Name: Lisa Cason                            Date: July 8, 2012                            Course# BSAD220-F1FF            ...
Assignment 2-2#9The parties involved in this case were Michael Merkle-plaintiff T-Mobile USA, Inc.-defendantThe facts were...
conduct that govern commercial relationships.Dynamic Business Law, Second Edition#7The parties involved were Business Syst...
Chapter 15 #8--#9#8The parties involved were Zhang—plaintiff --- Frank Sorichetti’s-defendantThe facts were Zhang entered ...
hired an attorney to prepare a document to protect her interest.The legal issues are that Vincent stated that is case of h...
relationships between persons and their government. It also identifies when someone’s right areviolated. I feel his rights...
The legal issues were after Vokes figured out she was actually played for a fool and realized shewasn’t developing her dan...
References: Dynamic Business Law, Second Edition
Module 2 Assignment 2-2 Chapter Questions & ProblemsChapter 13 #7What is the plain meaning rule? The plain meaning rule re...
Chapter#16--#9Do you feel the appellate court upheld the motion for summary judgment? I don’t feel the courtupheld the mot...
Assignment 2 2 bsad
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Assignment 2 2 bsad

669 views

Published on

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
669
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Assignment 2 2 bsad

  1. 1. Name: Lisa Cason Date: July 8, 2012 Course# BSAD220-F1FF Assignment 2-2Professor Elaine Silveira
  2. 2. Assignment 2-2#9The parties involved in this case were Michael Merkle-plaintiff T-Mobile USA, Inc.-defendantThe facts were Michael Merkle allegedly was seen drunk at a company conference, which he deniedthe allegation. However, the senior human resource manager informed him of the allegation, andimmediately fired him.The legal issues between the two parties are Michael was given the company handbook which internallyinvestigates all claims of employee misconduct. Although he claimed no internal investigation had beenconducted. Michael stated there was an employee that actually was drunk on the job site. T- Mobilecontended that no portion of the handbook constituted a contract.I feel if there was no for sure proof that Michael was drunk, if they’re going on just hear say, Michaelmay have a good case against them. Since he has worked there for 11 years, and not for sure, awarning, or maybe a few days suspension may have been sufficient. “Innocent until proven guilty”The appropriate rule of law I think would be natural law because it states that people have a right to betreated fairly in their jobs. If it wasn’t proven , he may have a case. If they would’ve took a breath testor drug test and it was proven on the spot, that would be a different scenario.Dynamic Business Law,Second EditionChapter 14 (6-7)The parties involved were Makoroff-plaintiff PennDot-defendantThe facts were PennDot issued a request proposal for vending machine services, and selected ATI fora contract. ATI returned an executed contract to PennDot. PennDot’s never returned a contract to ATI.The legal issues are PennDot never returned a executed contract to ATI or to provide notice to proceed.PennDot notified ATI that it was not a responsible contractor.I think ATI should win the case because PennDot never delivered an acceptance to the offer to ATI,therefore a contract was not formed.I feel the appropriate rule of law would be business law which consists of the enforceable ruled of
  3. 3. conduct that govern commercial relationships.Dynamic Business Law, Second Edition#7The parties involved were Business Systems Engineering-Plaintiff –IBM-DefendantThe facts were Business Systems Engineering had subcontracted with IBM to provide technicalconsultants. IBM listed Business System Engineering as a subcontractor with $3.6 million undercontract amount. At the end of the project IBM paid $2.2 million instead of the original price of$3.6 million to Business System Engineering.The legal issues would be IBM agreed to a price of $3.6 million, but only paid $2.2 million toBusiness Systems Engineering.I feel if IBM promised the $3.6 million it should’ve been paid, providing the work was done in a timelymanner, and the work was done the right way.The appropriate rule of law would be Business Law because it consists of the enforceable rules ofconduct that govern commercial relationshipsI feel the plaintiffs argument on appeal was he had a contract with IBM for $3.6 million. However whenthe work was done he was handed only $2.2 million. I feel if Business Systems Engineering had acontract with IBM, it should’ve been fulfilled. There were only 38 work authorizations issued to theplaintiff, so I’m not sure if it should’ve been more authorizations issued or not, it didn’t actually say.I’m thinking he got paid for the authorizations that were turned in. That’s why they got $2.2 million.I feel the outcome of the appeal was evidently the job wasn’t done the right way and IBM wasn’thappy at all with the job performed. The transit authority could’ve rejected some of the individualswho were not selected by the subcontractors. However, the money paid could’ve been the numberof authorizations that were issued.Dynamic Business Law, Second Edition
  4. 4. Chapter 15 #8--#9#8The parties involved were Zhang—plaintiff --- Frank Sorichetti’s-defendantThe facts were Zhang entered into a contract to purchase a home from Frank Sorichetti for $532,500on February 1, 2004. February 3, 2004 Sorichetti terminated the sale to stay a little while longer.Therefore, he made a different price of $ 578,000 which included a few household furnishings.The legal issues are if the contract is legal, and if Nevada law allows the recession of real propertyagreements within the three days of signing.I feel that if the Nevada laws allows purchase agreements within three days, then I would feelSorichetti would win. However, the first contract was made on the 1st, then a change of mind on the3rd. If a real property purchase agreement is enforced and that is allowed, I think Sorichetti winsthe case, if not Zhang would win if the agreements in not allowed.The appropriate rule of law would be natural law because individuals have not only basic human rights,but also the freedom to disobey a law enacted by people if their conscience goes against it and theybelieve that it is wrong.I feel if the Nevada law allows purchase agreements three days of contracting, and a real propertypurchase agreement is enforced when executed by the buyer, I feel the second contract should beenforced by the court. The first contract didn’t have all the personal belongings and all the householdfurnishings on it. The second contract had all the personal items and the new price that was agreed on.#9Dynamic Business Law, Second EditionThe parties involved were Vincent Simmons—plaintiff Dorothy Simmons—defendantThe facts were upon Vincent Simmons’ mother’s death she would leave the land in Florida to herchildren, Vincent and his sister. The mother died a few years later and the land remained in trust forseveral years after. Dorothy, Vincent’s wife was concerned she would not receive an interest so she
  5. 5. hired an attorney to prepare a document to protect her interest.The legal issues are that Vincent stated that is case of his death his wife Dorothy would receive hisshare. However, Dorothy, his wife, filed for a divorce and Vincent felt that there was a lack ofconsideration to support a contract. Dorothy argued that her marriage to Vincent had enoughconsideration to support the contractI feel Vincent should win the because he stated that in the event of his death, that his wife, Dorothywould receive his share of property. Nonetheless, Vincent didn’t die, his wife filed for divorce.Therefore, the property should remain with Vincent and his sister until further notice.The appropriate rule of law would be civil law. Civil law states the rights and responsibilities inrelationships between persons. It also states when someone’s right are violated.Dynamic Business LawSecond EditionChapter 16 #7The parties involved were Bannister—plaintiff Bemis Co., Inc. –defendantThe facts were Roger Bannister was not to work for Bemis 18 months after the termination of hisEmployment. Bemis was suppose to pay his salary if employment was not found in a timely manner.Bannister had an offer from Mondi to be hired if not to compete. Bemis responded to Bannister thatThey disapproved him working for Mondi.The legal issues are Bannister agreed not to compete and Bemis was to pay his monthly salary.Bemis then said Bannister could compete just not with Mondi due to a separate agreement Bemishad with Mondi. Bannister finally accepted an offer with another employer and expected to getpaid for the nine months he was out of work from Bemis. Bemis didn’t want to pay Bannister.I feel Bannister should win the case. He was out of work for a long period of time without pay. Hewas going to be hired by Mondi. Bemis had some issues with Mondi but that had nothing to dowith Bannister. He was trying to get paid. Bannister ended up excepting a job that was a competitorof Bemis.The appropriate rule of law would be Civil Law because it delineates the rights and responsibilities of
  6. 6. relationships between persons and their government. It also identifies when someone’s right areviolated. I feel his rights were violated because he waited so long to get paid, and still didn’t.DynamicBusiness Law Second EditionChapter 17 # 6-7The parties involved were Estate of Martha Nelson—plaintiff -- Carl Rice and Anna Rice—defendantThe facts were defendant bought a painting from plaintiff. Plaintiff stated she at the beginning she wasno judge of fine art, and would probably have to get another appraiser. Defendant bought paintingsfor little of nothing, not knowing if they would be the originals. He then got the painting appraisedand found out that they were worth a lot more than he bought them for, and they were the originals.The legal issues are after selling the paintings for a very, very, cheap price the estate wanted to suethe buyer for buying the paintings for such a cheap price. A mistake or not he bought it for the pricethe appraise told him they were worth. I feel that was their mistake, they need to fix it, not the guywho bought the paintings. If he would’ve stole the paintings, that would be a different story. However,he didn’t, he bought it fair .I feel the plaintiff should win the case because it was a price offered, and he ran with it not knowing ifthis time it was an original painting or not. If you are an appraiser of fine arts, and trying to sellpaintings, or whatever you’re trying to sell, you need to know what you’re are doing, so there isno problem like this that will occur again.The appropriate rule of law I feel is Private law because private law regulates disputes between privateindividuals or groups.Dynamic Business Law. Second Edition#7The parties involved are Okes—plaintiff -----Arthur Murray—defendantThe facts were Okes, which was 51 years old signed up for dance classes and consequently shereceived praise. However, it was not honest praise. After being offered eight half-hour dance lessonsfor $14.50 each to be used each month, she immediately purchased a total of 2,302 hours whichwas a total of $31,090.45.
  7. 7. The legal issues were after Vokes figured out she was actually played for a fool and realized shewasn’t developing her dance skills, couldn’t even hear the music, she then wanted to sueArthur Murray.I think Arthur Murray should win the case. True, they weren’t very honest to the lady, but it’sa whole lot of people who are not honest these days. That’s why you have to watch the peoplethat we deal with in our everyday life. Nonetheless , nobody twisted her arm to purchase so manyhours of dance lessons. So I feel even though they were very rude, and lied, she has to deal withthe situation she got herself in.The appropriate rule of law is natural law because natural law describes certain ethical laws andprinciples to be morally right or wrong. I feel what they did was wrong, but unfortunately, it is notagainst the law.DYNAMIC BUSINESS LAW, Second Edition
  8. 8. References: Dynamic Business Law, Second Edition
  9. 9. Module 2 Assignment 2-2 Chapter Questions & ProblemsChapter 13 #7What is the plain meaning rule? The plain meaning rule requires that if a writing, or a term inquestion , appears to be plain and ambiguous, its meaning must be determined from theinstrument itself, with the words given their ordinary meaning.”Dynamic Business Law,Second EditionChapter 14 #2What is the mailbox rule? The mailbox rule provides that an acceptance is valid when the offereeplaces it in the mailbox, whereas a revocation is effective only when the offeree receives it. Themailbox rule is not applicable when there is instantaneous communication, such as over the phonein person, or be telex. “Dynamic Business Law, Second Edition “#5 Were there an offer and an acceptance thereby creating an enforceable contract?I believe there was an offer of acceptance that created an enforceable contract because WilbertHeikkila was the one who should’ve signed the other three agreements, not his wife. However,Wilbert Heikkila changed the price on the parcels by writing on the purchase agreements. He alsoaltered the closing dates for each parcel, which I feel is illegal. Therefore, that itself created anenforceable contract. Dynamic Business Law, Second EditionChapter 15 # 4List and describe the three exceptions to the preexisting duty rule— 1. Unforeseen circumstances which causes a party to make a promise regarding an unfinished project, the promise is valid consideration. 2. Additional work is when a party agrees to do more that the contract requires, the promise To do it is valid consideration. 3. UCC Article 2 is a signed agreement which excludes modification or rescission except by a signed writing cannot be otherwise modified or rescinded, but except as between merchants such a requirement on a form supplied by the merchant t must be separately signed by the other party. Dynamic Business Law, Second Edition#10 How do you think the court ruled? I feel if there was no legal contract that was signed , and AEPdidn’t pay there $1.00, the court would rule against AEP.
  10. 10. Chapter#16--#9Do you feel the appellate court upheld the motion for summary judgment? I don’t feel the courtupheld the motion because when she signed the contract, it stated that they were not responsiblefor injuries during exercise. She discussed her problems with NFI, and took it upon herself to continueTherefore, I don’t feel NFI was responsible for injuries that occurred.Chapter 17 #5Explain the difference between duress and undu influence. Duress occurs when one party threatensthe other with a wrongful act unless assent is given. Such assent is not legal assent because coercioninterferes with the party’s free will. For the courts to rescind the agreement, the injured party mustdemonstrate that the duress left no reasonable alternatives to agreeing to the contract “ DynamicBusiness Law, Second Edition”Undu influence is the persuasive efforts of a dominant party who uses a special relationship withanother party to interfere with the other’s free choice of the terms of a contract. Any relationshipin which one party has an unusual degree of trust in the other can trigger concern about undueinfluence. “ Dynamic Business Law, Second Edition”

×