support maintenance manual : compressor, air, reciprocating, electric motor driven, receiver mounted, 15 cfm at 175 psi (12.30 kgs per sq cm) (Champion Pneumatic Machinery Company) model no. HR5-8M-3, NSN 4310-00-537-8876.

Includes index.

National Labor Relations Board, petitioner, vs. Packard Motor Car Company, respondent : motion of Chrysler Corporation for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae and brief as amicus curiae /

Cover title.

Packard Motor Car Company automobile, tour members, and onlookers

Photo album title: Three Men in a Six. President H. B. Joy; Chief Engineer Russell Huff; General Superintendent B. F. Roberts

Motor and Cars of the Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor Street Railway. - Showing Military Company

Streetcars. On verso: Train and Military Company from Nov. 1895 MichStoner, Claude Thomas, 1899-1977igan Central Magazine, "Headlight"

Waiver of statutory requirements : Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld)

One of the many difficulties associated with the drafting of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) (‘the Act’) is the operation of s 365. If the requirements imposed by this section concerning the return of the executed contract are not complied with, the buyer and the seller will not be bound by the relevant contract and the cooling-off period will not commence. In these circumstances, it is clear that a buyer’s offer may be withdrawn. However, the drafting of the Act creates a difficulty in that the ability of the seller to withdraw from the transaction prior to the parties being bound by the contract is not expressly provided by s 365. On one view, if the buyer is able to withdraw an offer at any time before receiving the prescribed contract documentation the seller also should not be bound by the contract until this time, notwithstanding that the seller may have been bound at common law. However, an alternative analysis is that the legislative omission to provide the seller with a right of withdrawal may be deliberate given the statutory focus on buyer protection. If this analysis were correct the seller would be denied the right to withdraw from the transaction after the contract was formed at common law (that is, after the seller had signed and the fact of signing had been communicated to the buyer).

Caracterização de motor aeronaútico utilizando misturas de gasolina de aviação e etanol: aspectos fluidodinâmicos, termodinâmicos e ecológicos

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

The relationship between motor carrier economic regulation and highway safety.

Transportation Department, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, Washington, D.C.