LEGAL ENPROVMENT
MODULE 4
Start by reading and following these instructions:
1. Quickly skim the questions or assignment below and the assignment rubric to help you focus.
2. Read the required chapter(s) of the textbook and any additional recommended resources. Some answers may require you to do additional research on the Internet or in other reference sources. Choose your sources carefully.
3. Consider the discussions and any insights gained from it.
4. Create your Assignment submission and be sure to cite your sources, use APA style as required, check your spelling.
Assignment:
1. Brenda Brandt was admitted to Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center (Health Center) to receive treatment for urinary incontinence. During the course of an operation, the doctor surgically implanted a ProteGen Sling (sling) in Brandt. Subsequently, the manufacturer of the sling, Boston Scientific Corporation, issued a recall of the sling because it was causing medical complications in some patients. Brandt suffered serious complications and had the sling surgically removed. Brandt sued Boston Scientific Corporation and Health Center for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability included in Article 2 (Sales) of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Health Center filed a motion with the court to have the case against it dismissed. Health Center argued that it was a provider of services and not a merchant that sold goods, and because the UCC (Sales) applies to the sale of goods, Health Center was not subject to the UCC. Health Center proved that Brandt’s bill was $11,174.50 total charge for her surgery, with a charge of $1,659.50, or 14.9%, for the sling and its surgical kit. Is the transaction between Brandt and Health Center predominantly the provision of services or the sale of goods? Explain your answer.
2. Executive Financial Services, Inc. (EFS), purchased three tractors from Tri-County Farm Company (Tri-County), a John Deere dealership owned by Gene Mohr and James Loyd. The tractors cost $48,000, $19,000, and $38,000. EFS did not take possession of the tractors but instead left the tractors on Tri-County’s lot. EFS leased the tractors to Mohr-Loyd Leasing (Mohr-Loyd), a partnership between Mohr and Loyd, with the understanding and representation by Mohr-Loyd that the tractors would be leased out to farmers. Instead of leasing the tractors, Tri-County sold them to three different farmers. EFS sued and obtained judgment against Tri-County, Mohr-Loyd, and Mohr and Loyd personally for breach of contract. Because that judgment remained unsatisfied, EFS sued the three farmers who bought the tractors to recover the tractors from them.
1. What does the entrustment rule provide? Explain.
2. Did Mohr and Loyd act ethically in this case?
3. Who owns the tractors, EFS or the farmers?
3. Donald Wayne Doyle (Debtor) obtained a guaranteed student loan to enroll in a school for training truck drivers. Due to his impending divorce, Debtor never attended the program. The first ...
ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH FORM 50 CÂU TRẮC NGHI...
LEGAL ENPROVMENTMODULE 4Start by reading and following these i.docx
1. LEGAL ENPROVMENT
MODULE 4
Start by reading and following these instructions:
1. Quickly skim the questions or assignment below and the
assignment rubric to help you focus.
2. Read the required chapter(s) of the textbook and any
additional recommended resources. Some answers may require
you to do additional research on the Internet or in other
reference sources. Choose your sources carefully.
3. Consider the discussions and any insights gained from it.
4. Create your Assignment submission and be sure to cite your
sources, use APA style as required, check your spelling.
Assignment:
1. Brenda Brandt was admitted to Sarah Bush Lincoln Health
Center (Health Center) to receive treatment for urinary
incontinence. During the course of an operation, the doctor
surgically implanted a ProteGen Sling (sling) in Brandt.
Subsequently, the manufacturer of the sling, Boston
Scientific Corporation, issued a recall of the sling because it
was causing medical complications in some patients. Brandt
suffered serious complications and had the sling surgically
removed. Brandt sued Boston Scientific Corporation and Health
Center for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability
included in Article 2 (Sales) of the Uniform Commercial Code
(UCC). Health Center filed a motion with the court to have the
case against it dismissed. Health Center argued that it was a
provider of services and not a merchant that sold goods, and
because the UCC (Sales) applies to the sale of goods, Health
Center was not subject to the UCC. Health Center proved that
Brandt’s bill was $11,174.50 total charge for her surgery, with a
charge of $1,659.50, or 14.9%, for the sling and its surgical kit.
Is the transaction between Brandt and Health Center
predominantly the provision of services or the sale of goods?
Explain your answer.
2. 2. Executive Financial Services, Inc. (EFS), purchased three
tractors from Tri-County Farm Company (Tri-County), a John
Deere dealership owned by Gene Mohr and James Loyd. The
tractors cost $48,000, $19,000, and $38,000. EFS did not take
possession of the tractors but instead left the tractors on Tri-
County’s lot. EFS leased the tractors to Mohr-Loyd Leasing
(Mohr-Loyd), a partnership between Mohr and Loyd, with the
understanding and representation by Mohr-Loyd that the
tractors would be leased out to farmers. Instead of leasing the
tractors, Tri-County sold them to three different farmers. EFS
sued and obtained judgment against Tri-County, Mohr-Loyd,
and Mohr and Loyd personally for breach of contract. Because
that judgment remained unsatisfied, EFS sued the three farmers
who bought the tractors to recover the tractors from them.
1. What does the entrustment rule provide? Explain.
2. Did Mohr and Loyd act ethically in this case?
3. Who owns the tractors, EFS or the farmers?
3. Donald Wayne Doyle (Debtor) obtained a guaranteed student
loan to enroll in a school for training truck drivers. Due to his
impending divorce, Debtor never attended the program. The
first monthly installment of approximately $50 to pay the
student loan became due. Two weeks later, Debtor filed a
voluntary petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Debtor was a 29-
year-old man who earned approximately $1,000 per month at an
hourly wage of $7.70 as a truck driver, a job that he had held
for 10 years. Debtor resided on a farm, where he performed
work in lieu of paying rent for his quarters. Debtor was paying
monthly payments of $89 on a bank loan for his former wife’s
vehicle, $200 for his truck, $40 for health insurance, $28 for car
insurance, $120 for gasoline and vehicular maintenance, $400
for groceries and meals, and $25 for telephone charges. In
addition, a state court had ordered Debtor to pay $300 per
month to support his children, ages 4 and 5. Debtor’s parents
were assisting him by buying him $130 of groceries per month.
1. What legal standard must be met to have a student loan
discharged in bankruptcy?
3. 2. Did Doyle act unethically in trying to have his student loan
discharged in bankruptcy?
3. Should Doyle’s student loan be discharged in bankruptcy?
4. PSC Metals, Inc. (PSC), entered into an agreement whereby it
extended credit to Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and
took back a security interest in personal property owned by
Keystone. PSC filed a financing statement with the state, listing
the debtor’s trade name, “Keystone Steel & Wire Co.,” rather
than its corporate name, “Keystone Consolidated Industries,
Inc.” When Keystone went into bankruptcy, PSC filed a motion
with the bankruptcy court to obtain the personal property
securing its loan. Keystone’s other creditors and the bankruptcy
trustee objected, arguing that because PSC’s financing
statement was defectively filed, PSC did not have a perfected
security interest in the personal property. If this were true, then
PSC would become an unsecured creditor in Keystone’s
bankruptcy proceeding. Is the financing statement filed in the
debtor’s trade name, rather than in its corporate name,
effective? Explain your answer.
Module 8
Start by reading and following these instructions:
1. Quickly skim the questions or assignment below and the
assignment rubric to help you focus.
2. Read the required chapter(s) of the textbook and any
additional recommended resources. Some answers may require
you to do additional research on the Internet or in other
reference sources. Choose your sources carefully.
4. 3. Consider the discussions and any insights gained from it.
4. Create your Assignment submission and be sure to cite your
sources, use APA style as required, check your spelling.
Assignment:
Signature Assignment Title: Module 8 Signature Assignment
Assignment Description/Directions:
Remember to submit your work following the file naming
convention FirstInitial.LastName_M01.docx. For example,
J.Smith_M01.docx. Remember that it is not necessary to
manually type in the file extension; it will automatically
append.
Start by reading and following these instructions:
1. You are expected to answer the questions associated with the
case. These questions are intended to elicit thoughtful reactions
to the legal and regulatory environment of business. You are
expected to carefully read the assignment instructions, then
thoroughly and explicitly address each component of the
corresponding case study questions. Some answers may require
you to do additional research on the Internet or in other
reference sources. Choose your sources carefully.
2. The responses should reflect higher level cognitive
processing (analysis, synthesis, and evaluation), which is
essential for someone in any industry, as legal decisions affect
all levels and stakeholders within the organization and in the
external marketplace.
3. Do not just answer the questions. You should be able to
explain the logic behind your answer and point to a credible
source to support your position, even if it is just the textbook.
Invest your time wisely, giving more time to the complex
answers in order to ensure that you demonstrate that you truly
understand the answer. Shorter compelling answers are fine.
Answers with needless filler will be marked down. In addition
submissions should include a title page and reference page in
APA style.
4. There is no minimum number of references that need to be
utilized to support the completion of this assignment; however,
5. it is generally understood that any good case study analysis will
incorporate the appropriate quality and quantity of scholarly
sources to support any suppositions and recommendations.
Signature Assignment
This is a signature assignment for the School of Business and
Technology BS in Business Administration Program students.
Store your submission with any grading feedback in your
Professional's Portfolio and use the following tag:
XXX Tag: XXXX-XXX
Assignment:
1. Zapata Off-Shore Company (Zapata) was a Houston, Texas–
based American corporation that engaged in drilling oil wells
throughout the world. Unterweser Reederei, GMBH
(Unterweser), was a German corporation that provided ocean
shipping and towing services. Zapata requested bids from
companies to tow its self-elevating drilling rig Chaparral from
Louisiana to a point off Ravenna, Italy, in the Adriatic Sea,
where Zapata had agreed to drill certain wells. Unterweser
submitted the lowest bid and was requested to submit a
proposed contract to Zapata, which it did. The contract
submitted by Unterweser contained the following provision:
“Any dispute arising must be treated before the London Court of
Justice.” Zapata executed the contract without deleting or
modifying this provision. Unterweser’s deep sea tug Bremen
departed Venice, Louisiana, with the Chaparral in tow, bound
for Italy. While the flotilla was in international waters in the
middle of the Gulf of Mexico, a severe storm arose.
The sharp roll of the Chaparral in Gulf waters caused portions
of it to break off and fall into the sea, seriously damaging the
Chaparral. Zapata instructed the Bremen to tow the Chaparral to
Tampa, Florida, the nearest port of refuge, which it did. Zapata
filed suit against Unterweser and the Bremen in U.S. District
Court in Florida, alleging negligent towing and breach of
contract. The defendants asserted that suit could be brought
only in the London Court of Justice. Who is correct? Explain.
Answer should address forum selection clause enforceability
6. and jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens.
2. Bank of Jamaica is wholly owned by the government of
Jamaica. Chisholm & Co. was a Florida corporation owned by
James Henry Chisholm, a Florida resident. The U.S. Export–
Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank) provides financial services and
credit insurance to export and import companies. Bank of
Jamaica and Chisholm & Co. agreed that Chisholm & Co. would
arrange lines of credit from various banks and procure $50
million of credit insurance from Ex-Im Bank to be available to
aid Jamaican importers. Chisholm & Co. was to be paid
commissions for its services. Chisholm & Co. negotiated and
arranged for $50 million of credit insurance from Ex-Im Bank
and lines of credit from Florida National Bank, Bankers Trust
Company, and Irving Trust Company. Chisholm also arranged
meetings between Bank of Jamaica and the U.S. banks.
Unbeknownst to Chisholm & Co., Bank of Jamaica went directly
to Ex-Im Bank to exclude Chisholm & Co. from the Jamaica
program and requested that the credit insurance be issued solely
in the name of the Bank of Jamaica. As a result, Chisholm &
Co.’s Ex-Im Bank insurance application was not considered.
Bank of Jamaica also obtained lines of credit from other
companies and paid commissions to them.
Chisholm & Co. sued Bank of Jamaica in U.S. District Court in
Miami, Florida, alleging breach of contract and seeking
damages. Bank of Jamaica filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, alleging that its actions were protected by sovereign
immunity.
1. What does the doctrine of sovereign immunity provide?
2. Did Bank of Jamaica act ethically in trying to avoid its
contract obligations owed to Chisholm & Co.?
3. Who wins, and why?
4. Summarize your personal opinion on the doctrine of
sovereign immunity? Note: some say abolish the doctrine while
others argue for its maintenance.
3. Prior to 1918, the Petrograd Metal Works, a Russian
corporation, deposited a large sum of money with August
7. Belmont, a private banker doing business in New York City
under the name August Belmont & Co. (Belmont). In 1918, the
Soviet government nationalized the corporation and
appropriated all its property and assets wherever situated,
including the deposit account with Belmont. As a result, the
deposit became the property of the Soviet government. In 1933,
the Soviet government and the United States entered into an
agreement to settle claims and counterclaims between them. As
part of the settlement, it was agreed that the Soviet government
would take no steps to enforce claims against American
nationals (including Belmont) and assigned all such claims to
the United States. The United States brought an action against
the executors of Belmont’s estate to recover the money
originally deposited with Belmont by Petrograd Metal Works.
1. Who owns the money?
2. What is the Act of State Doctrine?
3. Summarize your personal opinion on the Act of State
Doctrine? Note: some argue that it is a sacred doctrine while
others argue that it is a confused and outmoded doctrine that
frustrates the normal operation of the courts… and produces
injustice in individual cases.
4. Banco Nacional de Costa Rica is a bank wholly owned by the
government of Costa Rica. It is subject to the rules and
regulations adopted by the minister of finance and the central
bank of Costa Rica. The bank borrowed $40 million from a
consortium of private banks located in the United Kingdom and
the United States. The bank signed promissory notes, agreeing
to repay the principal plus interest on the loan in four equal
installments, due on July 30, August 30, September 30, and
October 30 of the following year. The money was to be used to
provide export financing of sugar and sugar products from
Costa Rica. The loan agreements and promissory notes were
signed in New York City, and the loan proceeds were tendered
to the bank there.
The bank paid the first installment on the loan. The bank did
not, however, make the other three installment payments and
8. defaulted on the loan. The lending banks sued the bank in U.S.
District Court in New York to recover the unpaid principal and
interest. The bank alleged in defense that the minister of finace
and the central bank of Costa Rica had issued a decree
forbidding the repayment of loans by the bank to private
lenders, including the lending banks in this case. The action was
taken because Costa Rica was having trouble servicing debts to
foreign creditors. The bank alleged that the act of state doctrine
prevented the plaintiffs from recovering on their loans to the
bank. Who wins? Do you agree with the decision of the district
court? Explain. Libra Bank Limited v. Banco Nacional de Costa
Rica, 570 F.Supp. 870, Web 1983 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14677
(United States District Court for the Sourhter District of New
York)
5. Nigeria, an African nation, while in the midst of a boom
period due to oil exports, entered into $1 billion of contracts
with companies in various countries to purchase huge quantities
of Portland cement. Nigeria was going to use the cement to
build and improve the country’s infrastructure. Several of the
contracts were with American companies, including Texas
Trading & Milling Corporation (Texas Trading). Nigeria
substantially overbought cement, and the country’s docks and
harbors became clogged with ships waiting to unload. Unable to
accept delivery of the cement it had bought, Nigeria repudiated
many of its contracts, including the one with Texas Trading.
When Texas Trading sued Nigeria in U.S. District Court to
recover damages for breach of contract, Nigeria asserted in
defense that the doctrine of sovereign immunity protected it
from liability.
1. What does the commercial activity exception to the doctrine
of sovereign immunity provide?
2. Did Nigeria act ethically in trying to avoid the contract
obligations it owed to Texas Trading & Milling Corporation?
3. Does the doctrine of sovereign immunity protect Nigeria from
liability? Why or why not?